Hate speech: should it be covered under free speech?

And then you have a conventional authoritarian society.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Mass communication does have a great effect, and that's why attempts to regulate it are dangerous. At the very least, there has to be a very strict definition of hate speech that cannot be, ahem, distorted to suit anyone's personal views.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I feel that it is a responsibility of a free society to allow people to express their viewpoints, as caustic and insensitive as they may be. If we don't, we're little better than a totalitarian regime that punishes thoughtcrime and anything that doesn't conform to whatever those in power want people to believe.

With that said, there is a definite line. When violence or other actions are threatened, or statements are made that could reasonably be considered as provoking action or reaction, that speech is no longer protected, and should be clamped down and punished. It is one thing to say that Group X is evil and the cause of all the nation's problems. That's something that we have to allow. It is another to say that Group X is evil and the cause of all the nation's problems, and we should get rid of them / kill them / etc. At that point, it's moved from hate speech to violent speech, and that's the point where I believe the line should be drawn.

The WBC isn't on that side of the line, as much as I hate to admit it. They have the right to say that 'God hates [redacted]' or to 'Thank God for dead soldiers'. If they said that we should 'kill all soldiers / gays / etc.', that's one thing, but simply to state that (they believe) God hates them and will punish them isn't a call to violent action.

Very true

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I still say that's pretty rich coming from you, but entertain me, why is protecting all mmembers of a society from discrimination authoritarian?

the statement above is false

Restricting the right of one group to express their views because those views are seen as discriminatory is discriminating against that group.

Restricting the rights of a restaurateur to discriminate against potential customers and refuse service is discriminating against such restaurateurs.

The basic idea is that it is hypocritical for the government to discriminate in the name of anti-discrimination. The fundamental principle here is that you don't have a right to the private property of others, like their restaurant or their mouth/voice.

A society that does not tolerate intolerance is an intolerant society. Whereas intolerance/discrimination on an individual level cannot be enforced upon others except for where it concerns the private property of the discriminator, government action against this is enforced intolerance, a hallmark of authoritarianism.

Rott is absolutely correct on this, and "hate speech" is an Orwellian Trojan Horse of a concept, meaning "speech the State dislikes".

Enjoy the Inferno...

I like how "freedom to discriminate" seems to be a core value to some people. Apparently freedom from harrassment and violence is less important.

Really, testing the two against eachother is simple, and tried and tested: during the segregation, black people would go to white only restaurants and demand service. They were thrown out, sometimes violently, but according to you, I presume, the restaurant owner was only practising his right to choose clientele?

edited 12th Sep '11 6:15:45 AM by JethroQWalrustitty

the statement above is false

Thread Hop: Hate speech is really the reason why I believe that free speech doesn't work o-o So yeah, while it is a nice idea, I don't like how easy it is to abuse.

edited 12th Sep '11 6:18:05 AM by SpookyMask

I don't have a right to service, and neither does anyone else. Access to the services offered by a private entity are a privilege - and a privilege that, if that private entity is serious about making a profit, will be offered without discrimination. Consider that I own a bicycle. I decide that I will lend it to people for a fee. Why should I, as the owner of the bicycle, not get to decide to whom I do and to whom I do not rent out my bicycle? Why should you, as someone who is not the owner of the bicycle, get to make that choice? Or, why should the government, also not the owners of the bicycle, get to make that choice?

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that remaining on private property after being specifically told to leave is conscious, deliberate trespass upon the rights of the proprietor in the first place, and therefore a crime. The right to refuse service precedes any violence in this case. That is to say, if the individuals in question were not infringing upon the rights of the proprietor to (basically) employ his private property as he so wishes, then there would never have been any risk of violence - and of course, whether you have a right, when infringing upon the rights of others, to not be subjected to physical force in order to end that infringement, is another question entirely. Whether or not the use of force by the proprietor or employees to remove trespassing criminals is acceptable, employing the legal authorities to remove trespassers would certainly seem acceptable - and, as government employees, they'd be bound not to discriminate in enforcing the law, which includes the right to private property.

