7
0

Hate Speech IS Free Speech


 invite response                
2014 May 28, 4:41am   19,486 views  60 comments

by resistance   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

The very essence of free speech is the freedom to say politically incorrect things.

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

The Wikipedia definition of hate speech is:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Italics mine. There are two big problems with legally prohibiting all such hate speech:

First, when we come to the point where mere disparagement is forbidden, we will have already murdered free speech in the name of an Islamic-like orthodoxy.

Second, the idea that certain individuals or groups are "protected", this means those individuals or groups are given greater rights than the rest of us, and that everyone else is a second-class citizen.

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:

"race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation"

Though the First Amendment has not yet been official overturned, in reality, college campuses in particular routinely violate the first amendment via speech codes.

Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution.

from https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

Thank god for the ACLU. They have real integrity, and the balls to stand up for the rights of everyone and not just "protected" groups.

« First        Comments 21 - 60 of 60        Search these comments

21   smaulgld   2014 May 28, 6:00am  

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

22   curious2   2014 May 28, 6:07am  


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.

23   FortWayne   2014 May 28, 6:40am  

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...

24   resistance   2014 May 28, 6:44am  

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.

25   epitaph   2014 May 28, 6:55am  

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.

26   rooemoore   2014 May 28, 7:17am  

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)

27   Patrick   2014 May 28, 7:23am  

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.

28   FortWayne   2014 May 28, 7:35am  


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.

29   curious2   2014 May 28, 7:56am  


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.

30   smaulgld   2014 May 28, 9:49am  


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

31   HydroCabron   2014 May 28, 10:21am  

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.

32   marcus   2014 May 30, 3:53am  

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.

33   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 5:19am  


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.

34   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 5:24am  


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.

35   elliemae   2014 May 30, 5:27am  

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.

36   smaulgld   2014 May 30, 5:42am  

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.

37   smaulgld   2014 May 30, 5:49am  

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!

38   FortWayne   2014 May 30, 6:12am  

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.

39   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 6:31am  

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.

40   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 6:34am  

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.

41   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 6:35am  

FortWayne says

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

uncomfortable - interfering with profits or power.

42   FortWayne   2014 May 30, 7:19am  

Dan8267 says

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.

What I'm offended at is that our constitution states that we have rights, while our government simply ignores that portion when it's convenient for them. Now that's current, and offensive.

What offends me is that constitution gives us rights, while our own government instead of upholding those rights simply ignores them when it's convenient for them to subjugate us. That really irks me these days

43   Y   2014 May 30, 10:04am  

you're still typing...musta been cheap rope...

Dan8267 says

And I'm hung like a black man.

44   marcus   2014 May 31, 5:27am  

smaulgld says

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.

This is stupid on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to start.

People get trample to death, and you're saying, "hey that's cool, as long as the family can sue the guy that caused it, that is if they can prove they caused it."

45   HydroCabron   2014 May 31, 5:35am  

The story about yelling "fire" has little basis.

I believe the justice who created the anecdote as part of an opinion was repeating something he read in the papers which was later refuted.

Like the NASA space pen story, it's only peripherally anchored in reality.

smaulgld says

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.

I'm sympathetic to this sort of thinking, but this reasoning can also be used to legalize murder: just make the murderer liable for damages to the surviving relatives, and the civil courts will solve it.

46   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 5:40am  

marcus says

This is stupid on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to start.

People get trample to death, and you're saying, "hey that's cool, as long as the family can sue the guy that caused it, that is if they can prove they caused it."

It means that people will have to realize that speech has consequences-even for practical jokers.

A criminal intent on causing a panic will say whatever he wants- a law against saying it won't stop him

47   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 5:45am  

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I'm sympathetic to this sort of thinking, but this reasoning can also be used to legalize murder: just make the murderer liable for damages to the surviving relatives, and the civil courts will solve it.

that is a tricky one. Intuitively, that result would be a bad one.

The question that I have to think about more is does a free speech remedy have to be consistent with a murder remedy?

Initially, I think you can justify laws that appear to conflict in their philosophy because in the speech case you are trying to defend a right and balance it against a potential harm, whereas with murder there is no right to murder that you need to protect.

The government (from the point of few of the governed) has a far greater interest in protecting against murder than speech.

48   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 6:04am  

Iosef V HydroCabron says

The story about yelling "fire" has little basis.

It's not an anecdote; it is a metaphor. That's obviously why you don't understand the metaphor. You think it's referring to a real-life situation, when it is actually illustrating a principle.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I believe the justice who created the anecdote as part of an opinion was repeating something he read in the papers which was later refuted.

