TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Importance of Free Speech

Go To

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#76: Aug 4th 2012 at 5:34:41 PM

My problem with when you spoke of the "gay lobby" was that it lacked qualifiers to state exactly who you were talking about. It would be like if I said "the Christian community"—what does that even mean?

I don't feel it's necessary to always try to overspecify. In the thing we're discussing, we're talking "these guys on this side" and "those guys on the other side". Just like, there are times when saying "the people on this thread" is sometimes a more expedient and generally accurate descriptor than trying to nitpick and list the 13 of 17 tropers you're talking about.

I don't see how those are even remotely the same thing. If science, for example, says that homosexuality is something people are born with, then it would be bigotry not to allow as much taught as class, just as it would be to suppress teaching different races are all human. However, teaching that blacks are more likely to develop heart disease, or that gay people are more likely to go cross-eyed (just using an example) is not.

I don't understand how what you said argues against making bigotry illegal.

It seems to me then the accurate thing you're describing here isn't bigotry but rather 'misrepresentation' or 'libel'. Which the law provides legal penalties against.

In any case, this isn't about what CFA said, because that probably wouldn't count as overt bigotry anyway. He said that he supports traditional marriage, not that he hoped God struck all gays down.

You and I must've been watching different news outlets. The controversy was directly caused by what he said, in addition to his donations to groups of ill-repute with the gay lobby.

edited 4th Aug '12 5:34:58 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#77: Aug 4th 2012 at 6:39:44 PM

It's important that you be specific in who you're talking about, since a large bulk of this conversation is about racism, discrimination and stereotypes. That's all I'm saying.

It seems to me then the accurate thing you're describing here isn't bigotry but rather 'misrepresentation' or 'libel'. Which the law provides legal penalties against.

No, when I say bigotry, I mean bigotry. Like in the link I provided earlier.

You and I must've been watching different news outlets. The controversy was directly caused by what he said, in addition to his donations to groups of ill-repute with the gay lobby.

This topic isn't about what he said, specifically. It's about the limitations of free speech as a whole.

edited 4th Aug '12 6:40:55 PM by KingZeal

TheBatPencil from Glasgow, Scotland Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
#78: Aug 4th 2012 at 6:58:43 PM

It's very simple. Murder is a crime, so anyone who says "hang the gays" is inciting violence, because they are telling people to commit violence. Hate speech needn't even be an issue, the question is "are they telling people to commit violence"?

Discrimination, harassment and other violations of people's human rights are also crimes. We (rightfully) cannot advocate violence but there are other forms of inciting terror that have an serious negative impact on how people can live their own lives. People have the right to be protected from that.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
#79: Aug 4th 2012 at 7:11:18 PM

Discrimination, harassment and other violations of people's human rights are also crimes.

Some forms of discrimination are. Most forms of harassment aren't, unless accompanied by threats of things that are crimes. The law does also provide victims with some ways of shielding themselves. For example, you can demand that someone leave your home or place of business, and if they refuse, they get slammed for trespassing (not hate speech).

But in the end, it's necessary to put up with harassment, especially in the public sphere, because they will always be people and groups that need to be harassed to effect positive social change.

edited 4th Aug '12 7:12:25 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#80: Aug 4th 2012 at 7:25:08 PM

because they will always be people and groups that need to be harassed to effect positive social change.

Such as?

TheBatPencil from Glasgow, Scotland Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
#81: Aug 4th 2012 at 7:25:44 PM

[up][up] Doesn't do much good against the elected official who peppers his speeches about how gay people are bringing his country down, or the Archbishops who imply that they're something less than human. (Not intentionally always using the same example here, by the way, but it feels relevant).

Now, these people should of course be able to argue their position in any free society, no matter how much others may disagree with them. But if they cannot do that without undermining the basic humanity and human rights of the people they're talking about then they're no different than, say, the bullies who go out of their way to make someone's life miserable.

There is a world of difference between arguing ones point in a rational, civilised manner and acting like a rabble rouser out to spread hatred and disharmony. The former is utilising ones right to free expression and the latter an attack upon the rights of other people.

edited 4th Aug '12 7:25:55 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
#82: Aug 4th 2012 at 7:37:14 PM

[up][up] Incompetent politicians, corrupt businesses, drug dealers, insidious cults. Little league baseball, if that's your crusade. Homophobes, and yes, to some, homosexuals. Since we cannot trust society or government to always have the right values, we have to protect those who speak out against the prevailing values, even if we ourselves disagree or even find their views reprehensible.

[up] Unfortunately, as anyone who has an opinion on a polarizing issue knows, arguments that seem very rational and reasonable to people who support them often seem wildly irrational and dishonest to those who oppose them.

edited 4th Aug '12 7:39:08 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#83: Aug 4th 2012 at 7:47:09 PM

If people aren't allowed to say things "undermining the basic humanity and human rights of the people they're talking about", then it's impossible to have a serious discussion about human rights.

There is no universally understood and accepted definition of human rights. People have loads of disagreements over where one person's rights end and another's begins, which rights are more important than others, and who qualifies for these rights in the first place. To a pro-life advocate, a pro-choice advocate is undermining the basic humanity and human rights of unborn children. And to a member of PETA, anyone who recommends eating meat or recreational hunting is denying animals their human rights.*

If we don't allow people to argue for the dehumanization of gays or blacks or albinos or what-have-you, then we're not giving people free speech; we're giving them the freedom to agree with us.

edited 4th Aug '12 7:47:29 PM by RavenWilder

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#84: Aug 4th 2012 at 7:57:03 PM

If we don't allow people to argue for the dehumanization of gays or blacks or albinos or what-have-you, then we're not giving people free speech; we're giving them the freedom to agree with us

I still don't understand. Why is this a bad thing? Doesn't society in general depend on people agreeing with us on this?

Incompetent politicians, corrupt businesses, drug dealers, insidious cults.

Criticizing ncompetent politicians is not harassment. It's critiquing performance of an elected task.

Corrupt businesses and drug dealers are, by definition, breaking the law. That's not harassment, that's legal prosecution.

And insidious cults . . . is too vague of a term to really answer. What does "insidious" mean?

Since we cannot trust society or government to always have the right values, we have to protect those who speak out against the prevailing values, even if we ourselves disagree or even find their views reprehensible.

This is still a semantic slippery slope argument. The thing is, as government improves and society improves along with it, it will be easier to define what views are "reprehensible" and which aren't. So, I ask again: if we are able to define such things, should we be allowed to take legal action against those that commit them?

edited 4th Aug '12 8:04:26 PM by KingZeal

#85: Aug 4th 2012 at 8:04:00 PM

A society like North Korea's does, yes. A free society depends on people being able to speak up and oppose the majority when they feel the majority has gone wrong.

<><
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#86: Aug 4th 2012 at 8:05:25 PM

@ Edwards: Okay, more clear headed statement. Bigotry is in fact punished in the law. In the form of accusing someone of committing a hate crime, specifically. Now obviously, it doesn't always work, but sometimes it does and the burden of proof of guilt is always on the prosecution. But yes, bigotry can be punished in the law. The accused, of course, has all rights to say whatever stupid shit he wants, but if he's been accused of a hate crime it's gone beyond simple speech.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#87: Aug 4th 2012 at 8:06:41 PM

[up][up]That's strawmanning. A bunch of nutjobs claiming women aren't human is not the same as a group arguing that animals deserve better treatment.

edited 4th Aug '12 8:06:56 PM by KingZeal

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#88: Aug 4th 2012 at 8:10:25 PM

I still don't understand. Why is this a bad thing? Doesn't society in general depend on people agreeing with us on this?

No, it depends on people going along with us on this.

I might believe that a particular tax is unfair and unethical and that I shouldn't have to pay it. I might make passionate arguments against the tax, demanding it be repealed, calling it the work of the devil, and accusing the politicians who passed it of being agents of evil. But as long as I still pay the tax, I'm not doing anything wrong.

Same thing goes for hate speech. People can dislike a certain minority group. They can express their dislike for that minority group. They can convince others to dislike that minority group. They can petition the government to take legal rights away from that minority group. But so long as they don't take action against that minority group, they're just exercising their right to free speech, same as anyone else.

edited 4th Aug '12 8:11:29 PM by RavenWilder

#89: Aug 4th 2012 at 8:14:42 PM

[up][up][up] Hate Crimes are always things that would have still been crimes in the absence of the hate, so they aren't really relevant to the free speech issue.

[up][up][up][up] I guess you are missing my point, which is that whatever the thing may be, and however appropriate and ethical mainstream society thinks it is, people must be allowed to criticize it, because sometimes (often) society will be dead wrong.

