patrick.net

I agree that free speech should not be limited to PC, but at the same time I can understand why in europe they ban things such as holocaust denial given their history of pogroms, etc and because primarily the act of denial is not meant as a genuine debate but is used by basically political trolls with their own ambitions. Furthermore the racism against africans by euro soccer fans reflects how backwards europe is when it comes to race relations despite their self proclaimed open mindedness.

Being free to say only things that are politically correct is no freedom at all.

100% true. The first amendment isn't there to protect speech about the weather. "Improper" speech should be filtered, if at all, by culture, time, place and decorum not by government laws.

Banning hate speech is a step away from banning thoughts.

Reminds me: I need to write yet another check to the ACLU.

One of the things which always puzzled me about the proposed flag-burning bans was that they were effectively saying that only free speech which is not controversial should be protected.

And, of course, all the advocates of the anti-flag-burning Constitutional Amendment would swear up and down that they're not PC.

Exactly, most people do not actually want free speech.

They don't understand it.

They claim that they want free speech, but then when you press them on it a bit and get them uncomfortable (with examples of hate speech), they cave in.

No, they don't support hate speech, it turns out. And therefore they don't really support free speech either.

It's a tricky subject for the average person.

They are forced to make a choice:

1) Truly free speech, including hate speech, OR
2) Everyone is comfortable and not engaging in hateful speech (as defined by them personally in their own little bubble as ruler of the universe)

You can't have both your freedom and your comfort. Most people live under the illusion that there is a perfect and happy medium that works for everyone.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

anti-flag-burning Constitutional Amendment would swear up and down that they're not PC.

comes down to who wants to do the banning. It's my proper speech needs to be defended, your "filth" "anti-god" "racist" fill in the blank does not need protection and should be banned.

The ACLU does a good job of defending all sides

I have no problem with controversial statements or non-PC rhetoric as long as it's done genuinely as a means of debate/search for truth. It is however hard to be "understanding" toward those who say things just to be inflammatory/troll and who have no desire for further understanding of anything.

Hmmm...just because a college or two may have gone too far doesn't mean there isn't a valid concept here. What would you make of the following phrase:

"Let's go kill some white people."

Is that protected by the First Amendment? I would say no.

dublin hillz says

as long as it's done genuinely as a means of debate/search for truth.

that is too much of a burden- whose truth? who decides?

dublin hillz says

the act of denial is not meant as a genuine debate

i don't think anyone's subjective judgement of "genuineness" should enter into it whatsoever.

either you are free to speak unpopular ideas or you are not.

smaulgld says

dublin hillz says

as long as it's done genuinely as a means of debate/search for truth.

that is too much of a burden- whose truth? who decides?

If the one who makes the statement at the time genuinely believes that it's the truth then at that point in the interaction it should be free speech.

Remember the first amendment protects speech from STATE interference.

As an individual you can choose not to associate with, toss from your home, censor their comments on your web site if you don't like what they are saying.

Using the government as your tool to shut people up is a dual edged sword and one day will be used against you if you don't protect against it.

either you are free to speak unpopular ideas or you are not.

I agree in principle, but if the person makes statements that are deliberately meant to incite violence or have great probability that they will incite violence given past history of the region/nation then closer look is warranted up to and including outright ban.

dublin hillz says

I agree in principle, but

Once you add the "but" you don't agree in practice

Regulating speech is unwieldy and unwise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iid2MTSUwbw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLRgtj5M8

smaulgld says

dublin hillz says

I agree in principle, but

Once you add the "but" you don't agree in practice

I think it's relatively clear when someone say things that are meant to incite violence especially the one that leans towards mob mentality. At that time, appropriate measures must be taken aka harm reduction model.

dublin hillz says

I think it's relatively clear

relatively clear to whomever wants to do the censoring!
Check out the above Zappa vidoes

here it is in one go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9856_xv8gc

Patrick, you are what I call a classic liberal. I actually agree with you on a number of things despite my conservative leanings, particularly when it comes to preserving individual rights and freedoms granted in the constitution and bill Of rights. You and I née to be serving in the Capitol, not the dingbats holding office there now who have zero ability to find common ground.

Unfortunately this concept is no longer taught In public schools (at least in CA)as we would have learned it...that the rights of an individual are more important than the rights of the collective..and in particular any US resident has the right to say whatever the hell they want short of inciting a riot or harming someone. Ask any college kid...you're likely to hear that they believe "harmful" speech should be banned.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Is it hateful to express myself by taking a shit on REALTOR's face?

No, I think that's called art.

Hate Speech IS Free Speech

Damn straight!

skinnyninja says

Exactly, most people do not actually want free speech.

Very true. The left and the right want to ban certain speech. They just disagree on which thoughts and ideas to ban.

Liberals are very uncommon. A liberal believes the answer to speech used for evil isn't to silence it or sweep it under the rug, but rather to rise up against it with better speech. You don't make bad ideas go away by banning discussion of them. You make bad ideas go away by challenging them in an open discussion.

