Should Hate Speech be Given a Venue?

[dust1n]

Define hate speech?

Hate speech now means you cannot say blacks can be racists.

Hate speech now means you cannot say Islamists can be genocidal and homophobes and anti-women, and terrorists, and racists, and Islamo-fascists.

Fundamentally, defining hate speech means you can no longer define racism unless you say you are defined as a racist by your skin color (i.e. white, but a black racist and anti-semite is never a racist).

Hate speech means allowing freedom of speech. Where it is hateful to allow freedom.

It's funny watching you go, "What I'm saying is now illegal in the totalitarian state, despite the fact that nothing is happening, and it isn't illegal, and all the people who think I'm a fascist or racist, are fascist or racist."

 

[Mister Emu]

Some forms of speech (e.g. hate speech) are of little or no benefit to society and are probably harmful and/or subversive of it, including harmful to socially guaranteed freedoms and liberties.

The value of letting someone speak isn't found in the value of the speech itself, but in that you know that the free flow of ideas will not be trammeled by the government.

 

[Sunstone]

The value of letting someone speak isn't found in the value of the speech itself, but in that you know that the free flow of ideas will not be trammeled by the government.

The government is under no moral, legal, social, or other obligation to protect speech that is both harmful or dangerous to society or the nation, and without any redeeming social, political, moral, or scientific value. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

 

[Revoltingest]

So in your protest against deriding speech labelled hate speech, you labelled "far left" speech as hate speech and derided it, and terrorist-coddling, apparently...

You sir, will be a foot solider of some future dystopian state.

If he's only a foot soldier, then you needn't "sir" him.

 

[Sunstone]

I find people like Pamela Geller and Ann Coulter to be repulsive bigots, but don't agree with banning them from public venues.

I'd ban them in an instant on the grounds their speech is harmful to society and the nation if -- and it's a big if -- I could manage to ban them without opening a door to banning more legitimate speech than theirs.

 

[Sunstone]

The protesting students?

You mean the bully students who have betrayed the campus free speech movement of the 60's?

They don't believe in freedom of speech and they are fascists.

And they believe in segregation. Safe spaces is segregation, and the zones are not safe but the rally points of bullies who physically abuse others. Other students.

Where were the other students? They exist, they are intimidated or harassed, and threatened with bad grades if they don't acquiesce to false narratives. And they are being attacked for their skin color, be it "white" or Asian-American. Who are now told they no longer have freedom of speech.

These "protestors" are exactly the opposite of the 1960s free speech movement - they are instead bully fascists, and are not reacting to school administrators "lack of action", these same administrators are spun from the same cloth as they are. In fact, the same administrators are giving them orders to do this, or not get a good grade.

They are reacting to allowing any other free media, free speech, against freedom itself. And of course, to show how they deserve the good grade for being good fascists.

They are thugs, thug wanna' be's in their military training for thuggery. They are not learning, they are engaging in mock military exercises. They are turning a campus into a type of military academy.

They are the enemy of diversity.

And they are the minority, not the majority. And so they are bullies against other students who are not them but are more qualified than them to be a student academically and mentally and in maturity.

Just curious, but how come you sound like an AM radio Shock Jock on an antisemitic, or anti-Black, or anti-Liberal rant or something?

 

[Mister Emu]

The government is under no moral, legal, social, or other obligation to protect speech that is both harmful or dangerous to society or the nation, and without any redeeming social, political, or other value. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I whole-heartedly disagree. As long as the speech isn't creating an imminent threat it should be vigorously defended.

 

[dust1n]

If he's only a foot soldier, then you needn't "sir" him.

On the contrary, I'm just a civilian.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the contrary, I'm just a civilian.

Still, you needn't "sir" a grunt.
I suppose you could thank him for his service.

 

[dust1n]

Still, you needn't "sir" a grunt.
I suppose you could thank him for his service.

Even dystopia still has manners.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm surprised this is an argument.

The question is do you support civil rights or not. Without a true freedom of speech we can't reliably defend our ideas or air our grievances. No freedom of speech, no civil rights. That freedom extends to encompass all sorts of things that are distasteful.

I live in a country with hate speech laws generally like what Sunstone described. To me, "hate speech" means something akin to inciting a riot or ordering a murder; actions that are illegal in both of our countries.

Why should it be any more acceptable for someone to say "Muslims should be killed" to a group of people willing and able to carry this out against Muslims around them than it is to say "(insert name of a particular Muslim) should be killed" to a group of people willing and able to carry that act out?

