Should Hateful/Racist/Sexist Comments Be 'Banned' On Social Media?

[Lady Dragonheart]

No, I'd make significantly less money if it was.

[Independent voter]

Well, twitter and facebook are companies, is Twitter publically held? I know Facebook is publically held. That means that social media has a responsibility to make money and if hate speech is cutting into their revenue they are obligated to their shareholders to fix it.

Personally I would have it that we all don't use hate speech unless it's absolutely necessary and in a serious and sincere way. Often hate speech is used by trolls to start flame wars so they can get their troll kicks.

[igibum]

Well if that happens, social media will lose about 50% of it's content and user. Also, if pictures of dogs, cats and babies are banned, another 49% of content and users will be gone...

[Machismo]

Let the private entity controlling the social media site to do whatever they want. If they want to heavily censor, that's their right. If you don't like it, find an alternative... that is your right.

[Davaeorn]

Because painful truth can be interpreted in hateful/racist/sexist way when it may not be anything like it in the first place.
Do you want facts and truths be covered because they oppose your agenda?

Do you want your women in your family to end up like those in Cologne because you dont want to offend someone?
Do you want your road blocked by BLM because you dont want to offend someone?
Do you want to experience racism as a white because you dont want to offend someone?

Do you?

Hah. Hahahah. HAHAH!

[Raelbo]

Using a lot of subjective labels there mate. "Intent to cause offense", "derogatory label" "specific race or gender (what is gender these days as an example?)" and so on.

Something is not defined as "subjective" just because a small minority of people disagree with it.

The whole discussion is 100% subjective, being offended is 100% subjective and on your part. Offense can only be taken never given.

That is absolutely false. While it is absolutely true that offense can be taken without being given, that does not preclude the possibility of offense being given. Offense is given when the person giving it intends it to be given. And while you would probably smuggly reply that you are always in control of your ability to take or reject offense, that would be disingenuous. Everyone is susceptible to taking offense when attacked with specific insults in a specific context.

Sure, there are some who try on purpose to rile people up and say stupid shit only to make others mad, but who are you to say it is hate or bigotry?

Where did I ever say it was up to me to decide?

My argument rests on the premise that hateful, racist and sexist comments do exist. They exist because people use them with the intent to cause offense in others, to belittle them, to bully them, or in some other way harm them. We may not all agree about where the line is crossed, but that doesn't mean the line doesn't exist and that, when we have an acceptable resolution that the line has been crossed, that action should be taken.

You're simply arguing hypothetically that we need to know where that line is before we act - something I am not disputing. What I am saying though is that you don't need to know where the line is to know what should be done when it is crossed.

[Shibito]

Rap music, flag burners, and black lives matter agitators should be banned from America.

Not rap music its great. Tho if a white person raps along to a song and its a black guy rapping using the you know what word are whites allowed to say it along with the song?

[Jibjub]

No. Next topic!

[Shibito]

By your logic, sausage makers can put rat shit in their product: people don't have to use theirs! But a law has a different perspective on it...

pretty sure thats not true, there is laws when it comes to food.

[Raelbo]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Freedom of speech should never absolve anyone of their responsibility for being respectful towards other people when saying what they want to say. It's more about how it is said than what is said.

A good example, from South Africa that made news headlines a few months back:

A woman on social media made a comment on FB about litter on a beach after the summer holidays and called the people who left the mess "a bunch of monkeys". The beach in question had been host to a large number of black people.

Was she right to complain about the mess? Sure. Was she right to throw in the massive racial slur? No. It wasn't necessary and it created a massive uproar. (While I get that some here won't get the big deal, that would only be because you don't understand the comment within the South African context (which would take an entire essay to explain) but it is something that the vast majority of South African citizens (both black and white) do understand).

[Zogarth]

Freedom of speech should never absolve anyone of their responsibility for being respectful towards other people when saying what they want to say. It's more about how it is said than what is said.

A good example, from South Africa that made news headlines a few months back:

A woman on social media made a comment on FB about litter on a beach after the summer holidays and called the people who left the mess "a bunch of monkeys". The beach in question had been host to a large number of black people.

Was she right to complain about the mess? Sure. Was she right to throw in the massive racial slur? No. It wasn't necessary and it created a massive uproar. (While I get that some here won't get the big deal, that would only be because you don't understand the comment within the South African context (which would take an entire essay to explain) but it is something that the vast majority of South African citizens (both black and white) do understand).

I don't think anyone is arguing that using racist slurs or acting like a jerk should be condoned and respected. It should just not be punished or censored. Calling someone out for it and them possibly facing social consequences (friends refusing to associate with them etc) is perfectly acceptable. But getting put in jail or fined for holding opinions, or having said opinion censored should in my opinion not happen. No matter how stupid/racist/bigoted or whatever that opinion is.

