End freedom of speech?

xlJ_dolphin_473

piloteer said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

Who says it is the government who dictates what constitutes hate speech? You have already admitted to another person on this site that you yourself would not use hateful speech, and obviously you do that out of a social obligation, not because of the law. That is made obvious by the fact that it is not against the law for you to use hateful speech, but yet you still do not use it. Laws are actually derivative of social orders, not documents or governments. This is how society is shaped. You already possess a sense of contractual obligation for a social order, what good does it do to keep laws in place just for you to feel OK to not be told to not do what you already don't do?

Would you post racial slurs on this site just for the sake of flexing your right to freedom of speech? Would you post racial slurs on Facebook, or YouTube, or any public medium that could get your words across to a large portion of society? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't do that. Perhaps you wouldn't because you wouldn't want people to think of you as that kind of a person, or perhaps you wouldn't do that out of fear of the social consequences that could come from that. Either way, both those things come from a sense of social responsibility that you feel you/we all have. The only thing standing in the way of you not agreeing with this proposition is that you don't want to be told not to do what you already don't, or won't, or even CAN'T do. You already abide by the social laws that are being laid out before us. 

If social attitudes about free speech are changing, what good does it do to keep laws in place just for us to feel like we're not being told to not do what we're already forcing ourselves to not do?
              

Yes, I abide by the social laws that are made by society, but I do not think that everyone does. There are some who say hateful things, and I do not think that their right to do so should be suffocated by laws. Most people would not say something hateful, but if they do, that is their decision and they have to deal with the social consequences.

piloteer

@xlJ_dolphin_473

Do we not go about being "civil beings" by adhering to social order? Isn't "civility" nothing more than not being offensive to others, or not violating the responsibility of our socially contractual obligations? Do you ACTUALLY not use hate speech because you just choose not to, or is it out of your personal moral obligations, and how much of those obligations is actually shaped by social morality?    

xlJ_dolphin_473

piloteer said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

Do we not go about being "civil beings" by adhering to social order? Isn't "civility" nothing more than not being offensive to others, or not violating the responsibility of our socially contractual obligations? Do you ACTUALLY not use hate speech because you just choose not to, or is it out of your personal moral obligations, and how much of those obligations is actually shaped by social morality?    

I edited my post to remove the bit about 'civility' as I realised myself it didn't make much sense. Like I said earlier, if someone says something hateful, they have to deal with the consequences.

piloteer

@xlJ_dolphin_473

You are correct. The person who said the hateful things has to deal with the consequences of being a social outcast, or even a pariah. Although it's not against the law to say hateful things, the consequences can make a person not welcome in the vast majority of social circles. It is not the government that has decided that what that person did was hateful, it was society at large. It is not the government who decides what constitutes hate speech, it's society. Eventually, because of social attitudes and norms, hate speech will be more than just a social taboo, it will be a violation of the law.         

xlJ_dolphin_473

piloteer said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

You are correct. The person who said the hateful things has to deal with the consequences of being a social outcast, or even a pariah. Although it's not against the law to say hateful things, the consequences can make a person not welcome in the vast majority of social circles. It is not the government that has decided that what that person did was hateful, it was society at large. It is not the government who decides what constitutes hate speech, it's society. Eventually, because of social attitudes and norms, hate speech will be more than just a social taboo, it will be a violation of the law.         

There is a difference between something people don't do and something which is illegal. Just because there is a social taboo doesn't mean it's illegal. Besides, there are many people who, despite saying hateful things, have become very popular and powerful... I'm sure you can think of a few.

piloteer

@xlJ_dolphin_473

It may actually be the powerful hateful people that is actually causing the American public to think of hate speech as a crime. It's not an unpopular idea in America. 

John_C_87

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the no cost or charge in exorcise thereof peaceful assembly; or “To shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense” the no cost or no charge of speech, or of the no cost or no charge of press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition government for a reminder of grievance, and to set right grievance.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redress

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

YeshuaBought

John_C_87 said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the no cost or charge in exorcise thereof peaceful assembly; or “To shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense” the no cost or no charge of speech, or of the no cost or no charge of press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition government for a reminder of grievance, and to set right grievance.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redress

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Fact: You don't have the moral right to say hateful things.

smoothie

Words only have as much meaning as you give them.

MayCaesar

piloteer said:

@MichaelElpers @all4actt "@MayCeasar ;

Your arguments seem to be more of an apprehension with the process of governance rather than the proposition of limiting speech. If the government is able to pass laws that are not supported by the majority of the American public, then it is our civic duty as American citizens to replace the people in government and reverse the laws that are unpopular. It is also our civic duty as American citizens to pay close attention to any legislation that is being discussed in our local, state, and federal government, and to vote accordingly as we see fit.