It's all getting very far off-topic, so let's not do this any more.

In the same sense, and minus many of the complications, we can extend this to speech. Why do you, or why does the government, get to restrict what comes out of my mouth? Don't like it? Don't listen. Don't like my radio show? Don't tune in. Don't like the paint-job of my car? Don't look at it. Of course, it goes without saying that these things probably have limits - but the limit is certainly not "hurting someone's feelings" or "saying something generally viewed as disagreeable", primarily because "feelings" and "disagreeable" are things external to the action, and entirely subjective.

edited 12th Sep '11 6:32:03 AM by ekuseruekuseru

So you support violently removing peaceful protestors fighting against segregation. Great, I officially have a reason not to listen to a word you say anymore.

But to give a more full rebuttal, if your business operates publically, you obey public laws. If you run a restaurant at home, and on invitation basis, you can choose who you serve. But if your business is open to the public, then it's open to anyone in the public who can afford the service provided.

And you're right, service is a privilege. As in you're so privileged you probably never have been refused service.

Don't Like? Don't Read! isn't really that good an argument for anything in the public arena. Again, you can read, write and say what you want in your home, but when it's exposed to people who don't really have a choise wherther they can avoid it or not, then you have to reconsider. Do you agree slander is a crime? Calling someone a pedophile is a serious allegation, and if it's baseless, it's a serious crime. But apparently calling an entire ethnic group or religion pedophiles isn't that big of a problem.

the statement above is false

If some business wants to put a Whites Only sign in the window this millennium, they must really hate money. A ground-level employee at a pizza place near my high school called a student the N-word, and the boycott didn't stop until a month after that employee was fired. I think their only customers lived nowhere near the area.

Markets can, on occasion, make moral decisions. Hell, if I prefer fair-trade chocolate, I can be quite confident that forum members to the left of me have bought or not bought products and services for the sheer principle of the thing.

And no, no one has a right not to be exposed to a freaking poster. Slander is a crime, but like any crime, you're not guilty until proven innocent. It has to be proven that you're knowingly lying, and people dumb enough to believe that matzah uses human blood are usually dupes. Everyone wants the Truthers to shut the fuck up and they're making serious, baseless accusations, but it remains political speech, and silencing them will only get people to take them seriously. Misinformation should be countered with truth, not a gag.

edited 12th Sep '11 7:21:38 AM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!

Breaking the law is never a part of peaceful protest.

The whole point is that public laws shouldn't be infringing upon the right to private property for any reason except when that private property is actively and necessarily dangerous - so, yes, my private property should operate under public laws, but that's because the public laws should let me operate my private property as I see fit. Besides, isn't having prices at all, by the same token, discriminating against members of the public who can't afford them? The government should forbid me from charging customers at all!

That's not true. I've been refused service. Don't make assumptions.

Simply calling someone a paedophile, no, I don't think it should be considered a crime. If it's really a baseless claim, then it's easy enough to dismiss.

I don't understand why or how my own home is fundamentally different from private property owned by me in general. And in fact, since reading, writing and speech can't, in and of itself, cause direct harm to anybody, I don't see how we could even attempt to justify restrictions on anything but the most extreme forms of expression, even in public space.

Pretty much that. A free society can generally be depended upon to also be a moral society if the people within it are well-educated.

edited 12th Sep '11 8:26:53 AM by ekuseruekuseru

And at this point I would like to specifically point this thread out to Major Tom. Tell me racism isn't still a viable and ongoing threat, in a world where people are still trying to argue openly for legal racial segregation. No, I don't give a damn what the ideal behind it is, your ideal doesn't work in reality, full stop.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Don't conflate Jim Crow laws with, say, Boy Scouts not being compelled to admit me (a non-Christian adult female). I swear that the mindset where what's not forbidden is compulsory is becoming more prevalent by the year.

Hail Martin Septim!

