Is hate speech free speech and Should we kill it?

[just_me]

I just read a post here about Facebook by Jolly_Penguin https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?18152-Facebook-is-banning-White-Separatism-and-White-Nationalism
I will not derail that thread, but I'd like to share my feelings on what they were talking about and ask you for yours. This is an important issue and needs to be discussed. Thank you


I love it when people(Facebook) can define what the want as they want, whenever they want to and tell you they are protecting people.

please repeat after me:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

You take away one person's right of free speech then you endanger all peoples right of free speech. All one has to to is meander into someone more influential than you's cross hairs and suddenly you don't have a voice. I don't hate anyone but I do consider these supremacist groups the most vile insects on the planet. I've wanted to beat the crap out of the few I have heard, but I will fight tooth and nail for their right to speak, if only to allow those people unfamiliar with hate to hear what it sounds like.

How can those being birthed today recognize such speech unless they have been exposed to it and have the chance to deliberate it in their heads and define what to do with those who agree with such speech. Without that experience how can the defend society against those who think it.

This is just another attempt to kill an idea and ideas can not be killed. You can drive these people underground, but then you won't know where they are until the knife is hilt deep into your back. I define hate is a disease of the heart and in order for it to be dealt with you need to vaccinate against it through experience.

I look at these kids today and see them doing a cry in and these snowflakes that need a safe space to hide from the truly evil in our society and I really wonder who is going to take our place when we leave this world. I've looked at the Democratic party, which I've, more than once called Republican lite and for damn good reason. I look at these professional politicians who claim to be on the left, but couldn't bring themselves to give us Universal healthcare or couldn't stand up and say out-load that they believe that gay people should be able to marry who they want and I worry.

The only good thing that has happened for the left because of President Trump is the rise of the far left and those people like AOC who has fire in her blood. If I were from the right I would rather stand toe to toe with her than those the left has had in the past. The only one I've seen close to her is Senator Warren and I'd love to see either one of them against a White supremacist.

 

[steve_bank]

We are free to hate. We are not free to act on our hate or incite others to acts of violence .

The ACKU once defnded the right of the KKK to demonstrate and parade.

The right is for all or none. When we kill speech in the name of political correctness we are on the road to tyranny.

Listen to the hate speech in congress from both left and right.

 

[DBT]

I'm inclined to say that hate speech should be countered through public debate, not banned

 

[bigfield]

A post I made in another thread:

There are two fundamental problems with the way free speech works in a liberal society:

1. Not everyone has a platform, so minorities don't have a platform from which to exercise their right of reply when someone attacks them. In Australia we've recently seen this with respect to Muslims and Africans.

2. The system has no protection against propaganda. Propagandists don't fight fair, most people don't have a defence against propaganda. It's up to the people in charge to identify their messages as propaganda, deny them a platform and enforce a minimum standard of integrity.

In the "free marketplace of ideas", propaganda wins out over reasoned argument. Access to a platform is gained, not by the merit of one's ideas or through a system that guarantees all everyone is heard, but by one's popularity, and those are definitely not the same thing.

People frequently claim that hate and bullshit ought to be brought out into the light of public scrutiny where it is supposed to wither and die, but we have ample evidence now to show that it thrives like a weed.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"You take away one person's right of free speech then you endanger all peoples right of free speech."

But does 'a right to free speech' apply to Facebook posts?
The 'free speech' article says the government cannot shut you up, short of posing a threat to other people.
Leaving aside the question of whether hate speech is harm, has anyone's actual RIGHT been infringed by one online community squelching their message?

"How can those being birthed today recognize such speech unless they have been exposed to it and have the chance to deliberate it in their heads and define what to do with those who agree with such speech. Without that experience how can the defend society against those who think it."
Good questions, but does anyone HAVE to be exposed to it EVERYWHERE they go?
Does facebook have a responsibility to the birthed-today to facilitate their exposure to hate speech?

 

[Politesse]

I'm inclined to say that hate speech should be countered through public debate, not banned

This would be ideal, but history shows it doesn't necessarily work any better than censorship; all of America's atrocities were preceded by long public debate and good-minded (usually Quaker) citizens trying to publically counter hateful narratives. It doesn't seem to stop the horrors from occurring.

I am sympathetic to justme's point also. I am unsure of what our ideal solution could look like.

 

[steve_bank]

On the contrary the 'market place of ideas' has worked well.

Rights for blacks and gays has become a majority view. Minority views will never go away.