Typical "Speech Prostitution". They charge for "Love Speech", but "Hate Speech" is free.

Dan8267 says

Very true. The left and the right want to ban certain speech. They just disagree on which thoughts and ideas to ban.

Dan8267 says

You don't make bad ideas go away by banning discussion of them

In America, our new unofficial Koran is that the following characteristics in minorities confer legally superiority to the rest of us and may not even be disparaged except under threat of being fired, fined, or even jailed

Patrick, whatever may have upset you, the actual article is about college campuses, and for example the bit about being jailed seems really paranoid. America needs the ACLU and I've donated too but the ACLU isn't even alleging anything like the Koran or jail. On college campuses, the ACLU has taken a principled stand in favor of free speech, while administrations have also sought a principled balance between speech and inclusion. The ACLU may be entirely right in its position, but the argument doesn't benefit from sensational exaggeration about Koran beheadings or incarceration.

The reason the issue occurs on college campuses is because they have multiple roles. Nearly half the students are teens away from their parents for the first time, so the school has a quasi parental role. The school is also trying to attract customers (like a shopping mall), and manage employees (like a private business), and cultivate a brand image that will help graduates find jobs. If "College A" has a reputation as a civilized leafy campus where people learn about great ideas, develop a strong intellectual work ethic, and go out to become good citizens, and "College B" is a place where people burn crosses on the lawn and shout at each other all the time, College A will probably have certain advantages that most colleges want to achieve. The ACLU position is probably correct but the ACLU does not demonize the college administrations, and sensationalizing the issue does not help.

dodgerfanjohn says

Unfortunately this concept is no longer taught In public schools (at least in CA)as we would have learned it...that the rights of an individual are more important than the rights of the collective..and in particular any US resident has the right to say whatever the hell they want short of inciting a riot or harming someone. Ask any college kid...you're likely to hear that they believe "harmful" speech should be banned.

It's CA. Politicians here want to ban everything they don't approve of. And they never want to ban it for themselves, just for the rest of us.

It's the nature of big government, right? When it gets too large it becomes self serving and focuses only on expanding itself and it's own power over the citizens. That's at least my opinion on it. But I tell you, I never thought that our "liberal" state would be so often against basic rights. They protect homosexuality, but they don't do well protecting free speech, religion, guns, etc...

curious2 says

Patrick, whatever may have upset you, the actual article is about college campuses, and for example the bit about being jailed seems really paranoid. America needs the ACLU and I've donated too but the ACLU isn't even alleging anything like the Koran or jail.

try out some forbidden speech on a college campus and get back to me after that.

ok, jail time in the US is an exaggeration (so far) but there is an orthodox party line and you will be in trouble for espousing an unorthodox opinion.

when i was at u michigan ann arbor, a professor there found that in every culture on earth without exception, men strongly preferred young and beautiful women, and women strongly preferred rich and powerful men. never the other way around. he had excellent statistics proving this in various ways, and yet there were public protests that he was allowed to publish such results, and the protesters called for his resignation. can't remember if he was actually fired, but he was definitely a hot potato for the school after that.

various countries including england have already fined and jailed people for holocaust denial:

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2283

i'm pretty sure the holocaust happened, but i think it's wrong to jail anyone for saying it didn't.

Hate speech is still protected under the first amendment of the US constitution and that isn't going anywhere, but companies like friendbook can restrict your speech as much as they want to because it's their server you are writing on. What gets censored and what doesn't is purely at their discretion which fits their agenda. Maybe agenda isn't the right word, how about model? Anyways there are many reasons why you shouldn't use their online services and if you do I genuinely feel sorry for you because they don't respect your freedom in the slightest.

Like everything, this is also about money.

The reason private organizations usually cave when it comes to upholding free speech is almost always due to the financial backlash(sponsors, advertisers, potential paying members, etc)

kind of interesting that admitting that the armenian genocide happened is a crime in turkey, but denying that it happened is a crime in france (which has lots of armeniains, descendants of refugees from that genocide).

both countries are wrong to tell their own citizens what is and is not an acceptable view to hold.

i guess it comes down to money again in a way. descendants of the survivors want reparations, and turkey does not want to pay reparations, or give back land.

kind of interesting that admitting that the armenian genocide happened is a crime in turkey, but denying that it happened is a crime in france (which has lots of armeniains, descendants of refugees from that genocide).

both countries are wrong to tell their own citizens what is and is not an acceptable view to hold.

i guess it comes down to money again in a way. descendants of the survivors want reparations, and turkey does not want to pay reparations, or give back land.

