Is hate speech free speech and Should we kill it?

[steve_bank]

The black Louie Farrakhan and Nation Of Islam seems to fly under the radar.

He is well known for bigotry and hate speech. He has advocated a separate homeland in the USA for blacks and has opposed inter racial marriage. His anti Jew views are well known and public. Anti white rhetoric.

Should he and NOI be banned from social media? Will we see the day when hate speech from any race is treated equally in the media? Or is it just white extremists?

You want extremism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Official_platform


Nation of Islam members at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, London, March 1999.
Wallace Fard Muhammad taught that the original peoples of the world were black and that white people were a race of "devils" created by a scientist named Yakub (the Biblical and Qur'anic Jacob) on the Greek island of Patmos. According to the supreme wisdom lessons, Fard taught that whites were devils because of a culture of lies and murder that Yakub instituted on the island to ensure the creation of his new people. Fard taught that Yakub established a secret eugenics policy among the ruling class on the island. They were to kill all dark babies at birth and lie to the parents about the child's fate. Further, they were to ensure that lighter-skinned children thrived in society. This policy encouraged a general preference for light skin. It was necessary to allow the process of grafting or making of a lighter-skinned race of people who would be different. The idea was that if the light-skinned people were allowed to mate freely with the dark-skinned people, the population would remain dark-skinned due to the genetic dominance of the original dark-skinned people. This process took approximately 600 years to produce a blond-haired, blue-eyed group of people. As they migrated into the mainland, they were greeted and welcomed by the indigenous people wherever they went. But according to the supreme wisdom lessons, they started making trouble among the righteous people, telling lies and causing confusion and mischief. This is when the ruling class of the Middle East decided to round up all the troublemakers they could find and march them out, over the hot desert sands, into the caves and hillsides of Europe. Elijah claimed that this history is well-known and preserved, and is ritualized or re-enacted within many fraternal organizations and secret societies. Fard taught that much of the savage ways of white people came from living in the caves and hillsides of Europe for over 2,000 years without divine revelation or knowledge of civilization.[48] The writings of Elijah Muhammad advise a student must learn that the white man is "Yacub's grafted Devil" and "the Skunk of the planet Earth".[

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

So, a Klansman has infinite free speech, but on the comment page of my blog, _I_ do not have any freedom of speech, of association. I can SAY i don't want his manifesto on my Action Figure Theatre website, but if he submits it, you would have me leave it rather than delete it, Because his freedom exceeds mine.

 

[just_me]

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.

So, a Klansman has infinite free speech, but on the comment page of my blog, _I_ do not have any freedom of speech, of association. I can SAY i don't want his manifesto on my Action Figure Theatre website, but if he submits it, you would have me leave it rather than delete it, Because his freedom exceeds mine.

What you own as a private citizen is your property. You can define what you want, but if someone posts something you don't agree with and you just delete it instead of debate it, what will the reader get from that?

Would you have the same freedoms on a board, such as this. Yes you would and If someone posted some stuff you don't agree with here, you have the right to oppose it just as you are countering my points.

 

[steve_bank]

If you provide a site that you own you set the terms of use. You can also set an agenda. Atheist opposition to religion, or promoting religion. Or both like this site.

Freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment means freedom to express views in public without fear of suppression. It does not mean freedom to say anything anywhere any time. If I walk into a church service and star promoting Satan I will be thrown out.

Same if a theist goes to an atheist meeting and starts preaching.

If I owned a business I would prohibit campaigning for a candidate on company property and time, for any party or candidate. Even for one I supported. I would not allow hate speech of any kind.

 

[bigfield]

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 agree that people ought to given the opportunity to correct their mistakes, but when they fail to do so, their past ought to be fair game.

I can cite examples from Australian politics (such as Michael McCormack on homosexuality) where politicians have said awful things in the past that are still reflected in their voting position today; the difference today is that they are more skilled at lying about their motivations.

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.

Sure, but many people haven't grown much at all in 20 years, and they are the ones in power. If people choose to hold on to outdated worldview, they have a moral obligation to vacate all positions of power and make way for those who have actually developed.

When a politician votes against marriage equality, it's entirely fair to cite the homophobic column he wrote 25 years ago to remind everyone what really motivates him and maybe reconsider who their elected representative ought to be.

 

[bigfield]

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.

What term do you use in its place?

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.

Mass media has failed to facilitate this dialogue. Instead, they broadcast propaganda uncritically. Several channels have talk shows where they invite people with opposing political views to talk at each other, but the format of these programs doesn't actually foster any dialogue whatsoever.

I think you're pursuing the right idea, but our society doesn't have a mechanism to make it happen.

 

[DBT]

Neither a ban or a platform. Address the issue with public debate whenever the need comes up.

 

[steve_bank]

What about cell phones?

Before the Internet there were news letters published by non mainstream groups. Books published. People handed out pamphlets and put up posters.

From a show on racism racist vinyl records were once an industry.

