Is Freedom of Speech Abused?

[Powerogue]

It's definitely abused, but I'd rather us have it than not. Hate speech is a difficult border to draw because everyone takes things differently. I could say something that I don't think is a big deal that drives some overly emotional person to suicide. Am I a bad person? If we take it too far in the encouraging victimhood direction we get to the point where two people say "I disagree with your opinion, and am thus offended." and both want the other thrown in jail for emotional turmoil caused by subjecting them to such a wrong opinion.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I really, really do not understand the "NO REGULATION OF SPEECH AT ALL" types.

They almost never have any issue with laws against;

• Conspiracy
• Fraud
• Slander/Libel
• Owning/transmitting child porn (as distinct from creating it)
• Lying under oath
• Incitement to riot
• Threats of violence

Among probably a host of others. Those restrictions on speech, even Americans for the most part agree with (and they're all illegal in the USA). They're all forms of speech.

Hate speech is easily comparable to a bunch of other items out of that list. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that Americans must support restrictions on hate speech, but there's this stance as if there's some unimpeachable principle behind that stance, and there is not. Speech is already restricted and limited in a host of ways, particularly when that speech causes or risks causing objective harm to others. And hate speech objectively harms others.

By all means, take whichever stance you want on the subject. But don't pretend that legislating against hate speech is some high-grade infringement of the right to free speech. It is not. No more than any of those other restrictions you have no objection to.

The things you listed cause measurable harm that can't be negated by the victim ignoring it, and in fact some of them become worse with the victim ignoring it. That's probably the differing factor for many, whether or not they know it.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of speech applies to the government, not to private institutions. MMO champ can do what they like.

Also, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of said speech.

Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences (from the government). Being able to physically talk is not freedom of speech. If it were, nearly everybody in the world would have freedom of speech, which isn't true.

[Crissi]

The things you listed cause measurable harm that can't be negated by the victim ignoring it, and in fact some of them become worse with the victim ignoring it. That's probably the differing factor for many, whether or not they know it.

- - - Updated - - -



Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences (from the government). Being able to physically talk is not freedom of speech. If it were, nearly everybody in the world would have freedom of speech, which isn't true.

I know I didn't specify it, but thats exactly what I meant. The government cant punish you except for speech that does measurable harm, but anyone else can.

When people yell about freedom of speech when faced with consequences from private entities, THAT is them being stupid.

[SinR]

Everything is subjective. My idea of an "Abuse" of First Amendment rights could be different than someone else's idea of "Abuse".

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

When people yell about freedom of speech when faced with consequences from private entities, THAT is them being stupid.

Not necessarily. If they're complaining that it violates their rights, they're being dumb and aren't informed, but if they're voicing a moral objection, that's valid.

[Tydrane]

This isn't an argument. It's like saying "yeah, but if you took a swing at a gang of MMA fighters, you're the only one who'd get hurt, so punching people isn't an assault". It's just fundamentally wrong, for very obvious reasons.

The reason you would likely be assaulted is because you've just verbally assaulted that group of people. It's a reaction to defend themselves.

That's not really a fair or equal analogy, because physically punching another person will always cause a degree of damage - for some people, obviously, less than others, but they will always objectively be harmed by the attack. On the other hand, some people will be offended by certain words, others won't. Someone could call me every homosexual slur under the sun and it wouldn't bother me. Any old person could tell me I'm a shit artist and can't fucking draw. Neither of those things would offend or upset me. If, however, someone who was a more skilled artist than me said that I was a terrible artist, that would upset me.

A great or terrible artist could tell another complete stranger that they're a terrible artist and it wouldn't bother them. Or it would. Reaction to words and ideas is always going to be subjective, it can't possibly not be without all of humanity operating under the control of a hive mind.

[nextormento]

This isn't an argument. It's like saying "yeah, but if you took a swing at a gang of MMA fighters, you're the only one who'd get hurt, so punching people isn't an assault". It's just fundamentally wrong, for very obvious reasons.

The reason you would likely be assaulted is because you've just verbally assaulted that group of people. It's a reaction to defend themselves.

Yours isn't a rebuttal either you you two are even .

You are trying to conflate the principle of harm with the principle of offense in a very disingenuous fashion: Hate speech can be harmful.
So what if it can?. If it doesn't make any quantifiable harm, this is a pointless argument.

You are trying to be all inclusive in something -hate speech- that has a very wide granularity. And you try to argue that since you find similarities with other regulated kinds of speech there's no line in the sand; well there is: objective, measurable or quantifiable harm; not potentiality of harm; certainly not offense.

I can find similarities in everything: basketballs and oranges are both round, do they need the same kind of regulation?. You finding similarities is not an argument for anything: it's you lacking the capacity to infer the -very important- differences and how they pan out.

Do I want certain kinds of hate speech regulated? sure. Particularly those that incite third parties. I'm pretty comfortable with penalizing apology of terrorism even. What I'm not comfortable with is to regulate all of hate speech in a swift move. Because it forces a moving goal into legislation, given hate speech is an ever increasing container. This is not an slippery slope fallacy: hate speech is the slippery slope, by means of how it collides with political correctness and how the post moves as cultures evolve.