 

[Revoltingest]

I live in a country with hate speech laws generally like what Sunstone described. To me, "hate speech" means something akin to inciting a riot or ordering a murder; actions that are illegal in both of our countries.

Why should it be any more acceptable for someone to say "Muslims should be killed" to a group of people willing and able to carry this out against Muslims around them than it is to say "(insert name of a particular Muslim) should be killed" to a group of people willing and able to carry that act out?

Here, we typically use the term, "hate speech", differently, more along the lines of insult.
What you describe could be called "calling for imminent lawless action".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here, we typically use the term, "hate speech", differently, more along the lines of insult.
What you describe could be called "calling for imminent lawless action".

I think discussions of "hate speech" end up with people talking past each other because they're using different definitions. That's why I spelled out how I use the term.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think discussions of "hate speech" end up with people talking past each other because they're using different definitions. That's why I spelled out how I use the term.

This is good.
So I reciprocated.

 

[Mister Emu]

To me, "hate speech" means something akin to inciting a riot or ordering a murder; actions that are illegal in both of our countries.

Indeed. When I hear "hate speech" I think of the Swedish pastor being taken to court for saying that homosexuality is an abomination, or racists getting fined for their speech. The idea that offending certain peoples, or even hating them, should be restricted.

Why should it be any more acceptable for someone to say "Muslims should be killed" to a group of people willing and able to carry this out against Muslims around them than it is to say "(insert name of a particular Muslim) should be killed" to a group of people willing and able to carry that act out?

It depends on whether it is a call to action or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed. When I hear "hate speech" I think of the Swedish pastor being taken to court for saying that homosexuality is an abomination, or racists getting fined for their speech.

You mean this guy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Åke_Green

First off, he didn't just say that say that homosexuality was an "abomination"; he said that homosexuals are a "tumour" and that Swedes risked God's wrath by permitting them to remain in Sweden:
http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/ake_green_sermon.htm

Second: he was acquitted.

The idea that offending certain peoples, or even hating them, should be restricted.

FWIW, in Canada - in another example of special treatment for the religious - statements of religious doctrine made in "good faith" are exempt from our hate speech laws.

It depends on whether it is a call to action or not.

And sometimes "calls to action" are veiled.

"Nice place you've got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. But if you pay us a reasonable fee, we'll make sure it stays safe."

 

[Mister Emu]

You mean this guy?

That's the one that was in the news.

First off, he didn't just say that say that homosexuality was an "abomination"; he said that homosexuals are a "tumour" and that Swedes risked God's wrath by permitting them to remain in Sweden:

Therefore?

Second: he was acquitted.

1) I didn't say he was convicted. I said he was taken to court.
2) It was on appeal; so yeah, he was convicted originally.

And sometimes "calls to action" are veiled.

And they are still calls to action... what was the point again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Therefore?

Therefore it's very close to - if not over - a "call to action":

"It makes God REALLY angry for there to be all these gay people all over the country, and if they stay here, God might slaughter you and your family. I'm not saying slaughter all of them or run them out of the country, but you care about what God thinks, right? (wink wink)"

Edit: he literally said that homosexuals deserve death and that God will wreak vengeance on Sweden if they're allowed to remain in the country. How is this not an incitement to violence?

1) I didn't say he was convicted. I said he was taken to court.
2) It was on appeal; so yeah, he was convicted originally.

I thought your objection was to the law. The way the case worked itself out, the final verdict did not find that he broke the law, so this is really a red herring.

And they are still calls to action... what was the point again?

See above: I would say that a threat that something horrible will happen if some state of affairs continues is a call to action to change that state of affairs.

 

[Penumbra]

I on first thought disagree with the schools part, as in public schools which are state organizations. I think if a public institution provides a speaking venue it should be open to any legal speech, and I think that is an obligation on the state's part.

A university, including a state university, invites people to speak. They're not town hall meetings. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.

While there have been countless poorly chosen school speakers throughout history, they are in theory chosen for a specific reason, due to experience or expertise in some matter. Something to educate, inform, or inspire. They don't just get Bob The Random Guy From Down The Street to speak. Nor do they pick some neo-Nazi that could speak about how much he hates people from Africa and Jewish people while technically staying on the borderline side of legal by avoiding directly inciting violence, as an extreme example. Nor are they obligated to allow anyone who wishes to speak to a large room of people to do so.

 

[Oldsoul]

Hate Speech Needs More Venue

Said the computer analyst from California .. sitting peacefully and quietly in his home at his computer ..

Explain to us your most traumatic experience with hate?

FYI
Too much dressing on your shrimp salad does not qualify ..