 MayCeasar, I can't say I agree with your argument that people within the United States government are somehow separate from the common public. They are flesh and blood like the rest of us, and they are involved in public and legal policies just as much as the rest of us (should be). I'm curious as to what exactly it is that government officials possess or are born with that truly separates them from the common public, beside the acceptance of their status by the public. If the acceptance of government officials status were taken away, what is it they have that still separates them from the rest of us?

 Although some may disagree, government officials are still held accountable when they try to push unpopular  legislation through. I think we also may have a different interpretation of what unpopular legislation is. There's probably all kinds of policies in the books now that you and I would both agree is ridiculous and counterintuitive. But what we consider bad policies doesn't actually mean it's unpopular and not supported by the majority. If there are actually any policies that any of you can think of that are not supported by the majority of the American public, it would be helpful if you could be forthcoming with said information to help make this discussion less conjecture and more objective. Stopping the protected speech status of hate speech is actually not an unpopular proposition among the American public. Some polls say that as much as half of all Americans agree that hate speech should not be protected by law.     

I see a lot of rhetoric about why limiting free speech is a bad idea, but I'm still in the dark about what benefits hate speech has to offer for our society other than "it would be a bad idea if we got rid of that freedom", or "there's already to many restrictive policies in place". What good for society does it do to allow hate speech to be protected by law? Exactly what specific bad effects would be caused by not allowing free speech to be protected by law beside just "being a violation of our rights"? Leave us also take into consideration the fact that it's not an unpopular proposition.         

Well, our system is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy, hence the support of the majority of the population is irrelevant with regards to whether a given law is passed or not. And the Constitution in addition prohibits certain laws from being passed, even if 100% of the population, including all the politicians, support them. Regardless, the ability to vote gives very little power over the government to the individual, and while you could argue that the population as a whole has a lot of aggregated power, it is crucial that the individual is ultimately powerless before the system. Hence, I really do not see the government as in any way representative of the people.

I do not think the government officials themselves are the problem. The problem is the system itself, and the incentives it creates. Even the most well-meaning member of the government still is subjected to those incentives. I have been an anarcho-capitalist ever since I realised that; it does not matter how small the government is, how libertarian and non-interventionist it is - it is still a malevolent institution twisting the people working in it. I do not see a better variation of democracy than "wallet democracy", where everybody votes with their wallets - and that is the unrestricted free market.

As for why the society needs unrestricted hate speech... It should be obvious. Aside from the negative effects of restricting it, it in itself is extremely valuable, because it keeps people on their toes and regularly challenges their most fundamental beliefs. However disagreeable hate speech is, it still requires one to think in order to properly dismiss/destroy it. Beliefs that are unchallenged wither and turn into weak dogmas, that can be easily shattered by a compelling enough narrative. Beliefs have to be tempered in fire in order to stay strong and sharp, and hate speech provides just that fire.
It also hardens people psychologically. People living in societies devoid of any aggressive speech grow to be weak, naive and innocent. They can break down under a minimal psychological pressure, because they are not used to dealing with harsh rhetoric. I was severely bullied at high school, and while I by no means endorse bullying, which is hate speech taken way too far - it is important to let people get into soft conflicts and have them deal with them. Conflict is an inherent part of life, and if you do not learn to handle it properly early on, then you will break under pressure at the most crucial moments in your life.

There are other considerations too. One of them is the fact that "hate speech" cannot be properly and objectively defined. Some of the statements that we nowadays take for granted in the past would be considered hate speech. One scientist was burned at a stake for being so offensive as to suggest that geocentrism was not a proper interpretation of the scientific observations.
Anything you can possibly define as "hate speech" today may one day turn out to be a nearly unquestionable truth, however unlikely it may seem nowadays.

I do think there are valid arguments to censor hate speech, some of which I outlined in my first comment - however, I do not see them as standing up to the counterarguments, both negative (censoring hate speech is bad) and positive (not censoring hate speech is good).

YeshuaBought

smoothie said:

Words only have as much meaning as you give them.

Hate speech is not a right.