The problem is who sets the speech standard. And the slippery slope argument follows. Catholics are around 25% of population. Should Catholics set the standard?

 

[just_me]

I think there should be no standards of speech but there should standards of the way people use these words.

You should be able to speak of many things but when you start disparaging and degrading people and ideas out of hand then you bring into question your objectivity. It's one thing to be passionate about an issue. It is quite another to try and preach to others.

 

[Trausti]

Can't see how any atheist/agnostic could be in favor of banning "hate speech" as the theists would quickly have our heads.

 

[bigfield]

Can't see how any atheist/agnostic could be in favor of banning "hate speech" as the theists would quickly have our heads.

Hate speech is banned in Australia, and atheists are free.

 

[bigfield]

You take away one person's right of free speech then you endanger all peoples right of free speech.

This is a fallacious slippery slope claim. Countries already put limits on speech without turning into Airstrip One, which shows that there is in fact a reasonable, sustainable middle ground where people are freely allowed to speak out against the government.

All one has to to is meander into someone more influential than you's cross hairs and suddenly you don't have a voice.

You should read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky. Their Propaganda model postulates that news must pass through a series of filters before it is allowed to be published:
- The medium's owners must not object
- The medium's sponsors and advertisers must not object
- The medium's information sources must not object
- The medium's audience must not object
- (From the Cold War era) The medium must not put communists in a positive light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

So even without government censorship, media in a liberal society still censors and marginalises people for a variety of reasons that have fuck all to do with truth and the common good, and often work against those values.

 

[just_me]

This is a fallacious slippery slope claim. Countries already put limits on speech without turning into Airstrip One, which shows that there is in fact a reasonable, sustainable middle ground where people are freely allowed to speak out against the government.

We are not talking just about government. We are talking about ideals that don't set right with the private entities who control the flow of information and rhetoric. Just look at how many people whose lives have been upturned by a mere thoughtless statement they made decades ago.

You should read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky. Their Propaganda model postulates that news must pass through a series of filters before it is allowed to be published:
- The medium's owners must not object
- The medium's sponsors and advertisers must not object
- The medium's information sources must not object
- The medium's audience must not object
- (From the Cold War era) The medium must not put communists in a positive light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

So even without government censorship, media in a liberal society still censors and marginalizes people for a variety of reasons that have fuck all to do with truth and the common good, and often work against those values.

When has the status quo ever been acceptable in a liberal society? The status quo is what conservatives embrace, not liberals.

 

[just_me]

Can't see how any atheist/agnostic could be in favor of banning "hate speech" as the theists would quickly have our heads.

Hate speech is banned in Australia, and atheists are free.

You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.

 

[bigfield]

This is a fallacious slippery slope claim. Countries already put limits on speech without turning into Airstrip One, which shows that there is in fact a reasonable, sustainable middle ground where people are freely allowed to speak out against the government.

We are not talking just about government. We are talking about ideals that don't set right with the private entities who control the flow of information and rhetoric.

The remainder of my post actually referred to those private entities, which in practice refers to mass media companies and publishers.

Just look at how many people whose lives have been upturned by a mere thoughtless statement they made decades ago.

Like who? I'm not aware that there are many cases at all.

I can think of a handful of people who were held to account for racist, homophobic or misogynistic things they said in the past, and I think that's fair. But these cases were more than "a mere thoughtless statement".

You should read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky. Their Propaganda model postulates that news must pass through a series of filters before it is allowed to be published:
- The medium's owners must not object
- The medium's sponsors and advertisers must not object
- The medium's information sources must not object
- The medium's audience must not object
- (From the Cold War era) The medium must not put communists in a positive light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

So even without government censorship, media in a liberal society still censors and marginalizes people for a variety of reasons that have fuck all to do with truth and the common good, and often work against those values.

When has the status quo ever been acceptable in a liberal society? The status quo is what conservatives embrace, not liberals.

I am using liberal to refer to liberalism. "Liberal" has a different meaning in North America that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[bigfield]

Can't see how any atheist/agnostic could be in favor of banning "hate speech" as the theists would quickly have our heads.

Hate speech is banned in Australia, and atheists are free.

You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.

In Australia, we've been giving white supremacists a platform on TV and radio--both government and commercial--and this contributed to the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was perpetrated by an Australian.

So I find it hard to believe that denying Nazis a platform will lead to even more violence.

I cannot believe this idea that extremism gets stronger if we bury it. We have ample evidence that extremism thrives when we give its proponents a platform, so we should stop doing that.

 

[fromderinside]

You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.

Keeping certain speech out of public eye isn't censorship. it's keeping in line with some language has shown to be harmful to societies so it's being banned in the name of common decency. A bit like banning one from yelling fire in a theater when they want candy. The Smothers Brothers did a bit like that once on their TV program back in the seventies.

Since terrorism is a marginal viewpoint i'm happy to hear is is considered marginalized. What gets me is giving press to lies because they are lies. Who wants lying to be a part of common discourse? Popping up is to be surprised. yes acts of terrorism popping up is surprising. But, are they popping up because such are being suppressed. That's a tall jar to fill.

 

[steve_bank]

A few months ago when Monica Lewinsky came up on a cable news show a man used the word blow job in mixed company on the show. When I grew up that would be outragus and scandous even in general mized company.

T
What is acceptable;e has changed. If you are old enough to member the Smothers Brothers Show they were heavikly seored for things that today are common.

Today what constitutes hate speech is anything that makes anyone uncomfortable. A politician used the word lynch to describe his situation and it was termed into racial issue because blacks were lynched. To me lych mob means vigilante justice. No specific race.

It is getting so that people in public an not say anything.

Also what about anti white hate speech? It is there as well. It is small, there is a Latino group fostering the idea that all of European ancestry go back to Europe. Should that be banned from social media?

All attempts in modern history at creating morality be suppression failed and resulted in lack of freedoms we value. Soviet, Chinese, Cuban communism.

We are seeing it today on campuses, rejection of spacers deemed politically incorrect.

 

[just_me]

I can think of a handful of people who were held to account for racist, homophobic or misogynistic things they said in the past, and I think that's fair. But these cases were more than "a mere thoughtless statement".

There is nothing fair about judging actions of the past by today's standards and how dose anyone other than they in which manner they were given. Many atrocities have happened in the past because they were considered the norm. People have the right to make mistakes in their past, just as long as they learn in the intervening years that they were mistakes and make amends for them. This "Gottcha politics don't allow for redemption and those people who have regretted their actions most likely will punishing themselves internally more than any others.

I am using liberal to refer to liberalism. "Liberal" has a different meaning in North America that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I can only respond to what I take as liberalism and only to that which was I grew up in. This wacka-a-mole mentality is nothing more than people today gloating over the fact that people's mindsets of the past aren't the same as those of today and the only reason we have the mindsets we do today is because we've benefitted by 20-30 years of social growth and understanding.

 

[just_me]

You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.

Keeping certain speech out of public eye isn't censorship. it's keeping in line with some language has shown to be harmful to societies so it's being banned in the name of common decency. A bit like banning one from yelling fire in a theater when they want candy. The Smothers Brothers did a bit like that once on their TV program back in the seventies.

Since terrorism is a marginal viewpoint i'm happy to hear is is considered marginalized. What gets me is giving press to lies because they are lies. Who wants lying to be a part of common discourse? Popping up is to be surprised. yes acts of terrorism popping up is surprising. But, are they popping up because such are being suppressed. That's a tall jar to fill.

No. It is being banned to make those who don't wish to go through the ugliness of confronting nastiness where it is found. You don't destroy sick ideals and outrageous attitudes by banning the language.

I don't think I said terrorism is marginalized. I think I said that speech that is marginalized may become terrorism. What you call lies can very well be another persons Gospel truth. You can't change their minds unless you confront them. Even if you can't reach them, you may be able to reach those growing up in that environment by making them think when their parents are dead set against thinking at all.

 

[just_me]

You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.

In Australia, we've been giving white supremacists a platform on TV and radio--both government and commercial--and this contributed to the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was perpetrated by an Australian.

So I find it hard to believe that denying Nazis a platform will lead to even more violence.

I cannot believe this idea that extremism gets stronger if we bury it. We have ample evidence that extremism thrives when we give its proponents a platform, so we should stop doing that.

I try not to use the term extremism. That's a political dog whistle that has lost it's potency due to over use. Political parties have used that to characterize the opposition in every way.

Hate speech is the product of deeply disturbed minds. It is those who are under the influence of such speech that you need to reach. I'm not talking just the public but the most important people of all are the children that is growing up under parents with this affliction of the mind. If we ever have the chance to change the world we need to change the minds of the children who will otherwise grow up thinking what their parents teach them.

This can't be done by censorship. It has to be done by dialog.