The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

[Epic Beard Man]

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

He articulated this very nicely and I agree. Often times people misconstrue hate speech as if it's some sort of dialectical where it is the sharing of an idea(s), I tend to think hat speech evolves into violent acts especially when tempers are at work.

 

[Mister Silver]

@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.

Does being against the label "hate speech" mean you do not view it as hate speech or does it mean you view it as hate speech yet you agree that hate speech deserves a platform?

 

[icehorse]

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.

This seems like an incomplete definition. The label "hate speech" is often applied by people who disagree with a speaker's ideas, even if those ideas don't fall under the definition given above.

For example, some of the conservative speakers who have been struggling to speak at Berkeley have been accused of "hate speech" because they disagree with Black Lives Matter. In similar situations, speakers have been accused of hate speech when they are critical of Islam.

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

I have found RF to be refreshingly open to the legitimate criticism of ideas. I would suspect that many wielders of the "hate speech" club would be shocked at the openness with which we can discuss provocative ideas on RF.

I think one of the things that you're bringing up hear leads me to say that we're probably talking about at least three categories of speech:

1 - protected speech which doesn't fall under your definition of hate speech
2 - protected speech which WOULD fall under your definition of hate speech
3 - actual illegal speech.

I would guess that RF would NOT allow types 2 and 3. This doesn't bother me, because RF is not "the commons".

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.

No, not at all. I was simply you as a handy example, sorry for the confusion.

 

[icehorse]

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

The U.S.'s current laws seem to strike a good balance. I'm simply against the erosion of our liberties.

Is that what has happened on RF?

None of this is a comment on RF, as I said in the previous post. This thread is about happenings in general society.

 

[icehorse]

Does being against the label "hate speech" mean you do not view it as hate speech or does it mean you view it as hate speech yet you agree that hate speech deserves a platform?

See post 23.

 

[Mister Silver]

See post 23.

I looked at it, but it didn't answer my question.

Could you please answer me directly?

Does being against the label "hate speech" mean you do not view it as hate speech or does it mean you view it as hate speech yet you agree that hate speech deserves a platform?

 

[columbus]

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?

#BLM has incited sniper murders, shut down political rallies, and held looting and vandalism events in more than one city.

But, as far as I know they haven't been kicked off the internet like Stormfront. Nor do their spokespersons on RF have any problems expressing themselves freely.
Don't give me this crap, because I'm not buying it. Lots of people are fine with instigating violence and hate speech as long as they agree with it.
Tom

 

[Mister Silver]

#BLM has incited sniper murders, shut down political rallies, and held looting and vandalism events in more than one city.

But, as far as I know they haven't been kicked off the internet like Stormfront. Nor do their spokespersons on RF have any problems expressing themselves freely.
Don't give me this crap, because I'm not buying it. Lots of people are fine with instigating violence and hate speech as long as they agree with it.
Tom

I was actually veritably reamed due to my logical disagreement of the BLMovement. And that was on an a majorly dominant atheist forum. They claimed that the BLM was only to counter how cops have a major case against black people. I don't disagree with that, but there is more to BLM than that, and that's why I cannot agree with the BLMovement.

 

[columbus]

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.

With #BLM there is no "perhaps" .
They definitely do.

But just like Stormfront, I want them to have their right to speak their mind. In public, on the internet.
Tom

 

[VioletVortex]

I think accusations of "hate speech" are petty and childish. The leftists have good ideas, in general more good ideas than the conservatives, however if they waste their energy trying to curb harmless self-expression, they aren't going to accomplish anything but look stupid. Many get so caught up in "hate speech" that they lose sight of its boundaries. Violent protests, like the one in Charlottesville, are not hate speech. Speech was certainly involved, but borderline terrorism better suits it as people were killed and injured.

Regardless of the stupidity of one's opinions, they have the complete right to express them through any harmless means necessary as long as they don't infringe the rights of others not to be harassed. Real actions are a different story.

Another point-hate can be a good thing sometimes. Before hating others, however, look inside your self and hate your own weaknesses, correct them, and then start throwing hatred at others for their weaknesses. Hatred can be motivational, but when it is based on race, it doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[VioletVortex]

With #BLM there is no "perhaps" .
They definitely do.