MichaelElpers

@YeshuaRedeemed. You can state hate speech is not a right till your blue in the face, but 1. It constitutionally is a right and 2. This is exactly why free speech is a right, so people like you who think the way they feel makes them right without providing any arguments or evidence. You would squelches ideas and you think that you or some higher power should be able to control what others think or say...that my dear is facism. 

xlJ_dolphin_473

@YeshuaRedeemed
You have stated that hate speech is not a right several times, on this debate and on the debate "Is there a fine line between free speech absolutism and hate speech?" But that is a fallacy. Hate speech is a right. As @MichaelElpers stated, that is the whole reason why free speech is created. Without free speech, you would not be able to state your opinions without giving evidence or facts. Like you have done.
Here is the First Amendment of US law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Before you say that you do not live in the US so that doesn't count, most other countries have a similar thing.

So I suggest that before you type "Hate speech is not a right", pause for a moment and think 'oh yeah, actually it is." It would save you a lot of time.

piloteer

@xlJ_dolphin_473

That amendment is not without limitation. We cannot make threats towards other people, and we cannot incite a riot. Some people may argue that words can't hurt people, but obviously the founding fathers knew that when words are used for malicious purposes, they can be very harmful. Those limitations to our freedom of speech were built into the constitution for people's protection. The constitution is a "living document". That means it can be used to reflect our modern society and our political and social feelings. Since the constitution can be changed to reflect modern social logic, it can also be changed to reflect people's feelings toward hate speech, and how it is now viewed as a crime. Our words can be harmful, and our forefathers knew it!!        

xlJ_dolphin_473

piloteer said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

That amendment is not without limitation. We cannot make threats towards other people, and we cannot incite a riot. Some people may argue that words can't hurt people, but obviously the founding fathers knew that when words are used for malicious purposes, they can be very harmful. Those limitations to our freedom of speech were built into the constitution for people's protection. The constitution is a "living document". That means it can be used to reflect our modern society and our political and social feelings. Since the constitution can be changed to reflect modern social logic, it can also be changed to reflect people's feelings toward hate speech, and how it is now viewed as a crime. Our words can be harmful, and our forefathers knew it!!        

OK there are some exceptions, but hate speech is not one of them. Your argument is true, but it is not relevant to the point I was making.

YeshuaBought

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

@YeshuaRedeemed
You have stated that hate speech is not a right several times, on this debate and on the debate "Is there a fine line between free speech absolutism and hate speech?" But that is a fallacy. Hate speech is a right. As @MichaelElpers stated, that is the whole reason why free speech is created. Without free speech, you would not be able to state your opinions without giving evidence or facts. Like you have done.
Here is the First Amendment of US law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Before you say that you do not live in the US so that doesn't count, most other countries have a similar thing.

So I suggest that before you type "Hate speech is not a right", pause for a moment and think 'oh yeah, actually it is." It would save you a lot of time.

. I never said there is a fine line between hate speech, and free speech. Yoiu are a God damn ! Also, saying hate speech is not a right, is NOT a God damn fallacy!

YeshuaBought

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

@YeshuaRedeemed
You have stated that hate speech is not a right several times, on this debate and on the debate "Is there a fine line between free speech absolutism and hate speech?" But that is a fallacy. Hate speech is a right. As @MichaelElpers stated, that is the whole reason why free speech is created. Without free speech, you would not be able to state your opinions without giving evidence or facts. Like you have done.
Here is the First Amendment of US law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Before you say that you do not live in the US so that doesn't count, most other countries have a similar thing.

So I suggest that before you type "Hate speech is not a right", pause for a moment and think 'oh yeah, actually it is." It would save you a lot of time.

Face; You don't have the moral right to say hateful things. Abuse is not a right. You are now blocked.

piloteer

@xlJ_dolphin_473

Could you demonstrate why or how hate speech is not or cannot be categorized as harmful speech? It seems we agree there are some limitations to our freedom of speech, but what exactly is it about hate speech that keeps in the category of freedom of expression? Are we not in agreement that the American public can eventually decide that hate speech is a form of expression that is to harmful for us to allow?   

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Gimme some time to get back to you on your last post. You made some valid points that I think should be addressed a little more in depth, but I got multiple people making arguments against me in multiple threads, and I'm going ham with all the holiday stuff at the moment right now. And this ones kinda difficult for me because I'm trying to make arguments against what I actually believe here, so...... I'll get back to you though.

YeshuaBought

MichaelElpers said:

@YeshuaRedeemed. You can state hate speech is not a right till your blue in the face, but 1. It constitutionally is a right and 2. This is exactly why free speech is a right, so people like you who think the way they feel makes them right without providing any arguments or evidence. You would squelches ideas and you think that you or some higher power should be able to control what others think or say...that my dear is facism. 