[May90]

I don't think anyone is arguing that using racist slurs or acting like a jerk should be condoned and respected. It should just not be punished or censored. Calling someone out for it and them possibly facing social consequences (friends refusing to associate with them etc) is perfectly acceptable. But getting put in jail or fined for holding opinions, or having said opinion censored should in my opinion not happen. No matter how stupid/racist/bigoted or whatever that opinion is.

Having lived in a country with no laws punishing people for hate speech, I know well that it doesn't work. What happens is just a large percentage of the population incorporate hate rhetoric into their everyday speech, and the society becomes disgusting to live in. This is one of the things I adore about the West: that you can have actual civilized discussions with people here, without vomiting every few seconds at their words - partially thanks to those laws.

Laws shape society. When you ban people from hate speech, the society overall slowly becomes less prone to even want to do hate speech. I don't think ideologies should be banned or anything - but people should learn to express their opinion in a civilized manner. If they can't, then make them learn.

[TwoNineMarine]

No

/10char

[Zogarth]

Having lived in a country with no laws punishing people for hate speech, I know well that it doesn't work. What happens is just a large percentage of the population incorporate hate rhetoric into their everyday speech, and the society becomes disgusting to live in. This is one of the things I adore about the West: that you can have actual civilized discussions with people here, without vomiting every few seconds at their words - partially thanks to those laws.

Laws shape society. When you ban people from hate speech, the society overall slowly becomes less prone to even want to do hate speech. I don't think ideologies should be banned or anything - but people should learn to express their opinion in a civilized manner. If they can't, then make them learn.

Problem is that, where do we set the bar? When is something hate-speech and when is it simply expressing your dislike for something? Is "racist" jokes hate-speech? Making fun of stereotypes? When do we decide when a word is derogatory and should be illegal? When is something racist speech and not just poor choice of words when being mad at someone? The lines are blurry as fuck, and if the only requirement for something to be deemed hate is, which it looks like we are moving towards with everything being racist/sexist these days, for someone to get offended by it, discussion in a public space as a whole is fucked imo.

[May90]

Problem is that, where do we set the bar? When is something hate-speech and when is it simply expressing your dislike for something? Is "racist" jokes hate-speech? Making fun of stereotypes? When do we decide when a word is derogatory and should be illegal? When is something racist speech and not just poor choice of words when being mad at someone? The lines are blurry as fuck, and if the only requirement for something to be deemed hate is, which it looks like we are moving towards with everything being racist/sexist these days, for someone to get offended by it, discussion in a public space as a whole is fucked imo.

It is like this with everything. Where do we set the bar at tax collection? Where do we set the bar at the amount of freedom police has in their actions? This is not black and white, and certain balance should be found. It doesn't mean we should just throw in a trash can the tax system and police, it just means that we should find a reasonable compromise. Where this compromise lays for the hate speech, is up to the society to determine.

[Themius]

difference between a store that exist to sell shit and a media platform for communication.

They're both private mediums, so no...there isn't a difference in the idea at all.

[Blur4stuff]

there are sites where you can bash minorities, women, and muslims all you like. right along with tons of other people who are just like you.

so this complaint really isn't about freedom of speech. you are 100% free on the internet to be hateful.

[tehealadin]

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: They can do what they want. Just don't be inconsistent with your rules platform and not expect to be called out on it.

This. As people have said, privately owned platforms get to choose, I'd prefer if they acted in the spirit of free speech, however they are under no obligation to do so. When it isn't applied consistently, e.g. they allow threats/abuse etc if it is against the "right" people, they should be called out on it.

[Spunt]

Where does it stop? Anyone can be offended by anything. Feminists get offended by people who say men can be raped, so we should censor that to protect feminists from reality? No. What about religious people who are offended when people say religion is made up and there is no God? Should we censor those people to protect religious people? No. What about people who are offended by those that speak another language? Should we censor anyone who doesn't speak English? No.

Censor is stupid and has no place in a free society, whether it's government or private corporation. If you are easily offended, that's your problem, don't force other people to deal with your feelings.

Toughen up, buttercups. Your feels are irrelevant.

[Forogil]

Most social media platforms are corporations. They have no obligation to allow speech of any kind.

Asking whether Facebook, for example, should allow Jimmy Bigot to say whatever he likes on their platform is absurd.

It's not that simple.

If they delete the posts by Jimmy Bigot (saying "Death to everyone named James") due to their contents - but not the ones by James Bigot (saying "Death to everyone named Jimmy"), then one could argue that they share responsibility for the posts by James Bigot - and if the posts by James Bigot are illegal in some way (call for murders can be illegal) then one can argue that both James Bigot and the site could be sued; similarly as a newspaper is responsible for its contents.

The law can provide the companies a safe harbor from that under certain restrictions: i.e. either James and Jimmy both get their posts deleted - or neither of them.
Or the company can skip the safe harbor - and is then responsible for the posts.