But just like Stormfront, I want them to have their right to speak their mind. In public, on the internet.
Tom

I agree, but if by "speak their mind" you mean "block highways", then no.

And, happy birthday by the way.

 

[icehorse]

I looked at it, but it didn't answer my question.

Could you please answer me directly?

Does being against the label "hate speech" mean you do not view it as hate speech or does it mean you view it as hate speech yet you agree that hate speech deserves a platform?

It's not as simple as I think you're painting it here. As I said in post 23, I can see at least 3 categories:

1 - protected speech which doesn't fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
2 - protected speech which WOULD fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
3 - actual illegal speech.

I believe that "in the commons", the maintenance of our liberties requires that we allow categories 1 and 2. Of course this also means that we can disagree with the speech of others. The problem I'm seeing is that some groups these days are trying to stifle the protected speech of people they disagree with. Disagree, fine. Stifle, no way.

 

[Mister Silver]

It's not as simple as I think you're painting it here. As I said in post 23, I can see at least 3 categories:

1 - protected speech which doesn't fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
2 - protected speech which WOULD fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
3 - actual illegal speech.

I believe that "in the commons", the maintenance of our liberties requires that we allow categories 1 and 2. Of course this also means that we can disagree with the speech of others. The problem I'm seeing is that some groups these days are trying to stifle the protected speech of people they disagree with. Disagree, fine. Stifle, no way.

You advocate for hate speech. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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 found the video to be pretty convincing.

I do not think for instance that its OK to put preachers into jail for believing and stating that homosexuals are sinners going to hell. I think their words are annoying, dangerous and misguided. I think that words are supposed to be dangerous, however. As a citizen I expect that I should be allowed to be dangerous and trusted with the power of dangerous speech. If I'm rude then I should be ostracized for it, but that is not a matter for the government. At some point you have to believe in people. Yes, we could take gasoline and use it for arson, but you should still trust us to operate motor vehicles.

Incitement to violence? I think if violence has occurred then the speech which inspired it can be prosecuted as incitement to violence given that there is some kind of influence or control by the speaker. I think it is a matter of control. Does the speaker have control over the listener or not. For example if my boss incites me to attack a competitor that is different from incitement by a coworker. The boss has more control over me. My boss should be prosecuted, but my coworker should not. If the parents teach a ten year old that its good to kill homeless people, then they have incited the child to violence; however if the ten year old reads it in a bubblegum wrapper that homeless people are worthless and deserve to die there is less control there. The bubblegum wrapper does not have control. If that child then kills a homeless person its not believable that they did it because of a bubblegum wrapper, but it is believable that their parents may have incited them to violence.

 

[icehorse]

You advocate for hate speech. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

Well given the adjacent, previous post, that's one the most shameless strawman arguments I've ever seen perpetrated... congrats ????

 

[Mister Silver]

Well given the adjacent, previous post, that's one the most shameless strawman arguments I've ever seen perpetrated... congrats ????

You are not against hate speech, there's nothing strawman about that.

 

[icehorse]

You are not against hate speech, there's nothing strawman about that.

Okay that's twice in a row. Based on your now repeated and deliberate attempts to use my words out of context, I'm done debating with you.

 

[Mister Silver]

Okay that's twice in a row. Based on your now repeated and deliberate attempts to use my words out of context, I'm done debating with you.

It doesn't take a genius to simply state, "I'm against hate speech".

You've yet to state that you are, correct?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

With #BLM there is no "perhaps" .
They definitely do.

But just like Stormfront, I want them to have their right to speak their mind. In public, on the internet.
Tom

When was the last time BLM ran someone over or killed someone and I'm not talking about the miscreants that align themselves with BLM but actual members who participate....I'll wait.

I just love it when people cannot answer they redirect to another group that isn't even remotely like Stormfront. BLM is multi-cultural unlike Stormfront.

 

[Nous]

@Mister Silver

I'd say I'm against hate speech laws

Again, why? What harm do hate speech law cause?

. . . 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.

Incitement often entails language that would meet the definition of hate speech that I quoted above. One can hardly disapprove of incitement while approving of the hate speech that is often the means to incite violence.