Most reasonable people don't think butmahfreedomofspeech is an end all to every debate (and it's wild ignorance when raised against the social accountability of some idiots). But when people raise absurd reductionist arguments such as regulating all hate speech, then no: freedom of speech trumps it by a long shot.

The only reasonable approach is to regulate the harmful bits of it under the existing structures: inciting violence, slander, or what have you. In your nation/country/state is there any kind of hate speech that objectively causes unavoidable harm but is not yet regulated under other clauses?


On a related note, personalty I find that most 'hate speech regulation' folk are simply living on an extremely privileged society and had never dealt with institutional censorship.

[SpcGuts]

There are already exceptions to free speech. If hate speech is meant to intimidate or a threat, then it is not protected (Virginia v. Black, Watts v. United States). Fighting words (saying something which might incite someone into a violent act) are also unprotected (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

I believe that hate speech falls into these categories so it would be completely possible to pass laws which could suppress hate speech. Of course it may be a slippery slope and the benchmarks for determining if something is intimidating or threatening could be misused on things that historically haven't been considered "hate speech." An example would be if Phil Robertson felt threatened or wanted to fight me if I called him a racist. My speech would be the "hate speech."

[Endus]

That's not really a fair or equal analogy, because physically punching another person will always cause a degree of damage - for some people, obviously, less than others, but they will always objectively be harmed by the attack.

Hate speech is the equivalent, in this analogy, of taking a swing at someone. You're comparing what happens when the punch lands, which in this analogy would be equivalent to the hate speech producer causing people to take action against the group in question.

Taking a swing at someone is a crime, whether or not you actually connect, because of the potential for harm if it did connect.

Plus, there's other forms of harm other than the overtly physical, and those are absolutely produced, objectively, by the mere transmission and broadcasting of hate speech.

Yours isn't a rebuttal either you you two are even .

You are trying to conflate the principle of harm with the principle of offense in a very disingenuous fashion: Hate speech can be harmful.
So what if it can?. If it doesn't make any quantifiable harm, this is a pointless argument.

It isn't about offense, at all. Completely and utterly unrelated.

Hate speech is barred, in Canada, because it is objectively harmful. That doesn't mean people can sue you because you offended them. Hell, I can call someone a litany of racial epithets, and that isn't "hate speech". I find plenty of things offensive, but that doesn't mean they're hate speech, and that isn't why hate speech is banned.

[Citizen T]

I really, really do not understand the "NO REGULATION OF SPEECH AT ALL" types.

They almost never have any issue with laws against;

• Conspiracy
• Fraud
• Slander/Libel
• Owning/transmitting child porn (as distinct from creating it)
• Lying under oath
• Incitement to riot
• Threats of violence

Among probably a host of others. Those restrictions on speech, even Americans for the most part agree with (and they're all illegal in the USA). They're all forms of speech.

Hate speech is easily comparable to a bunch of other items out of that list. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that Americans must support restrictions on hate speech, but there's this stance as if there's some unimpeachable principle behind that stance, and there is not. Speech is already restricted and limited in a host of ways, particularly when that speech causes or risks causing objective harm to others. And hate speech objectively harms others.

By all means, take whichever stance you want on the subject. But don't pretend that legislating against hate speech is some high-grade infringement of the right to free speech. It is not. No more than any of those other restrictions you have no objection to.

The problem is not so much the regulation of hate speech but who determines what constitutes hate speech. This is way too subjective. Those on the left will say that anti-homosexual marriage advocates are guilty of hate speech while those on the right will say that those that disparage religion are guilty of it. The same will happen over issues such as pro-life/pro-choice, amnesty/deportation, etc.

Contrary to your statement of hate speech objectively harming others, it does no such thing. Hate speech can run into several aspects of the various regulations to speech that you listed such as inciting a riot, slander/libel, etc but by itself does no objective harm. One can say "I hate N*****" which is hate speech but causes no direct harm.

Please note that I do not espouse the sentiment of the above quote. It is used as an example only.

[Rabblexthree]

I think it is important to let people say what they want whether we agree with them or not. I had a hard time in the survey picking which type I though was most prevalent. I went with homophobia though because it is the only one I can see that actually limits the rights of the person being hated on.

[nextormento]

It isn't about offense, at all. Completely and utterly unrelated.

Hate speech is barred, in Canada

I know it's not about offense. It's about the offense principle, as I said. The principle as outlined in 'On Liberty', which is where pretty much all this Hate Speech stuff derives from: offense may cause harm, but does not necessarily cause harm.
You are arguing that hate speech is harmful; which is untrue because of the varied continually evolving nature of what constitutes hate speech; and it generally encompasses things that are offensive by proxy of current cultural standards.

When you say 'hate speech objectively causes harm' I think you are objectively wrong, for hate speech is ill defined insofar as it tags along culture. That is your argument, which I think is wrong in form, but surely not in spirit or intention. That is what the poster you responded to was trying to outline, that's what you didn't address. This particular is largely irrelevant to anyone with more than half a brain -as I suppose you possess-, but it is of importance when designing the legal framework.

Now, given that some posters seem confused as to what free speech entails (you can say what you want, but I don't have to give you a platform), it's also important to ensure that if we're talking about regulating bits of hate speech, those not well versed also understand we're not taking away their right to offend others (if that's of any value to them).

Canada, as far as wikipedia states, bans hate propaganda, and then specifies what constitutes propaganda (that which incites hatred, or genocide advocacy). Which is in line with what I would expect: you don't regulate hate speech per se, just some bits of it, particularly those that incite 3rd parties like I commented before.

To exemplify, 'I wish green people would die' is hate speech in my book, but I don't think it should be regulated (for it doesn't necessarily cause harm). However 'hey, let's go kill some greens' is genocide advocacy, which I personally would not consider hate speech (maybe they do it for funsies), but I do think it should be regulated. Finally 'greens are the scum of the earth and should be exterminated' is both hate speech, harmful and offensive and should be banned from public discourse, again in my opinion.

See that I would go further down the line than what some states have: I would be pretty comfortable with apology of terrorism being banned too (and that doesn't even cause direct harm). I'm sorry if I come out as too confrontational, really. I don't think I oppose much of what you think on this particular subject: simply wanted to clarify on what I think that poster wanted to express. I do, however, think there's plenty of lunatics that would march for a fully policed state any day of the week, and there are also those that wallow in their butmahfreespeech: one exists because of the other, but neither is any better than the other.

[Endus]

I know it's not about offense. It's about the offense principle, as I said. The principle as outlined in 'On Liberty', which is where pretty much all this Hate Speech stuff derives from: offense may cause harm, but does not necessarily cause harm.

Again, this is like saying "taking a swing at someone may cause harm, but does not necessarily cause harm". Your attempt failing to succeed does not mean it was not an attack made with intent to harm, which is what matters.

You are arguing that hate speech is harmful; which is untrue because of the varied continually evolving nature of what constitutes hate speech; and it generally encompasses things that are offensive by proxy of current cultural standards.

Hate speech is pretty clearly defined under the law. I'm not speaking of the broader cultural use of the phrase, I'm talking about the law.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...-157.html#h-92

There's Canada's definitions, by way of example. There are two aspects; advocating genocide, and inciting hatred in public communication. Being a racist in your own house is not "hate speech", under the law. Saying you hate lefties and think they're abominations is not "hate speech". Advocating their genocide, or trying to stir up hatred against them in public. That's it.

[nextormento]

Hate speech is pretty clearly defined under the law. I'm not speaking of the broader cultural use of the phrase, I'm talking about the law.

It says propaganda, not speech, which is wildly different >_<

[Hyve]

Just because you have the right to say anything, doesn't mean you should. People who generally hide behind "Freedom of Speech" know full well that what they're doing is wrong, and all they do by hiding behind those laws and regulations is make it a target for controls and exemptions.

You want Freedom of Speech to remain a valued and core part of your society, stop letting stupid people say and do stupid things regarding it. Have some self-respect as well, just because you can say it, doesn't mean anyone wants to hear it.

[tehdef]

Abused? On both sides, probably.

However, the US has laid out a pretty good system for Freedom of Speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...ypes_of_speech

"Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."

That said, Freedom of Speech protects you from the Government when used within it's guidelines. What it doesn't do is protect you from the person next to you from enacting their rights. Go to a private venue, try to exercise your freedom of speech, get put on your ass. Talk shit, get hit... basically.

[Endus]

It says propaganda, not speech, which is wildly different >_<

We're talking about Hate Speech laws.

That is Canada's hate speech law.

If you were talking about something other than the legal definitions, then it wasn't me who was off-base.

[nextormento]

We're talking about Hate Speech laws.

That is Canada's hate speech law.

If you were talking about something other than the legal definitions, then it wasn't me who was off-base.

Of course they're laws around hate speech, they deal with some aspects of hate speech. And it bans one kind of it.
Are we arguing semantics over something that doesn't state 'hate speech' anywhere on the text.

[Deleted]

Really, the only thing hate speech laws do is extend the threats of violence thing to identifiable groups, on top of individuals. You can't be charged under the hate speech law in Canada, for instance, for saying "I hate green people". Just for things like "we should round up and kill all the green people".

You'd still be an idiot in my eyes, but I don't think you shuld be censored for the first statement.

To me seems quite reasonable to live and let live as long as there are no direct harmful consequences (like in your second example).

[nextormento]

A very nice read -issued today- on abusing the 'no platform' mentality.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...e-comfortable/

Now, that is what I would call abuse: regulating from academia which opinion is acceptable and what is not. Policing universities is the ultimate abuse of free thinking. These are the new censors. These are the people that abuse the system. These are the people that will corrupt younger generations and impede them to critically analyze opinions in favor of dogma.

It doesn't matter if you agree, disagree or feel offended or comfortable with opinions: if it doesn't harm you it's not abused. Free speech can't be abused, and we certainly need more exposition of ideas on the free market of opinions. Furthermore, we need to expose this newly self-appointed thought police for what they are: the postmodernist scum that corrupts society through propaganda and false narratives.