You don't have the MORAL right to say hateful things, that is abuse, and people have the right to not be abused. Abuser, you are blocked.

MayCaesar

@piloteer ;

Understandable. I myself like to take a few days before responding to large comments, as there is always a lot to process in them.


@YeshuaRedeemed

You don't have the moral right to snap at people either, yet here you are. "Moral right" does not mean anything and is a purely subjective category.

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@piloteer ;

Understandable. I myself like to take a few days before responding to large comments, as there is always a lot to process in them.


@YeshuaRedeemed

You don't have the moral right to snap at people either, yet here you are. "Moral right" does not mean anything and is a purely subjective category.

I have the moral right to defend myself, against people who support hate spee. You don't have the right to lie about me, and are blocked for lying.

MayCaesar

@YeshuaRedeemed

How are you defending yourself by throwing accusations around? Besides, nobody was attacking you in the first place, people just objected to your arguments.

Why are you here on a debate website, if you block people in case of any disagreement? This is a debate website; know what that means? It means that people having different opinions discuss things.

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaRedeemed

How are you defending yourself by throwing accusations around? Besides, nobody was attacking you in the first place, people just objected to your arguments.

Why are you here on a debate website, if you block people in case of any disagreement? This is a debate website; know what that means? It means that people having different opinions discuss things.

I have done nothing wrong. 

xlJ_dolphin_473

@YeshuaRedeemed
Please stop making this point! I already proved it is not true. Besides, you shouldn't block someone just because they have a different opinion for you. Ignoring everyone who has a different opinion to you will not serve you well in life.

YeshuaBought

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

@YeshuaRedeemed
Please stop making this point! I already proved it is not true. Besides, you shouldn't block someone just because they have a different opinion for you. Ignoring everyone who has a different opinion to you will not serve you well in life.

I don't have to, leave me alone. You have proven nothing, and I will never change my mind. Oh my F ing God, shut your mouth, and leave me alone. Jesus Christ!

xlJ_dolphin_473

The user this comment referred to has terminated their account, so the dialogue between the me and that user will no longer make sense.

YeshuaBought

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

The user this comment referred to has terminated their account, so the dialogue between the me and that user will no longer make sense.

Leave me alone.

MayCaesar

@YeshuaBought

If you want to be left alone, then do not intentionally seek debates on the Internet. Nobody forces you to come to this website, for example, and you are free to leave any discussion at any point you want.

You are initiating all these discussions yourself, and then complaining when people respond. Sounds absurd, does it not?

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaBought

If you want to be left alone, then do not intentionally seek debates on the Internet. Nobody forces you to come to this website, for example, and you are free to leave any discussion at any point you want.

You are initiating all these discussions yourself, and then complaining when people respond. Sounds absurd, does it not?

Leave me alone! I am here to debate people who are NOT you!

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

@YeshuaBought

If you want to be left alone, then do not intentionally seek debates on the Internet. Nobody forces you to come to this website, for example, and you are free to leave any discussion at any point you want.

You are initiating all these discussions yourself, and then complaining when people respond. Sounds absurd, does it not?

I want to apologize to you. I am not in a good place. I am worried I might have thyroid cancer. Please forgive me.

John_C_87

@YeshuaBought ;

Best wishes......

Shamgurd

first off the term ''hate speech'' is just non logical. there isnt love speech there isnt hate speech it is just speech, noises that we spit out our mouth and call them words. so thats a way to look at it. If you are upset cause some one is using ''hate speech'' its literally just sounds flying out of someones mouth, the only affect that banning free speech has is, its limiting idea and creative art. almost every comedian,rapper, and a ton of movies would get canceled,banned, or removed from platforms. CTA (call to actions) has never been protected and never will be. so if there is no actual harm in it but there is actual harm with getting rid of it why would we get rid of it??

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Whether the constitution prohibits laws from being passed or not is irrelevant. There have been restrictions placed on our rights to gun ownership because the bulk of the American public agree that it should be that way. Aside from that, there is nothing in the constitution barring us from changing the constitution so we can change our laws. It is up to our society, not our founding fathers or the dried ink on an outdated document. You said it yourself that it doesn't matter how small or non-interventionist a government is, but we disagree on what truly causes our liberties to be taken from us. If our society no longer agrees with the merits of our liberties, no document will stand in the way of our liberties being taken from us. This is where I feel your argument falls short. Aside from that, you have done nothing to discredit the merits of barring hate speech. You have mentioned a little about the worthiness of protecting hate speech, but you could have expounded on that aspect more. I'm sick of playing devils advocate here, so I will outline an argument that I believe will hold up to more robust scrutiny. 

