Yes, Let’s Rethink Free Speech

[Dhrizzle]

So... the far lefties don't think they can win with words so they try and outlaw those who disagree with them instead?

Would you prefer it if we allowed hate-preaching Imams to recruit for Isis whilst publishing videos of people being murdered?

[Notter]

But someone incites hatred and encourages people to target and murder others because of the way they feel about PoC or Jews, or Gays or whatever, yeah then they aren't protected, simple as that.

There is a fine line between entertainment,expressing an unpopular opinion and hate speech.

We don't disagree here, i'm not sure why you're being so aggressive or saying i'm "whining".
Calling for murder of people is not protected by free speech either.

Again, you're not discussing what the conversation is about.
I don't see anyone here saying it's fine to say "kill X and Y".

But let's say, if if my opinion is the world would be a better place without religion.
and that includes muslims, jews, and christians.
Did I now incite hate?
and if so
Should i be silenced and thrown to jail?

[SenpaiDean]

develop an intellect and you will see every reason why free speech is important.

follow the fold by discarding your intellect and you will be shown free speech as your obstacle

[Dhrizzle]

Bingo. Let the extremists speak. Their arguments are easy enough to shut down, that keeps their numbers relatively small in an educated society.

If that were true we wouldn't have terrorist attacks in developed, western nations being committed by our own citizens.

Killing hate speech sounds great and all, but who defines hate speech?

Ideally speaking judges working apolitically to interpret the law in a way that best balanced personal liberty with the needs of society.

[Phlegethon]

A New York Times op-ed is right, and the ACLU is wrong

The -least- qualified person the do anything (even wipe his own ass) is your president Donald Trump. He should not have the power to do -anything- let alone tell people what they can and can not say. That would just mean you'll be in a sort of cult-regime like N-Korea, where you have to talk about your great leader constantly. (you do know that right?)

And again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
So you would give the right wing that power. You'll be at the wrong side of the paradox then.

[Livnthedream]

The -least- qualified person the do anything (even wipe his own ass) is your president Donald Trump. He should not have the power to do -anything- let alone tell people what they can and can not say. That would just mean you'll be in a sort of cult-regime like N-Korea, where you have to talk about your great leader constantly. (you do know that right?)

And again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
So you would give the right wing that power. You'll be at the wrong side of the paradox then.

Since you lack the ability to see the satire bit at the end of the link and read where this was pointed out multiple times on the front page and basic reading comprehension to realize that this is satire, I feel more than confident in stating that your Dunning-Kruger is showing and maybe you should stop while you are behind.

[Biomega]

The whole problem of free speech and hate speech isn't new, and has been widely discussed in many fields for decades. It is, in essence, another form of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance (which basically states that to have truly tolerant society, it must be intolerant of intolerance).

It's not a simple problem to solve, on many different levels. But it's important to understand that free speech has always had many exceptions in the US, which include not only inflammatory words intent on causing harm ("Fighting Words") and true threats, but also things like obscenity, national security, etc. Some of these are fairly obvious and understandable, others are not; and there is considerable debate about many cases.

Now, where does "hate speech" fall there? It's difficult to determine the line between free speech and hate speech, and what words result in harm (or can be expected to). It's a balancing act between various freedoms (of potential victims as well as potential perpetrators and/or inciters) and quite elusive when it comes to a concrete, objective definition.

Also, because it's come up, keep in mind that the First Amendment protects speech from the GOVERNMENT, not private actors. You get banned from a Christian forum for spreading Atheist thought, that's regrettable but perfectly fine - it's their private space, and you can't just say anything you want there. However, that, too, becomes a very complicated issue when government institutions are invoked by private actors to censor speech.

On a personal level, I find it fascinating that the US allows much of what is widely considered "hate speech" and would be banned in e.g. many European countries - but will instantly crack down on public use of profanity, because really, we are all bamboozled by "f**ck" and cannot for the life of us figure out what it's supposed to stand for.

[Vynny]

So if anyone is dense enough not to understand this, the article is a sarcastic parody of those who argue for the censorship of hate speech which is why it emphasizes the point that those who would currently and potentially in the future decide what is and is not hate speech would be politicians like Trump, Sessions, etc. which probably isn't who most of those in favor of this envision as the desired arbiters of what is hate speech

[Deleted]

Everything that hurts my feelings shouldn't be covered by free speech. Like when girls say no to me.

[Deleted]

This is just straight-up not true. There's emotional harm, financial harm, and so forth.

This is such a vague idea that it can be used as a weapon to shut things down. mean for god's sake, there are TRIGGER WARNINGS for some people to avoid "Emotional" harm.

[Deleted]

The 1A is silly. [...] It should be abolished.

Abolishing Free Speech is a Fascist solution.

Are you a neo-fascist?

[Raelbo]

Let's not redefine free speech. That's a slippery slope.

Park was not advocating redefining free speech. She was arguing that the ACLU needs to rethink how they are interpreting the First Amendment.

Which makes the entire response to her argument nothing more than a strawman.

[khadaryan]

You know..

"(...)the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence".

If you need the State to save the civil society..you have lost your freedom to the Government.

[Deleted]

This is such a vague idea that it can be used as a weapon to shut things down. mean for god's sake, there are TRIGGER WARNINGS for some people to avoid "Emotional" harm.

Endus the guy that cant take a joke because it hurts his feelings

[Ravenblade]

So, I have read the OP, the original article and the response. I can see her point, basically she wants to say that free speech isn't the issue but how advocate groups define it for themselves. I think the problem is not just down to radical views, it's down to radical equalism in general. It is correct that not all views are equal especially those promoting harm and reckless disregard of the human society and minorities.

However the sarcastic response was correct in the sense that what defines as such isn't just some work between bed and breakfast and should be done by anyone who's currently in the government. Ultimately constitutional courts would reject any change that would violate the constitution. So the change should not be about changing the constitution but to actually have a public discourse about the nature of some views. It should be pretty clear that some radical views if promoted and accepted on a wider scale - even if diluted in higher political circles - have a tendency to cause polarization and civil unrest. The kind of unrest which disrupts the daily lives and economies of people. Nobody right in their mind would attempt reconciling with nazis, but a lot people jump to their defense because they fear a great imbalance that would favour the various radical groups on the left side.

Which brings me to my point here, views should be criticized regardless of their spectrum. In the end protecting everyone's right to free speech is all good and fair but too much lenience towards openly destructive views can lead to a greater evil and even when you want to be a good guy and want to be progressive: You can always move forwards...in circles too!

[Deleted]

lets not. anyone who thinks free speech is bad, is insane. only loonies advocate limiting speech.

Free speech is already limited in the us - shouting fire in a theatre is the classic example.

Why not limit it in other ways?

[volescue]

Free speech is already limited in the us - shouting fire in a theatre is the classic example.

Why not limit it in other ways?

Because shouting fire in a movie theater isn't a political issue. What the writer wants is political ideologies to be able to be able to be censored, which is great and all when they are censoring ideas you are against, but horrible when they start censoring your ideas.

[OrcsRLame]

The 1A is silly. It's the reason American political climate is so toxic. It allowed the Republicans to become far right extremists. It should be abolished.

You realize without the first amendment, you would be giving control of who is allowed to say what, to the Trump administration and the Republican controlled congress. You get that right? Someone like you would literally be among the first wave of people silenced.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

You'd think an ideology that's so bigoted and flawed would be easy to refute and shut down... And yet, some people seem dead set on denying free speech on what should be an easy argument to win.

It's just another vicious cycle.

I loved free speech when I had it. Now, since they took away my free speech, I want everyone to lose their free speech. I want everyone's rights to be gone.

You lose first though, I ain't giving up first.

Because shouting fire in a movie theater isn't a political issue. What the writer wants is political ideologies to be able to be able to be censored, which is great and all when they are censoring ideas you are against, but horrible when they start censoring your ideas.

The irony is I've successfully argued that shouting fire in a crowded movie theater should be perfectly legal. If we're expected to progress as a society, everyone involved in such a situation will, without panic but with much caution, focus on evaluating and surviving the situation themselves. In the very least, they'll have guardians to guide them, if they're not mature adults.

Then, after it's clear the shout was a mistake, because this scenario would only make sense if it was a mistake, they'll apprehend and interrogate the original shouter, and punishment will be pending on a full investigation of the original shouter's credential. Which of course will cause less people to ever shout fire in a crowded movie theater, leading to lives lost to tragic underwhelming conduct, which will all be naturally addressed by the fact that someone genuinely suffering the effects of smoke or fire will be overcome by the urge to shout about it, which will make sure the truth is the most often declared thing, gradually bringing us to a society where we have little reason to mistrust each other, while we're also inspired to seize the reins of our own fate and practice for the greater good.

Ironically, we're failing as long as we keep it illegal to shout fire in a movie theater. And the leaking pipe breach has manifested as fake news and alternative facts, which are identical to shouting fire in a movie theater, but much less possible to validate and have since prolonged the pain of this issue entirely now.

[Dhrizzle]

This is such a vague idea that it can be used as a weapon to shut things down. mean for god's sake, there are TRIGGER WARNINGS for some people to avoid "Emotional" harm.

Actually trigger warnings are to help people avoid things that may trigger PTSD or some other form of mental illness, although there has been for.many years content warnings on television ("the following program contains scenes some viewers may find disturbing.")

What's always puzzles me is why some people seem to get so offended or outraged by these sorts of warnings, I figure part of having greater freedoms in what can be broadcast/published should include some sort of responsibility towards people who maynfind the content objectionable for whatever reason. Besides that, if you're not affected by the warnings then why do you care?