The Internet has wider coverage at low cost, it makes it easier but it would still go on despite media censorship.

 

[just_me]

I agree that people ought to given the opportunity to correct their mistakes, but when they fail to do so, their past ought to be fair game.

I can cite examples from Australian politics (such as Michael McCormack on homosexuality) where politicians have said awful things in the past that are still reflected in their voting position today; the difference today is that they are more skilled at lying about their motivations.

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.

Sure, but many people haven't grown much at all in 20 years, and they are the ones in power. If people choose to hold on to outdated worldview, they have a moral obligation to vacate all positions of power and make way for those who have actually developed.

When a politician votes against marriage equality, it's entirely fair to cite the homophobic column he wrote 25 years ago to remind everyone what really motivates him and maybe reconsider who their elected representative ought to be.

If a person continues to display such attitudes and ideals then, to them what they said in the past was not a mistake and since that was the case then they have the same mindset today. They have become the mistake and that mistake should be rectified as efficiently as possible.

The most effective means of doing that is to take him down and exposing his ugliness for everyone to see. That means public humiliation so bad that no one would dare make the same argument. Throwing them out of office will leave their reputation intact. Destroying that person in an open forum will dismantle his legacy and leave nothing to be picked up by others.

The reason the media won't do a thing is that there's no money in it for them. They would rather toss around pieces of red meat that will keep their readers coming back to read how evil other people are so they can justify their own selves.

 

[bigfield]

If a person continues to display such attitudes and ideals then, to them what they said in the past was not a mistake and since that was the case then they have the same mindset today. They have become the mistake and that mistake should be rectified as efficiently as possible.

The most effective means of doing that is to take him down and exposing his ugliness for everyone to see. That means public humiliation so bad that no one would dare make the same argument. Throwing them out of office will leave their reputation intact. Destroying that person in an open forum will dismantle his legacy and leave nothing to be picked up by others.

The reason the media won't do a thing is that there's no money in it for them. They would rather toss around pieces of red meat that will keep their readers coming back to read how evil other people are so they can justify their own selves.

I think we're more-or-less on the same page on this.

This is what free speech looks like in a liberal society: privately-owned media companies are free to choose what they publish, and they always choose to publish what is profitable. The media is totally uninterested in fostering an open forum.

Rules against hate speech aren't the problem.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Except that bloke had spent, what 45 days in Oz, in the last 3 years. He was hardly radicalised or getting encouragement from Australia

 

[bigfield]

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.

Except that bloke had spent, what 45 days in Oz, in the last 3 years. He was hardly radicalised or getting encouragement from Australia

What's the significance of the 3 year time period?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

So, a Klansman has infinite free speech, but on the comment page of my blog, _I_ do not have any freedom of speech, of association. I can SAY i don't want his manifesto on my Action Figure Theatre website, but if he submits it, you would have me leave it rather than delete it, Because his freedom exceeds mine.

What you own as a private citizen is your property.

So, where do you draw the line? Where is my private property become something that's socially responsible? Facebook isnot government-owned, so how would you draw up the legislation to force them to provide a venue for offensive points of view? What would you base it on, membership numbers?

You can define what you want, but if someone posts something you don't agree with and you just delete it instead of debate it, what will the reader get from that?

Why do I give a fuck what the reader gets out of it?
I don't necessarily WANT my website to educate the masses on my feelings about white supremacy.

Would you have the same freedoms on a board, such as this. Yes you would and If someone posted some stuff you don't agree with here, you have the right to oppose it just as you are countering my points.

But does the FORUM have the same rights?

How do you distinguish between my private rights and my rights as the operator of a forum?

 

[fromderinside]

How do you distinguish between my private rights and my rights as the operator of a forum?

You follow the laws that permit one to operate a forum on the web in states where your users reside. And you follow the rules set by the operator of the site.

If EU adds teeth to new rule then you are constrained to limit copyrighted material just as you would be required to limit hate speech of the operator of the site limited it or eliminated what you had written on those grounds.

So , I believe there's where the EU rule should be pointed. Consistency within a society seems right to me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Hate speech is illegal in Sweden and has been since forever and Nazism is on the rise as of late.

Banning hate speech is a waste of time and ink. It'll only lead to newspeak. It also leads to bizarre misunderstandings.

Last year in Sweden there was a bunch of Swedish memes labelled "Finspång". Mostly just a bunch of funny word play memes. But taken as a whole, and in context Nazi propaganda. Some people shared them ironically for the opposite reasons. These were shared by people thinking they were about something else and politicians and celebrities got into trouble for spreading Nazi propaganda. This is the kind of shit that happens if we ban hate speech. It solves no problem. It just makes communication opaque.

Also, from China we know that the Chinese have no problems criticising the communist party in spite of draconian censorship. It's a complete waste of time.

If we want to combat racism we need to be smarter than this

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Only because the theocrats don't currently have control of government there. They have much more control in the US, and religious revivals can occur anywhere.