Reasons we should not limit hate speech.

1. Limiting hate speech will do nothing to actually stop hate, but it may magnify it!!

Laws that restrict hate speech cannot truly be enforced everywhere, especially in our homes. Parents can still teach their children to fear and distrust others, and their hate can still be passed on. Restrictions on freely expressing hate speech in public may be seen by hateful people as a means of the people they hate to oppress them. This may actually cause the hate to be worse, as it may rectify their mistrust for others (although only in their minds, but still a real threat to them).

2. Limiting hate speech may discourage people with anger issues from being honest about their hateful feelings, therefore they may be discouraged from being honest about their violent feelings!!

Is this really the time to discourage people with anger issues from being honest about their violent feelings? Will driving the violent culture on the fringes of our society further underground actually serve as logical option to curb hate or violence? Should we perhaps encourage a society of openness and acceptance where people can feel open to express their anger, and we can have an honest discussion about those feelings? Outlawing the speech used by the culture of hate that exists in our society is akin to ignoring the tactics of the hate culture that functions on the fringes of our society because no laws can stop their hate, but it can agitate their fears and resolve. 

3. Hate can be philosophically discredited, laws that restrict hate speech cannot!!

It can easily be demonstrated that hate is illogical and only comes from unfounded fears and ignorance about other people. It can also be shown that the ideals of hateful people are illogical and only emotionally driven, and they have no basis in fact. It can be proven to hateful people that the ends to their means are not justifiably of sustainable. But taking the time to actually engage in the conversation with hateful people is what is truly required to actually quell the hatred they are afflicted by. Laws that restrict hate speech cannot do that at all.

It is my belief that those are three very robust counter arguments to limiting hate speech because they do not rely on appealing to a constitution or legal precedents that are not static and are subject to change as society's ideals change. If it is society's belief that hate must be overcome, then it is society's duty to actually do the work that is required to truly overcome hatred. Passing laws that limit hate speech is only a means for society to hate people they believe are hateful. It actually encourages more hate.     
        

John_C_87

Number one in a state of the union.  Hate speech is already regulated in laws that are placed in a larger united state. A right to common defense has restriction not because any majority of the American public agrees as a united state that it should be that way. Gun regulation is established so that the responsibility of lethal force can be more easily weighed in civil litigation.

Number two in a state of then union. Free Speech dictates that we regulate speech in the form of press and spoken words as a basic principle in governing. Hate speech is protected under grievance, in protection the general principle is that action can be taken to ensure safety. Things such as refusal to permit general open public expression of grievance. Independence mall and the United States Court system are legal precedent in a state of the union between precedent and basic principle.

There have always been laws which regulate types of hate speech. The idea of removing legislation from restrictions of United State are to expand the ability to seek new revenues form conviction in governing. As these revenues are to absorb additional cost to expanding liberties taken.

Free Speech is a form of spoken grievance that can be proven by a person to not carry a charge or cost. The point is set around a basic constitutional right to peaceful assembly. Can all towns and city's undertake the task of independent mall as united state, no. Civil proceedings make this fact a legal precedent in creating governing.

John_C_87

Freedom of speech has an end it occurs when a cost or charge is assigned to words that have been spoken. Disturbing the peace is as basic a law as legislation can get...

all4actt

When President Trump used the word lynching it was declared by many as racist.  Although the same word had been used by 4 Democratic Senators during Clinton impeachment.  Two white Senator's and two black.

Now when I hear the word the first thing that comes to my mind are all the hangings (or lynchings if you prefer) that happened in the Western movies I watched with my grandpa when I was a kid.  I also think of the fact that it was the preferred  method of execution of people who had been sentenced to death.

My good friend on the other hand immediately went to the hanging off black people.  She comes from a different background.  She didn't watch Westerns.  She also grew up with her family history.  Her grandma told her of the time when they lived in Alabama and her brother (my friend's uncle) came running into the house saying tthe Klan was afterr him and were going to lynch him.  Her grandma said at that point her parents grabbed what they could left Alabama never to return.

Now some people called lynching a hate word and to some it is because of personal experiences, while to others it is just a word that means hanging.

There is another word like the notorious N word.  While most would agree it is a word we just don't use if you are not black.  There is a  problem with labeling the word as a hate word.  In the black community the word is used on a regular basis as a term of in alot of cases as a term of affection.

There are so many words like those words that where one person will be completely offended but another isn't.  The other person isn't not because their being insinitive or racist but because they are saying or hearing the word from a different perspective.