Freedom of speech

[molendijk]

Freedom of speech should stop where hate speech begins.
===
Arie.

[Twey]

What is 'hate speech'?

[molendijk]

Deliberately and continuously insulting people, like calling Jews 'rats' (the 1930's), calling Morrocans 'rif-rats' (our times), calling (all) Muslims idiots and goat fukkers (should be 'ck' instead of 'kk'; Theo van Gogh, see this (http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/cn122907.htm)). This is an actual political issue in Holland. We had our 'Hirsi Ali Ayan', who defends the right to insult, see here (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:_PX_7EWeHXwJ:www.ulrike-ackermann.de/lob_d_Dissiden_en.pdf+ayan+berlin+the+right+to+insult&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=nl).
===
Arie.

[Twey]

Does this only include names? And is that baseless insults, or insults in general? For example, say someone made up an insult about Asians, the majority of whom have black hair, referring to their hair colour. Is that still hate speech? If it's only names, then what are we supposed to call them? Is this effectively saying that it should only be acceptable to speak of people using the names they have chosen? Then, would it be forbidden to call the Japanese Japanese instead of 日本人? This is a course I've long suggested, but I'm not sure that making it a moral absolute is a good course of action...

[djr33]

Freedom of speech should stop where hate speech begins.Completely illogical. Better said, limits on speech should begin where hate speech begins.
Otherwise, it's much like "Your freedom of leaving stops at the door."

I also fundamentally disagree with you in a major way: hate speech is defined, generally, as speech against the minorities by the majorities, but it is difficult to define this and in the big picture it can be problematic. Is it hate speech to say that I hate terrorists? I don't hate those LIKE terrorists (Arabs, or Muslims)*, but just the terrorists (any, regardless of reason/background) themselves.
Could the Jews hate the Nazis? That's discrimination, right there-- just hating someone because they are of a certain "race"-- belief and social group. But I think they were completely justified. (But of course not the other way around, at least from my point of view-- there is nothing inherent to say that the Nazis WERE wrong, just individual morals, which, for most people, say that yes they were wrong, but only because of shared/coinciding individual morals.)

I think the issue is not the speech but rather humanity in general and that it should, as a whole, be nice to itself, rather than divisive. We cannot, however, define hate speech in specific cases, as nothing can be unbiased enough-- that is, perhaps one group would define hate speech against purple people to be bad, but against blue people to be just fine, because of course, that particular hate would be "justified."

Furthermore, speech itself is not something that can be stopped. People can say what they want. However, saying "fire" in a crowded location CAN be stopped, not because saying it is wrong, but because doing the act of saying it is thereby doing more-- and that is wrong-- causing panic. If you harass someone with hate speech, that is wrong, just as would be following them and screaming out completely random sounds. Hate actions should be stopped, but hate speech is so vague in meaning and action that it seems irrelevant. If it becomes more (such as inciting a riot), then it can be stopped, but the ACT, not the words.

Much like plagiarism and copyright infringement, the words are not illegal, but the way they are used. I can certainly quote anything I want, in a removed and let's say academic context, but using it directly is a problem. The only part of the speech, then, that is problematic is the pragmatics and as noted above it is just as possibly problematic to scream random sounds as it is to use particular words.

Should someone screaming obscenities at certain groups be stopped? Yes, but only because of his action and the public disturbance he is creating-- not the words he's using.


(*This doesn't presuppose any inherent connection, just that I don't want that to be misread in general.)

[Schmoopy]

You cannot have "Freedom of Speech" and then impose limits on what people can say, you either believe it should exist or not. I'm all for freedom of speech, even if people are racist or say who they hate or are derogatory. If you don't want to listen to what they say you don't have to, you talk to people who you feel you have connections with. If no one agrees with what they are saying they will soon be left alone. He'll probably also be beaten up or arrested. In the end, he'll have to learn to adapt, but he's still had freedom of speech.

[molendijk]

The fact that it is hard to define ‘hate speech’ does not mean that we cannot have a general view on how we want to deal with it. The question is whether we want (i) or (ii):
(i) the law allows us to do something about hate speech (whatever we mean by ‘hate speech’);
(ii) the law does not allow us to do something about hate speech (whatever we mean by ‘hate speech’).
If we want (i), then it’s up to the judge(s) to determine whether or not certain verbal acts can be qualified as hate speech. If we want (ii), then nothing can be legally done against it.
So, do we want to have jurisprudence allowing us, or not allowing us, to do something ‘lawful’ about:
- a Hitler publishing some kind of ‘Mein Kamp’;
- supporters of a soccer team yelling ‘Hamas, Hamas, put the Jews on the gaz’ during a soccer game (happened in Holland);
- a filmmaker called Theo van Gogh who systematically qualified Muslims as ‘goat fukkers’ (must be ‘ck’) in almost each of his TV-programs;
- a Dutch politician named Wilders qualifying the Koran as ‘as fascist as Mein Kampf’
etc?.
In this regard, another Dutch politician (Rutte) proposes to distinguish between speech acts that incite to violence against people (unlawful) and all kinds of speech acts that do not incite to violence (not unlawful). But what is the subtle difference, then, between hate speech that explicitly incites to violence, and hate speech that implicitly does so?
===
Arie.

[djr33]

No. We have laws that stop hate acts. Hate speech does not exist in a legal sense. That's what I'm suggesting-- freedom of speech, limitation of actions. If speech becomes an action that is hateful or otherwise problematic in a legal sense, it is just like anything else made illegal. Nudity is not illegal-- public nudity is. Etc.

[molendijk]

No. We have laws that stop hate acts. Hate speech does not exist in a legal sense.
That's exactly what my point is. I would say that, if someone systematically (say, each night at eleven, on the phone) threatens to kill you and your family, then there should be something in the law on the basis of which the person could be found guilty of something. By claiming that speech acts cannot be illegal, we would make this impossible.
===
Arie.

[Snookerman]

But there are laws against that, you cannot threaten people since that is a hate act.
Freedom of speech allows me to say "I hate Martians because they are rude" but the lay does not allow me to say "I will kill Sp¤nky because he's a Martian".

*Martians are used as example here of course, I don't really think they're mentioned in the law.

[molendijk]

But there are laws against that, you cannot threaten people since that is a hate act.
Freedom of speech allows me to say "I hate Martians because they are rude" but the lay does not allow me to say "I will kill Sp¤nky because he's a Martian".
But that hate act is in fact a speech act, so what you are saying is that certain speech acts are illegal.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

Hammers are not illegal. Hitting people with them is. If you use your words as a weapon, or in any other way that other things (such as hammers, spaghetti and dictionaries) would cause an action for which you would be punished, then so would those words when USED like that.
The words are not illegal, but actions using words can be.
This isn't a philosophical question, but rather a factual one-- did the usage of the words cause a crime to be committed?

[Medyman]

This isn't a philosophical question, but rather a factual one-- did the usage of the words cause a crime to be committed?

I agree with Daniel. That can be the only metric by which the limits to freedom of speech can be measure (in a free society, any way). Hate (while immoral and deplorable) is not a crime.

People have certainly committed crimes inspired by hate. For that, they must be brought to justice. But the simple fact of holding or even expressive a hateful viewpoint is not a crime.

Limiting speech, regardless of the level of offense it causes, goes against the very principle of freedom of speech.

Of course, there is context to free speech. There was a case in Chicago (or somewhere in IL) last year where a high schooler lost a free speech case. He had displayed a banner that said something about bong hits. The school argued that the student didn't have the right to display that banner because it advocated illegal behavior (drugs). The school won in the IL Supreme Court with that argument.

So, as Daniel says, the metric remains do the words cause or advocate illegal behavior. If yes, that speech should be banned or limited. If no, regardless of who has their feelings hurt, it's protected.

[djr33]

And more generally the speech cannot be banned-- only what contexts you can use them. Certainly in that Illinois case it wasn't a banning of the words, but rather at school-- I'm certain the court proceedings are transcribed and all of the problematic words are included in them-- much as you have quoted them here with no harm or threat that you will be prosecuted for those words.

[molendijk]

...Do the words cause or advocate illegal behavior. If yes, that speech should be banned or limited. If no, regardless of who has their feelings hurt, it's protected.
Guys, I don't get you. Of course, you have the principled right to use words, in the same way you have the right to use a hammer (or a dictionary, for that matter). But the question pertaining to what you (want to) do with the words is similar to the one pertaining to what you (want to) do with the hammer. If you use the hammer to injure people, you're legally wrong. Why aren't you legally wrong, then, when you use words to injure people? Honestly, I don't see the difference. Speech is free, as a principled fact, just like using a hammer. But that isn't true of every possible use of speech or of every possible use of a hammer. I think the reason we are so obsessed with having the freedom to say what we want (including insulting people) has to do with the fact that certain regimes did not allow / don't allow people to say what they want(ed) (the Church didn't allow people to deny the existence of God; totalitarian regimes didn't allow people to say 'normal' things about their government, etc.). But a father who constantly SAYS to his son that he is a child that nobody wanted is more guilty than a loving father who, by accident, BEATS his child in a moment of despair.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

Words are not illegal and you may say anything you want. If in saying it you do something else (threaten, harass, etc.) then it is wrong.

If you want to rephrase your question in this context, then ask again.

But, yes, I agree-- things that cause bad stuff should be banned.