Hate speech

jayh said:
Hate speech can be bad, but censorship is even worse.
Click to expand...

This forum is already censored. I'd rather see a post deleted when it says "Jews should be killed" than "you are an idiot".

But it's not my forum.
 
The rules on this forum, it appears to me, are specifically designed to allow as much debate as possible without restricting the subject, while at the same time putting some demands on how the debate should be held. As a manual on how to treat people, it's really not that great, but as a framework for debating just about anything without getting too much out of hand, it's at least a good effort - if nothing else, Rule 0 is sort of a catch-all.

I live in a nation where there are laws against hate speech, and some of the opinions voiced on this forum would not be voiced in the public space here. I appreciate being able to partake in such debates anyway at times, although as the OP states, they tend to get dull and repetitive. I also appreciate seeing how people (including myself) react to hate speech when it's unrestricted. People who are alone in their opinions who use hate speech risk becoming pariahs, regardless of their opinions on other issues. If two sides are using hate speech in opposite directions, the debate becomes polarized, sometimes regardless of the efforts of others.

I sometimes defend laws against hate speech while discussing it on this forum, which may give people the impression that I advocate such laws. I don't. I just think there's a tremendous overreaction to them, as if the line was drawn easily and the possibility for hate speech was somehow vital to having a good discussion. While it adds a few possibilities (as stated above) I really don't think it's a big loss.
 
If we allow the government to crack down on racially/ethnically/religiously offensive speech, it won't be long before they rationalize cracking down on "offensive" political speech.

slippery slope folks.

oh, and btw, all Eritreans must die!!!!!

:)
 
Chaos said:
I´d even go a little further in defining hate speech.

"Librarians are evil" is clearly an (inept) attempt at generating hatred against Librarians. It also isolates itself against refutation by being annoyingly vague in its non-definition of "evil"; thus is serves no purpose in discussion. I would clearly categorize this as hate speech.
Click to expand...

Interesting...

Why "Librarians are evil" is equivalent to an attempt of generate hate?

Not all people hold a common concept of evil in the same context.

If some one presents a very simple affirmation like that, I will laugh at it and I will request the person to elaborate the details related to the affirmation.

Anyone really devoted in to obtain the truth when hearing or reading a hypothetical "hate speech" will not accept such premise as a definitive conclusion.

The definition of "hate speech" is quite difficult to understand... To recognize the element of "hate" is not just necessary observe the perpetrator of the speech, but also the reaction of the audience.

Could be the "hate speech" a kind of speech where the aim is to force the audience to use the instinctive parts of the brain to produce conclusions?

If a speech is made with "hate", could the audience listening the speech accept the premises of the speech without the minimal use of intellectual reasoning?
 
Thunder said:
If we allow the government to crack down on racially/ethnically/religiously offensive speech, it won't be long before they rationalize cracking down on "offensive" political speech.

slippery slope folks.

oh, and btw, all Eritreans must die!!!!!

:)
Click to expand...


I'm assuming that this is tongue in cheek, but it is a line that some here - notably those who seem to promote unfettered freedom of speech - do seem to employ, either explicity or implicity.

The ECHR guarantees freedom of speech in the EU, saving for where that freedom is used to incite religious or ethnic crime. This reflects the position of the member states where, I would suggest, such legislation has been enacted to ensure that such minorities are protected.

It is all very well to state that "hate speech" is best exposed to the light of day, held-up for the weak-willed rubbish that it is, however this is a gross over simplification. There are, inevitably, a small minority who hear such speech, believe it, and even act on it. Rational argument is not on their agenda.

We should not shut the door once the horse is bolted. Heavy sentencing for religious and ethnic crime is of scant consolation to the victims. Instead we need to look at a broad-brush approach which deals with both the symptons (hate speech, violence) and the underling causes (poor education, social inclusion). Without such a comprehensive approach then it will be difficult, if not impossible, to escape the cycle.
 
lionking said:
How on earth do you get banned from a place like that? Personal insults taken to the extreme.
Click to expand...

From what I read from there, you can be banned if you present irrefutable evidence which contest the political position of the administrators and moderators.

You can be also be banned just because a moderator did not like your comment...

It is no defined rules in that forum.

In the disclaimer, it is said: "we do not discriminate against the mentally ill".

It is a open place in the cyberspace to say whatever you wish to say, without the need to present any evidence at all to support your claims.

The forum rely in paid membership and heavy use of advertising to work.

I never find any place in the cyberspace like that, full of misinformation and deceptive propaganda.
 
The problem is that too many people and some governments officials claim that speech which offends people is "hate speech" or that speech is "hate speech" if it presents facts that they don't want to hear.

Suppose I made a movie quoting founding documents of some particular group that advocated violence, showing speeches by leaders of that group advocating violence, and showing the results of members of the group participating in violence.

A government with laws against incitement could then claim that I was trying to incite violence against that group and prosecute me.
 
Philip said:
The problem is that too many people and some governments officials claim that speech which offends people is "hate speech" or that speech is "hate speech" if it presents facts that they don't want to
Click to expand...

Would you agree with me that is done due the political correctness?
 
AS far as free speech and hate speech goes i kind of sit on the fence on the topic.

I believe that fiction, should never, for any reason, be censored. The exchange of ideas is key, and writers should not feel they have to take responsibility for the words and actions of characters. They are fictional.

On the other hand, i see nothing wrong with a government saying " No you can't have a white power rally on our property, you want to have it, go somewhere private." to me, this is nothing more than the government saying " we do not support what you do, if you want to do it, do it without our support. " .

The problem lays with the fact that people who support "hate speech" tend to be manipulative, and do we really need to let white hate promote their crap in front of high schools? ( a big issue when i was going to high school, 7 or so years ago.) Where there are many testosterone fueled young men who are not thinking with their brain 90% of the time, and generally always looking for some group or another to hate.

The way i see it is certain ideas have ran their course. There is nothing new to learn from racisim, for example. Society tried it, it didn't work out, and we should move on. To limit racists in spewing their tired old garbage does not effect society in a negative way at all. No new ideas are being lost, no one is being silenced. We are just saying, enough is enough, we don't want to hear it, so we are not supporting it.

If any hate group comes up with something legitimately new, by all means , let them be able to say it in a local public park. But if it is going to be the same tired garbage we have been seeing for centuries, i don't feel bad about making lil adolph say it in his mothers basement.
 
Philip said:
A government with laws against incitement could then claim that I was trying to incite violence against that group and prosecute me.
Click to expand...

And just as a matter of interest can you name me a Western democracy where this has happened?
 
LibraryLady said:
Many people here have commented upon the fact that hate speech is not against the Membership Agreement. It is not against the United States Constitution either. And I agree with both documents entirely. Free speech is a principle I hold dear. My right to ignore speech is something I hold dear as well.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings about some of the recent threads on here. However, the Membership Agreement very definitely limits free speech (I know, you didn't say otherwise). It's pretty hard to see how stating we should execute all Jews is 'civil and polite', or how the emotional responses of people to such posts is worse than the original post (which, face it, is emotional since there are no rational facts to back up such hatred).

You call for rational responses, and free speech. I agree with both. Yet non-rational, emotional posts stand, and people applying free speech get sanctioned.

That is what doesn't make sense, to me at least. I can't post a photo that would hang on a museum's wall (because of certain body parts being visible), but I can post something causing anguish to hundreds of posters. I think that is about the opposite of what any of us would tolerate in our own homes, or any private place where we might exert some control on speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom