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). This is an actual political issue in Holland. We had our 'Hirsi Ali Ayan', who defends the right to insult, see here.
===
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.