Also, nothing objectively fits any principled definition of hate speech more than what a huge % of Christian and Muslim preachers speak every day, or than what is stated in the Bible and Koran. How can any hate speech laws that are not completely arbitrary and capriciously applied not lead to the banning of these texts or of a huge % of religious sermons, including any that suggest non-adherents will go to hell or be punished by God? (which is a clear endorsement of violence).

The reality is that everywhere that hate speech laws exist, they are applied inconsistently and capriciously based upon the subjective tastes of whatever authorities are in charge of enforcement at the time. There is no way they can be enforced any differently, given the highly subjective and ambiguous line between hate speech and a critique a people's ethics, which comes down to the personal ethics of those doing the enforcing.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Like most accusations of "slippery slope fallacy", yours is itself a fallacy: The fallacy of assuming that all theories of recursive causality are "slippery slope fallacies".

Social, moral, and political progress and protection of human rights depends not just on speaking out against the government, but often more importantly against other citizens and their actions or ideas. And the objects of such critique always find such speech offensive, hateful, insulting, and dangerous.

The countries with the most limits on speech are the one's with the worst human rights and least social, moral, and political progress. Damage to that progress does not happen over night. A progressive government, made progressive via free speech will not suddenly be ruled by tryrants the moment they get more power to punish speech. The effect is a slower cultural one where power attracts those seeking to use it. Thus, any increase in power to punish speech will attract more people to power who wish to punish speech, which leads to an expansion of the speech that can be punished and so on.
Countries that have prevented this, do so by ensuring that any limits upon speech are extremely limited very specifically and objectively defined speech in specific contexts stated by the law. Almost all such limits entail speech that contains provable falsehoods where there is evidence that the speaker knows the speech is false, such as claiming there is a "fire" when there clearly is not one and in a context where such a claim is probable to directly cause dangerous panic.

By definition, hate speech is not about claims that can be either false or true, because they are expressions of emotional preference rather than assertions of fact. This makes it impossible to establish objective criteria for what expressions of negative emotions toward others count as acceptable or not, and the enforcement becomes up to the whim of the enforcers. That in turn means makes it extremely easy for someone to come into power and alter and expand how such restrictions are applied.

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

Nothing in that or any of Chomky's analyses of media support your desired or any government restrictions on speech.

You should read what Chomsky has said about free speech, which is strongly against hate speech laws.

[P]"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." -Chomsky, 2018 on twitter[/P]

In both the article and the youtube interview below Chomsky lays out in more detail his opposition to such hate speech laws, his support for the speech rights of Holocaust deniers, and his opposition to countries like France that use hate speech laws to strip those people of what Chomsky rightly views as their essential human right. As much as he has focused most of his political and media critique on the US, he views the US as superior and in more right-minded in relation to efforts (whether by government or other social forces) to coerce silence of ugly views, even when they expressed to try an provoke.

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/chomsky-on-free-expression

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwZrIEJMZmQ&feature=youtu.be[/YOUTUBE]

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.

Of course speech can work against truth and the common good. And yet, truth and the common good have been exponentially advanced in the last couple centuries as a direct result of the free speech and related individual rights principles fostered by the Enlightenment. Which Chomsky understands and thus rejects short sighted sociologically and historically ignorant efforts to roll back that basic human right just because past free speech has created a current (but still tenuous) government where abuse of that power is not as imminent as it was in the past.

And now more than ever, corporate media only controls and censors a limited amount of speech, namely that of people who work for them. Chomsky has likely been heard more in the last decade, due to social media and the internet, than in his entire previous public life. While corporate control of mainstream media is important to understand, so one can adjust for their shared biases, Chomsky (and all reasonable people) understand that such finite censorship is not remotely as dangerous to the long term progress of ethics and ideas as government censorship that makes ideas impossible to discuss anywhere by anyone rather than just not having access to the most far reaching privately paid for outlets.

 

[steve_bank]

What is Cleary demons red in modern history up to today is that when a group gains the power to limit speech that power gets abused. Russia, China, NK, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran.

The slippery slope applies. We have some legal limits. You c not advocate the violent overthrow of the government, you can not incite to violence, yell fore in a theater, slander and so on.

Paraphrasing one Lenny Bruce's routines from the 60s. Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger...we say it until the word itself no longer holds power.

The three coequal branches of government were established to limit any kind of absolutism.

Considering the content of some of the music and movies, I am puzzled why there is no firestorm over that. The industry rezones is free speech, if you do not like it don't listen or watch. Sidestepping the issue of the influnce the mediums have on individuals and culture.

Back in the 60s there was a reaction to the version of Louie Louie by the Kingsmen. Part of it sounded like 'tell her I never lay her again'. Do we ban misogyny from video? In today's moral climate the Frank Sinatra and early James Band movies are abysmal.

Etc etc etc.

 

[fromderinside]

There are reasons there are violins in orchestras and blue grass ensembles.