First of all, I don't believe that. But even if that were the case, it is irrelevant. He was not relying on the factuality of the anecdote, but rather was giving a hypothetical example of speech that would not be protected under the First Amendment. The hypothetical is valid. Whether such an event actually occurred does not matter.

49   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 6:14am  

smaulgld says

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.

You too? It wasn't a "case"; it is a hypothetical.

Also, I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between "banning" and "holding the person liable". Those are the same thing, are they not? I mean, what you're saying is tantamount to saying, "Murder should not be banned; rather we should punish people for committing murder." A distinction without a difference. Once you institute any kind of penalty for an action, you are saying that action is illegal.

50   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 6:20am  

Maybe you guys are a little fixated on the one example. How about some other examples of non-protected speech:

"I'm hijacking this plane."

"This is a robbery. Everyone get down on the floor."

"I planted a bomb in the White House and it's going to go off at 5:00."

51   HydroCabron   2014 May 31, 6:22am  

Homeboy says

It's not an anecdote; it is a metaphor. That's obviously why you don't understand the metaphor. You think it's referring to a real-life situation, when it is actually illustrating a principle.

Yes, it's a metaphor, but I don't much care, because the metaphors and fictions become real in many minds, and give rise to the idea that such examples are not rare. For example, Scalia cited '24' in a torture opinion. We could say he did this because he is an idiot, but many, many people believe that if a situation can be acted out or described, it's real.

If we're going to ban murderous speech which can kill people, we should at least be aware of how rare or common such speech is.

"Dark side of the moon" has made many people believe there is a perpetually dark side of the moon; "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" leads to the conviction that we are ever at risk of homicidal pranksters who do this once or twice a month.

52   HydroCabron   2014 May 31, 6:23am  

Homeboy says

Maybe you guys are a little fixated on the one example. How about some other examples of non-protected speech:

"I'm hijacking this plane."

"This is a robbery. Everyone get down on the floor."

"I planted a bomb in the White House and it's going to go off at 5:00."

Uh, it was a metaphor, not an example.

53   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 6:30am  

Iosef V HydroCabron says

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" leads to the conviction that we are ever at risk of homicidal pranksters who do this once or twice a month.

Correct that is not the case- that is not a real and present threat that requires banning speech.

54   marcus   2014 May 31, 7:06am  

smaulgld says

Correct that is not the case- that is not a real and present threat that requires banning speech.

You remind me of forrest gump.

smaulgld says

A criminal intent on causing a panic will say whatever he wants- a law against saying it won't stop him

THe yelling fire in a crowded theater example isn't meant to be about that one specific example causing panic in that specific way.

It's meant as an example proving that there are exceptions to when free speech applies. And these exceptions are the cases when any reasonable person would deem a particular expression of speech to highly risk causing violence or injuries.

People are not free to do that. We don't have complete freedom to do whatever we fucking want.

IT's not that anyone is going to make laws about what people can and can not say. But if you tell a retarded kid to kill someone, and they do, you aren't going to be able to get out of trouble by invoking your first amendment rights. IF it's a fight, and you're a bystander and you yell, "pull out your knife and stab him!" you aren't going to be able to argue your freedom of speech rights.

55   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 7:25am  

marcus says

People are not free to do that. We don't have complete freedom to do whatever we fucking want.

No rights are absolute, the courts use a balancing test that considers the individual's right vs the government's need to protect a compelling government interest.

56   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 12:58pm  

marcus says

THe yelling fire in a crowded theater example isn't meant to be about that one specific example causing panic in that specific way.

Why do I feel like we're wasting our time here? It's as though Smaulgld and Iosef are incapable of abstract thought.

57   marcus   2014 May 31, 1:38pm  

Homeboy says

Why do I feel like we're wasting our time here? It's as though Smaulgld and Iosef are incapable of abstract thought.

Iosef's comments are often meant to be art, so you never know. As for Smaulgld, I don't know what his point is, and I don't think he does either.

58   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 4:04pm  

marcus says

Iosef's comments are often meant to be art, so you never know.

If that's the intent, it's not very well done.

59   Shaman   2014 May 31, 10:46pm  

elliemae says

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.

A minor point: burning is the military's official means of old flag disposal. Flags that have served for a year are burned, not tossed in the trash. Which means that the burners who do it as a political statement are just about as ignorant as the people who get all offended by it.

« First        Comments 21 - 60 of 60        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions