Is there a fine line between free speech absolutism, and hate speech?

MayCaesar

There is no line: hate speech is a subset of free speech. Free speech absolutism means that you are against any free speech infringements, for any reason. This does not mean that you want people to be free from any consequences of their speech (for example, if you yell, "Fire!", in a crowded building for no reason and someone gets hurt in the resulting hassle, then you will be held responsible for it), however you want the speech itself to not be punishable, not matter what it is.

There is no reason to restrict free speech that does not come down to authoritarian inclinations of people. If you do not like what someone is saying, then tough luck; I also do not like many things about the world, but it does not give me permission to redesign the world in any way I want. If you believe that someone's speech deals a real, objective damage, say, to your finances (for example, if you are a CEO of a major company, and someone falsely accuses you of sexual harassment), then you can take it to a court on those grounds - but the argument "This speech is hate speech, hence it is to be punished" does not hold, and it is up to you to deal with your psychological demons.

Happy_Killbot

I think there is this assumption, by those advocating for restrictions to speech on the grounds that it is hateful, that they will be the ones who get to decide who or what constitutes hate speech, which in practice is just anyone they disagree with.

That is an incredibly naive assumption. First off, something like this would be regulated by the government, meaning they get to decide. Suppose they do exactly the opposite of what those who were calling for these reforms want and make it illegal for them to say what they are saying?

Consider these phases:

"Black lives matter"
"All lives matter"

A biased agency could easily declare either of these to be hate speech.
The only thing separating it is perspective. A government in favor of police protection might declare the first illegal because it implies the cops are being unfair. On the opposite hand, a government might condemn the second because it covers and downplays police brutality.

Now consider these:

"Everyone deserves equal opportunity in education"
"We should prioritize the gifted in education"

This is more subtle, but the same principals apply. Someone might argue that the first unjustly prevents those most qualified from achieving their true potential, and the second because it unjustly privileges those from certain economic or social backgrounds.

You can not ban hate speech without a though definition of what hate speech is, and there is no way to make a determination of that which is unbiased.

======================
F**k the Qatari government.
======================

John_C_87

@MayCaesar ;
The question is rhetorical...

The video asks for a weigh in on the idea of city and state permits and their burden held on the liberties of expressing grievance publicly. The basic point can be summarized by saying filed grievance would not have both sides of any grievance take place simultaneously, meaning at the same time. When asking for a liberty in advance by seeking permission for a stage, a place of voicing grievance freely is asking not to be evaluated on the cost of what things may be said during that limited allotted time given.

...And the statement would be there is no need to restrict a factual issue of free speech. It has no cost and no self-value, in the 1st Amendment it is regulated by the addition of filed grievance in the change made to constitutional principles. Simplicity as a union of understanding and legal history as a guide to for a united state.  This means if the talk is not held without a cost by self censorship it is a public grievance.

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

There is no line: hate speech is a subset of free speech. Free speech absolutism means that you are against any free speech infringements, for any reason. This does not mean that you want people to be free from any consequences of their speech (for example, if you yell, "Fire!", in a crowded building for no reason and someone gets hurt in the resulting hassle, then you will be held responsible for it), however you want the speech itself to not be punishable, not matter what it is.

There is no reason to restrict free speech that does not come down to authoritarian inclinations of people. If you do not like what someone is saying, then tough luck; I also do not like many things about the world, but it does not give me permission to redesign the world in any way I want. If you believe that someone's speech deals a real, objective damage, say, to your finances (for example, if you are a CEO of a major company, and someone falsely accuses you of sexual harassment), then you can take it to a court on those grounds - but the argument "This speech is hate speech, hence it is to be punished" does not hold, and it is up to you to deal with your psychological demons.

Hate speech is not free speech. Westboro does not have the right to say what they are saying, when their words lead to LGBTQI+ suicides.

MayCaesar

@YeshuaRedeemed

Words do not lead to suicides; reactions to words can, however. Nobody forces you to interact with Westboro preachers, or commit suicide if you do.

You are welcome to redefine legal terms however you want, but in English Common Law there is no such thing as "hate speech", there is only "speech". You can build your own legal system if you like, and invite other like-minded individuals into it.

I am not sure why you are creating all these threads, if you are not interested in debating anything. You just keep posting the same dogmatic arguments, without any justification, and never ever change your stances based on what others say.

piloteer

There is no fine line between the two. As the concept of "hate speech" expands, so will the restrictions on our freedom of speech. Lets be honest, the concept of hate speech is left up to white middle class millennials, and their true intention is to not let people criticize that social class and their views. They aren't really concerned about hate!!!!      

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaRedeemed

Words do not lead to suicides; reactions to words can, however. Nobody forces you to interact with Westboro preachers, or commit suicide if you do.

You are welcome to redefine legal terms however you want, but in English Common Law there is no such thing as "hate speech", there is only "speech". You can build your own legal system if you like, and invite other like-minded individuals into it.

I am not sure why you are creating all these threads, if you are not interested in debating anything. You just keep posting the same dogmatic arguments, without any justification, and never ever change your stances based on what others say.

Yes they do. You don't have the right to say hateful things.

YeshuaBought

piloteer said:

There is no fine line between the two. As the concept of "hate speech" expands, so will the restrictions on our freedom of speech. Lets be honest, the concept of hate speech is left up to white middle class millennials, and their true intention is to not let people criticize that social class and their views. They aren't really concerned about hate!!!!      

Yees there is, hate speech is not a right.

xlJ_dolphin_473

I myself am a strong advocate of free speech even if that means hate speech. I believe that you should be allowed to say what you want, as long as what you say does not promote extremism or endanger another person. Hate speech is just where you say something hateful. In the UK, you can get a 6-week prison sentence for saying something racist on Twitter. I do not believe this should be the case. I personally think that hate speech should not be a crime, and that saying something hateful should be legal.

xlJ_dolphin_473

YeshuaRedeemed said:

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaRedeemed

Words do not lead to suicides; reactions to words can, however. Nobody forces you to interact with Westboro preachers, or commit suicide if you do.

You are welcome to redefine legal terms however you want, but in English Common Law there is no such thing as "hate speech", there is only "speech". You can build your own legal system if you like, and invite other like-minded individuals into it.

I am not sure why you are creating all these threads, if you are not interested in debating anything. You just keep posting the same dogmatic arguments, without any justification, and never ever change your stances based on what others say.

Yes they do. You don't have the right to say hateful things.

Legally, hate speech comes under free speech meaning you can say what you want, even if it is hateful. That depends on which country you live in, however. So in your country, hate speech may be a crime. If this is the case, I understand your argument.

xlJ_dolphin_473

YeshuaRedeemed said:

piloteer said:

There is no fine line between the two. As the concept of "hate speech" expands, so will the restrictions on our freedom of speech. Lets be honest, the concept of hate speech is left up to white middle class millennials, and their true intention is to not let people criticize that social class and their views. They aren't really concerned about hate!!!!      

Yes there is, hate speech is not a right.

@YeshuaRedeemed
The main problem with all your arguments is that you say hate speech is not a right. Actually it is. Hate speech is legally protected at the moment, except for in some countries. If you live in a country where hate speech is protected, that would make sense. Please remember though that you are debating against users who live in countries where hate speech is a protected right.