What little logic you and Eku are bothering to use can be applied just as well to the one as to the other.

There's also Eku's 'Having prices at all is therefore discrimination according to your logic' reductio ad absurdum, and his/her apparent total lack of familiarity with how protests actually get shit done (hint - it's not by politely obeying laws that cause tremendous human suffering just because they're laws).

The insulting absurdity of the discussion is only counterbalanced by the fact that neither of you are worth the time and emotional energy it would take to explain how completely wrong you both are.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

The context of this would be interesting to know, as well is that how on earth can you be pro-segregation seeing that?

Relying on "common sense" to bring about social change only works partially. Since you're ready to go down the slippery slope to say payment might be discrimination against the poor, why not take your claim to absurd lengths, and say taht let people murder if they want, commmon sense will tell them not to do so.

But still, i don't get it, why is the right to discriminate so dear to you? [ed.] And the right to use violence against people who refuse to stand up and leave.

edited 12th Sep '11 9:21:49 AM by JethroQWalrustitty

the statement above is false

No, sorry. There are plenty of people teaching wilderness survival who are perfectly willing to teach me, and without singing annoying songs while they do it. If it were illegal to teach women how to build campfires or whatever, it would be a different story.

And are you saying the Boy Scouts should be compelled to admit me? Because I know admitting people of all genders and ages would not make for the same giddy sleepover ambiance as Girl Scout camp had. I would probably still have gone, but I know most of the others wouldn't have.

Hail Martin Septim!

Just as pro-choice=/=pro-abortion, pro-freedom of association=/=pro-segregation.

If the context was reversed, and racism was legally endorsed and enforced (i.e. Jim Crow), promoting freedom of association would be a means of countering said form of racism.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Okay, Eku, let's talk to you, because to my astonishment, you actually are saying what Jethro is accusing you of. I once staged a sit-in at a car towing company because they would not let me get my purse from my car, without which I could not pay for my car. The police were called in. They settled it between us (easily enough, because even a soul-crushing, necessarily obstructionist career like car-towing didn't keep them from seeing how self-defeating they were being), but if they hadn't, the charge would have been the significantly lesser one of civil disturbance. And in any case, one thing about civil disobedience is you take those criminal charges on the jaw, and one thing about assault (well, battery) is that it can't be deemed self-defense if the other guy didn't assault you first.

Hail Martin Septim!

The first amendment is absolute and applies to all; from the hateful swastika-carrying asshole to the peaceful protester trying to get the word out on the injustice of the world.

The flip side of the right of free speech is personal responsibility; it's why most mediums have a self-regulatory board to oversee the content and rate it accordingly or why we hold others to what they say. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should.

With blood and rage of crimson red ripped from a corpse so freshly dead together with our hellish hate we'll burn you all that is your fate

edited 12th Sep '11 5:36:34 PM by AlirozTheConfused

Never be without a Hat! Hot means heat. I don't care if your usage dates to 1300, it's my word, not yours. My Pm box is open.

Free speech gives everyone the right to say what thy want, no matter how stupid hurtful or illogical it is. On the other hand, there's a chance you'll get knocked the fuck out if you say the wrong thing near the wrong people.

Honestly, I think the worst thing you can do with speech is tell a harmful truth. The Libby's calibrated nightmare voice shouting to the schoolyard that you lick squirrel scrotums is the kind of juvenile crap it's better to acclimate to. The Libby betraying your confidence and outing you as transgender is something else again.

But then, we don't want all secrets given the same weight as (say) diplomatic secrets, or every company that finds a legal, innovative way to be a douchebag to its employees can get away with it. Hrm.

Hail Martin Septim!

That depends. It's like claiming that a politician who takes a unrepentant pro-life, anti-gay-marriage platform in a republican state "must really hate votes".

From my experience, the assumption that the market will even itself out to disparities such as this is based on the assumption that the market is fair to begin with and that consumers/producers always know what's best for themselves.

edited 12th Sep '11 11:21:30 AM by KingZeal