The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

[icehorse]

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O'Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of "hate speech". I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

 

[columbus]

I just checked.
Stormfront.org is still offline.
I disagree with nearly everything that they stand for. But the fact that they aren't online, and apparently can't be, is something I disagree with even more.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What else would you call speech that explicitly calls for discrimination, oppression, and violence against a group?

 

[columbus]

What else would you call speech that explicitly calls for discrimination, oppression, and violence against a group?

#BLM?

Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O'Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of "hate speech". I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

The first amendment doesn't exist to protect popular speech, because popular speech doesn't need protection. It exists to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Period.

 

[Laika]

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O'Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of "hate speech". I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

I am against hate speech laws but obviously still oppose "incitement to violence" as a limit to free speech.

Just some fact Checking here...

Even though they loved censorship, linking the specific concept of "Hate Speech" with the USSR would appear to be pretty tenuous at best as it refers to a single article (Article 20) in the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (1966). There is little information on this either and the "best" source comes from the Hoover Institution.

However, the History News Network argues that Hate Speech Laws predate that, going to the early 20th century for the United States with laws against "discriminating matter against any religious sect, creed, class, denomination or nationality" in seven US states including Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois by 1927. So it would predate that by a few decades.

 

[Vee]

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O'Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of "hate speech". I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

It is tricky. Freedom of speech is fantastic but once people have it, anyone can use and abuse it. The trolls, the idiots, the bullies, the stupid... suddenly they are entitle to say whatever they want in the name of freedom of speech. It would be greate to put a filter on it and allow only intelligent people to speak their minds but we're not quite there yet.

 

[Mister Silver]

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

I agree.

 

[Nous]

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O'Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of "hate speech". I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

I didn't watch the video. What exactly are you trying to say about hate speech or "the idea of hate speech"? You say that "hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny." But your title states that it's the "idea of hate speech" that is "tyrannical". Which is it?

@Shadow Wolf is correct in that hate speech often leads to violence against the targeted group--it is often a form of "incitement," which is not protected by the First Amendment. Is there any rational reason that a society should tolerate hate speech? It doesn't seem to add anything of value to the marketplace of ideas, does it?

 

[icehorse]

I didn't watch the video. What exactly are you trying to say about hate speech or "the idea of hate speech"? You say that "hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny." But your title states that it's the "idea of hate speech" that is "tyrannical". Which is it?

@Shadow Wolf is correct in that hate speech often leads to violence against the targeted group--it is often a form of "incitement," which is not protected by the First Amendment. Is there any rational reason that a society should tolerate hate speech? It doesn't seem to add anything of value to the marketplace of ideas, does it?

It is the idea that one person or group of people can label other people's speech as "hate speech". And that the application of such a label is an attempt to censor or stifle speech.

As for rational reasons to tolerate "hateful" speech, I would say a couple of things:

1 - It's a necessary price to pay to remain free.
2 - Allowing censoring is one small step from instantiating thought crimes.

Legal whiz though you may be, you're not smart enough to decide what I am not allowed to hear or to think.

 

[Nous]

I am against hate speech laws but obviously still oppose "incitement to violence" as a limit to free speech.

Am I correct in interpreting your statement here as saying that you are against hate speech laws but not laws that criminalize incitement? (Of course, hate speech and incitement are not always easy to distinguish.)

Anyway, thanks for the historical information you provided. It is helpful to know.

 

[sun rise]

As with anything else, speech is not an absolute right. Where we draw the line is tricky but to me such things as "inciting to riot" or "advocating the murder of individuals or groups" is over the line into non-protected speech.

 

[Nous]

It is the idea that one person or group of people can label other people's speech as "hate speech".

What's wrong with this labeling:

Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group.​

Hate speech - Wikipedia

Hate speech would seem to be generally be disallowed on RF. Do you consider that "tyrannical"?

Legal whiz though you may be, you're not smart enough to decide what I am not allowed to hear or to think.

Do you perceive that something I said was an attempt to "decide what [you] are not allowed to hear or to think"? If so, quote it.

 

[Mister Silver]

I get the feeling I somehow misinterpreted the OP by way of how it was worded.

Correct me if I am wrong by providing the number associated with what I am stating.

1. The OP is stating that hate speech should be accepted.
2. The OP is stating that hate speech is wrong and does not deserve our attention.

Spoiler: Spoiler

I thought it was 2.

 

[Nous]

As for rational reasons to tolerate "hateful" speech, I would say a couple of things:

1 - It's a necessary price to pay to remain free.

How so? Why is it that we "remain free" even while haivng laws that criminalize incitement and other forms of speech?

2 - Allowing censoring is one small step from instantiating thought crimes.

Is that what has happened on RF?

 

[Nous]

I get the feeling I somehow misinterpreted the OP by way of how it was worded.

Correct me if I am wrong by providing the number associated with what I am stating.

1. The OP is stating that hate speech should be accepted.
2. The OP is stating that hate speech is wrong and does not deserve our attention.

Spoiler: Spoiler

I thought it was 2.

I'm in the boat with you.

 

[Mister Silver]

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

These four bullets are misleading, which misled me to think they were good.

The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

I recoil at hate speech because hate speech is bad.
Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress that with which it disagrees.
We should equate hate speech with the idea of hate.
Hate speech is tyranny.

 

[icehorse]

As with anything else, speech is not an absolute right. Where we draw the line is tricky but to me such things as "inciting to riot" or "advocating the murder of individuals or groups" is over the line into non-protected speech.

The boundaries of free speech can be tricky. As I understand it the general test is whether a speech is likely to cause "imminent violence". In other words saying something horrible like "we should figure out how to murder all redheads" would be considered protected speech, because it's talking about future plans, not immediate incitement.

 

[icehorse]

Am I correct in interpreting your statement here as saying that you are against hate speech laws but not laws that criminalize incitement? (Of course, hate speech and incitement are not always easy to distinguish.)

Anyway, thanks for the historical information you provided. It is helpful to know.

@Mister Silver

I'd say I'm against hate speech laws, and more importantly I'm against the label "hate speech" used by the mob, used to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree. As for incitement, if my understanding of current free speech laws in the U.S. is correct, I agree with them.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I just checked.
Stormfront.org is still offline.
I disagree with nearly everything that they stand for. But the fact that they aren't online, and apparently can't be, is something I disagree with even more.
Tom

Maybe because Stormfront is a little more than a discussion website, perhaps that Is a cesspool of potential violent miscreants who congregate to plan violent attacks, or maybe, just maybe as I take a shot in the dark, maybe they're associated with what happened in Charlottesville.