Kind of goes back to that whole thing of history being written by the winners.

various countries including england have already fined and jailed people for holocaust denial:

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2283

That article refers to the story of David Irving, but it is incorrect to suggest that England fined or jailed him for Holocaust denial. Austria and Germany prohibit denying the Holocaust, and Irving went to Austria to deliver paid speeches denying the Holocaust, for which he was convicted and sentenced in Austria. IIRC he also committed perjury in connection with some unrelated border control issues. In any event, although he happens to be English, he wasn't punished by England. You can deny the Holocaust in most places around the world, but the places that were actually devastated by it react a bit like yelling fire in a crowded cinema. If you want to suggest to the Austrians and Germans that they should permit Holocaust denial, including in paid speeches raising money for fraudulent organizations, that's up to you, but they might disagree.

in every culture on earth without exception, men strongly preferred young and beautiful women,

Without the name of the professor I can't read further but I do recall from art history that male artists' ideas of female beauty have changed quite a bit over the centuries. The emaciated teenage "heroin chic" and anorexic looks of recent years differ dramatically from the curvaceous ideals of the Renaissance-Rococo eras, for example. I haven't been to Japan, but I am curious why they think women look better with their faces covered in bat feces.

both countries are wrong to tell their own citizens what is and is not an acceptable view to hold.

look at what is speech is "acceptable" because it doesn't have censor advocates
-wife beater t shirt
-the Washington REDSKINS

At some point all speech becomes offensive to someone.
Once you think its a good idea to ban the speech you don't like keep in mind people may not like what you say and will wan to ban your speech.

how about the Ban "Bossy" campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dynbzMlCcw

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

DIE! DIE! DIE! KIM JUNG UN, FUCKING DIE!

There are also many who are ardent in praise of Kim Jong Un.

Clearly the truth lies somewhere in between.

smaulgld says

Once you add the "but" you don't agree in practice

wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Although that case (schenck) might have been questionable, the concept in general that there are obvious cases where "but" applies.

Where to draw the line is no simple matter though.

ok, jail time in the US is an exaggeration (so far)

Not actually. People have been jailed for the content of their speech under the guise of
- contempt of court
- disturbing the peace
- disorderly conduct
- jury tampering (for passing out pamphlets about jury nullification)
- national security (see Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden)
- copyright infringement and DMCA (for things like making PDF files readable on Linux)
- terrorist threats (even when no threat is implied)
- other trumped up charges and Unconstitutional laws like videoing the police or farm factories that throw chicks into grinders

I would say that freedom of speech is largely an illusion in the United States. You are free to say anything that big government and big corporations approve and nothing else.

i'm pretty sure the holocaust happened, but i think it's wrong to jail anyone for saying it didn't.

Agreed. The German government thinks it can restore its reputation by outlawing all reminders of the Nazis, but this isn't the way to fix Germany's reputation. And it's not needed.

Most of the German people today weren't even alive during the Nazi reign and did not grow up with anti-Semitic and xenophobic culture. Furthermore, Germany went through the Nuremberg trials that prosecuted the war criminals and continued finding and prosecuting WWII war criminals throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, even when the war criminals were old and dying. This is what restored Germany to an honorable state.

And America needs to go through the exact same thing for its crimes, particularly those committed during the Bush and Obama administrations, but also Vietnam, Korea, and WWII. Such public trials may not be popular with a country, but they cleanse the country of the blood on its hands.

I agree Patrick. People have the right to say hateful things, and I have the right to block them. But not to limit their ability to say things.

Just like flag burning. It offends many, but it is the definition of freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

marcus says

Where to draw the line is no simple matter though.

That is why there should be no line drawn. The theater case could have been decided with a favorable outcome not by banning that type of speech but by holding the false crier liable for the damage he caused rather than banning speech.

Dan8267 says

Most of the German people today weren't even alive during the Nazi reign and did not grow up with anti-Semitic and xenophobic culture.

and of course many alive at the time had nothing to do with the Nazi party, and perhaps opposed it. The concept that an entire nation is guilty of something is designed to control.

Children of immigrants to America learn how "we had slavery in this country" "We committed atrocities against American Indians". "We had Jim Crow laws" when it was the government at that time that was involved in those things not the collective "we" which includes the child learning this assigned guilt.

The immigrant child learning this in school had nothing to do with it, his parents if they came from say Syria in 2004,had nothing to do with it, nor did his grand parents or great grandparent have anything to do with it or perhaps weren't even aware of it in their lifetimes!

Dan8267 says

I would say that freedom of speech is largely an illusion in the United States. You are free to say anything that big government and big corporations approve and nothing else.

I'll paraphrase... You are free to say anything as long as it doesn't make the owners of this country uncomfortable.

elliemae says

Just like flag burning. It offends many, but it is the definition of freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

I assure you that I am at least as offended by the Bible as anyone else is offended by flag burning, and my reasons for being offended by the Bible are far more justified.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Dan8267 says

This is what restored Germany to an honorable state

Ask the Poles and Romanians and Greeks if they think so.

I'm a Pole and I think so. My brother is a Pole and he married a German. So, yes. The Germany of today is not anything like Nazi Germany. And the typical German today is not like the typical German during WWII.

I'm basically a mutt: Italian, Irish, English, Polish, Lithuanian. And I'm hung like a black man.