The thing is, as government improves and society improves along with it, it will be easier to define what views are "reprehensible" and which aren't. So, I ask again: if we are able to define such things, should we be allowed to take legal action against those that commit them?

I reject your premise that society will ever improve to the point where it can be trusted to make those judgements, but in some hypothetical fairy world where we could turn a group of people into infallible paragons of virtue and justice, then yes, I would be fine with letting them oversee and dictate morals for everyone else. Incidentally, the Catholic church already tried that, and it didn't work out very well.

edited 4th Aug '12 8:15:13 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#90: Aug 4th 2012 at 8:59:04 PM

I might believe that a particular tax is unfair and unethical and that I shouldn't have to pay it. I might make passionate arguments against the tax, demanding it be repealed, calling it the work of the devil, and accusing the politicians who passed it of being agents of evil. But as long as I still pay the tax, I'm not doing anything wrong.

Technically speaking, even if you didn't pay such taxes, you still weren't doing anything wrong. One of the facets of American society is that your rights and/or citizenship doesn't get revoked just because you don't play ball. For example, one of the principle rules of our country is that Just Following Orders is no excuse for violating basic human rights. A soldier, for example, cannot commit a war crime and blame it on his superiors. You're expected to civilly disobey if there's a rule or law you find to be unjust. Yes, you will deal with the consequences, but you will also have your day in court and your basic human rights are not revoked just because you disobeyed.

That being said, finding a tax unfair is hardly the same thing as arguing that, say, homosexuals deserve to be put in jail or reeducated.

Same thing goes for hate speech. People can dislike a certain minority group. They can express their dislike for that minority group. They can convince others to dislike that minority group. They can petition the government to take legal rights away from that minority group. But so long as they don't take action against that minority group, they're just exercising their right to free speech, same as anyone else.

No they aren't. They're petitioning to remove rights from other citizens. That is not even close to the same thing.

I reject your premise that society will ever improve to the point where it can be trusted to make those judgements, but in some hypothetical fairy world where we could turn a group of people into infallible paragons of virtue and justice, then yes, I would be fine with letting them oversee and dictate morals for everyone else. Incidentally, the Catholic church already tried that, and it didn't work out very well.

Fairy world my ass. Again, let me use the example of the Muslim men who went to homosexual congregations and neighborhoods and passed around anti-gay literature. Clearly bigotry, right? Or how about Westboro Baptist Church crashing a funeral to hold up signs that the departed were in Hell for supporting LGBTQ rights. Clearly bigotry, right? If so, then your point is moot. Arguing that just because a large number of incidents are unclear examples of bigotry does not eliminate the fact that clear bigotry does exist and is recognizable. Neither of the two events I listed are preventable or even punishable by US law, but the UK and Canada, respectively seem to be able to do so just fine.

So once again, assuming that there are clear examples of hate speech and bigotry, WHY should we not do anything about it?

edited 4th Aug '12 9:03:59 PM by KingZeal

#91: Aug 4th 2012 at 9:02:56 PM

No they aren't. They're petitioning to remove rights from other citizens. That is not even close to the same thing.

People are allowed to petition for rights that they don't think are actually rights to be taken away. Just as you are right now arguing that those people's rights to free speech should be taken away, because you don't think that it is actually a right in this situation.

<><
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#92: Aug 4th 2012 at 9:06:31 PM

[up] Except that what I'm arguing would apply universally, to all citizens, not to a select group. The case you're talking about is selectively targeting specific groups and specific rights to deny them.

#93: Aug 4th 2012 at 9:22:58 PM

[up] That's not true: you would censor the right of some people to speak on some things, simply because according to your ethical judgement the things they are calling for would be an infringement on other people's rights. What I am trying to say is that you don't get to make that judgement.

<><
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#94: Aug 4th 2012 at 9:26:42 PM

So, we should totally allow Hate Speech because if we don't we'll end up in a totalitarian state of total censorship?

How many countries have laws against hate speech again?

I didn't know that Canada, Finland and Brazil were totalitarian dictatorships! Wow. Learn something new everyday.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#95: Aug 4th 2012 at 9:42:22 PM

How do you determine what is and is not a universal human right? In a democratic society, people have discussions about it, and eventually the majority opinion is enshrined in law. That does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, that once people are legally granted certain rights, the debate about those rights is over and the law cannot/should not be changed.

Suppose a law was passed that lowered the age of majority, and everyone ten years of age or older was legally considered an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with adulthood. I don't know about you, but I'd oppose such a law; I'd say that ten year olds are not really adults and are different in some very important ways; I'd argue that, for their well-being and the well-being of society, they need to have a lot of additional legal restrictions placed on them. In other words, I'd be calling for a certain group of people to have fewer rights than the rest of society because of a biological condition they can't control. Should my opinion on the issue be censored?

#96: Aug 4th 2012 at 9:43:19 PM

So, we should totally allow Hate Speech because if we don't we'll end up in a totalitarian state of total censorship?

Change that from "certainly will" to "risk of" and I say yes, we totally should.

edited 4th Aug '12 9:43:31 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
Boredman from the divided circus tent of america (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#97: Aug 5th 2012 at 12:25:09 AM

So, we should totally allow Hate Speech because if we don't we'll end up in a totalitarian state of total censorship?

How many countries have laws against hate speech again?

I didn't know that Canada, Finland and Brazil were totalitarian dictatorships! Wow. Learn something new everyday.

Gotta love straw man arguments.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#98: Aug 5th 2012 at 1:38:45 AM

That's not true: you would censor the right of some people to speak on some things, simply because according to your ethical judgement the things they are calling for would be an infringement on other people's rights. What I am trying to say is that you don't get to make that judgement.

Yeah, but you aren't saying why other than "it's a right". It's a right because it's in the Constitution, and even then, it's something that doesn't apply if there is reason to believe it causes imminent harm.

How do you determine what is and is not a universal human right?

You start with what's most important and work your way down. So, let's say that the right for everyone to be treated equal is top priority. Then, every other right is either tangential or supportive of that right.

In a democratic society, people have discussions about it, and eventually the majority opinion is enshrined in law. That does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, that once people are legally granted certain rights, the debate about those rights is over and the law cannot/should not be changed.

Of course it does. The Bill of Rights has been changed/redefined/reexamined many times since it was created. Hell, the founding fathers created the damn thing with the specific understanding that some things would need to be changed/restricted over time.

Suppose a law was passed that lowered the age of majority, and everyone ten years of age or older was legally considered an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with adulthood. I don't know about you, but I'd oppose such a law; I'd say that ten year olds are not really adults and are different in some very important ways; I'd argue that, for their well-being and the well-being of society, they need to have a lot of additional legal restrictions placed on them. In other words, I'd be calling for a certain group of people to have fewer rights than the rest of society because of a biological condition they can't control. Should my opinion on the issue be censored?

So if I'm getting this straight, your argument is that censoring hate speech is a problem because some ethnic groups deserve to have less rights?

Gotta love straw man arguments.

How is that strawman? Some people have been pretty much saying that?

edited 5th Aug '12 1:40:29 AM by KingZeal

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#99: Aug 5th 2012 at 2:36:24 AM

My point is that "universal" human rights are not a clear cut matter.

How many rights should children be granted compared to adults? Does a human fetus or embryo have a right to life? When someone commits a serious crime, how many of their rights are we allowed to take away as punishment? Does an insane person have a right to be free, even if they're a danger to themselves? Do animals have "human" rights? If they do, is it an across the board thing, or do intelligent animals like apes and dolphins get more rights than, say, a beetle?

I believe that someone's legal rights should not be taken away because of their race or sexual orientation, but I do think it's acceptable and sometimes necessary to restrict a person's rights due to their age, mental condition, or the danger they pose to the public. That's just my opinion, though. Other people will draw the line in different places, and everyone draws the line somewhere. And if I want the freedom to say where I think the line should be drawn, I have to allow other people to do the same. My opinions aren't always going to mesh with the majority's, afterall. Besides, it's the Golden Rule.

edited 5th Aug '12 2:37:54 AM by RavenWilder

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#100: Aug 5th 2012 at 3:54:48 AM

Still not the point, though. And here's why:

You have to have a right in order to debate it. The purpose of bigotry is to remove or restrict the rights of people who, through any other consideration, should be equal. Children, the mentally ill and fetuses have extenuating circumstances that throw their rights into question. Races, genders, nationalities, and sexual orientations do not. It's nice that you want to argue if a dolphin should have the same rights you do, but a gay man isn't a dolphin. For the society you argue for to even exist, all people have to be equal—so anything which threatens that equality has to be top priority for elimination, otherwise the very thing you're arguing for is tainted from the very beginning.


Total posts: 574
Top