Free Speech and Hate Speech Laws

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

This position is maintained not solely or chiefly on the ground of injustice to the person holding the obnoxious opinion, but because the forcible suppression of it would do even greater injustice to those who conscientiously reject it. For if the opinion be true, its establishment and dissemination would benefit mankind; and even if it be false, it is equally important it should be freely made known, inasmuch as it would contribute to ’the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth

Quote from John Mill Stuart

The reason for me quoting the above two paragraphs isn’t to say that it is right to advocate for murder, genocide or any physical harm on a person.

What I wish to ask the Members of Kongregate is; what is your thought/thoughts on hate crime laws, the use of censorship for those laws and how hate speech laws/speech codes can be defended in a society that values free speech.

Hate speech laws are antithetical to the premise of free speech, and there really is no way around that fact. One of the basic things the idea of free speech contests is that no amount of people can decide for the entire population what is and isn’t acceptable speech, as the only way free speech can thrive is if controversial ideas are allowed to flourish. Free speech exists to protect the opinions of the minority, not the majority, and any organization of people, regardless of what amount of people they derive authority from, is violating the concept of free speech by forcibly oppressing a minority thought. People should realize that giving the government the power to enforce hate speech laws is saying that the government should regulate what speech should and shouldn’t be allowed arbitrarily, which is in fact the opposite of free speech.

I will have to find the link, but there have been cases of Muslims in Great Britain saying that being gay is antithetical to Islam and have been looked into by police for possible Homophobia charges, while a gay couple called Islam Homophobic, and were looked into for Islamophobia charges.
To me, that is madness, for, depending on your viewpoint, one of those statements is true.

I will have to find the link, but there have been cases of Muslims in Great Britain saying that being gay is antithetical to Islam and have been looked into by police for possible Homophobia charges, while a gay couple called Islam Homophobic, and were looked into for Islamophobia charges.

I’ll leave you to find your own links, but this kind of thing does occur when overzealous and not very bright members of Her Majesty’s Constabulary have to deal with complaints of this nature. British hate speech laws are a bit of a grey area, as they involve intent to cause fear or harassment, or to incite violence. They specifically exclude from the criminal code criticism or discussion of any group, be it religious, racial, or of unusual sexual orientation.

So if gays accused Islam of homophobia (you could say the same about Judaism or Christianity – they all forbid it), while the Police may well have taken an interest, they would almost certainly be instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the matter and go and catch some real criminals.

In my opinion political correct speech, which is a recent development, is unconstitutional. People have become so sensitive about everything. Free speech has been so abridged in our country, you never know what, if anything, you can say in a conversation anymore. My answer to this is to ignore all of this PC stuff. :)

I think the only possibleexception for free speech would be when it is painfully obvious to any observer, the speech actually INTENDS to incite people to do something illegal( Like, if I started to spread banners saiyng Kill My Wife, who lives in X apartment, and has a y name ). Situation on which, the person would be just as responsable as the one who actually committed the crime…

There is a limit on free speech here. Your example is one. I think what bothers me is how common words are considered hate speech anymore. I have been called names (Karma comes to mind), but they roll off my shoulders for the most part and if I didn’t think it was appropriate, I have no qualms telling the person to shutup.

Hate speech should be allowed, hateful acts should be monitored though. I draw the line when the hateful acts begin to cause serious physical harm or psychiatric trauma to the victim. I.E. when it breaks the law in other ways.

If someone’s saying nice things about the Nazis, let them. If they’re threatening to burn down a Jewish man’s home, then you can arrest them.

Originally posted by jhco50:

There is a limit on free speech here. Your example is one. I think what bothers me is how common words are considered hate speech anymore. I have been called names (Karma comes to mind), but they roll off my shoulders for the most part and if I didn’t think it was appropriate, I have no qualms telling the person to shutup.

I like this stance. Some people need a nice hot cup of man the fuck up. Too many wussies cry and let things get to them.

There’s a difference between opinions, facts, and free speech. Facts can be conveyed through free speech, and opinions can be as well. But there’s more to say than facts or opinions. Lies and slander, threats and incitement to illegal acts (depending on the severity of the act). Making up lies is simply pretending something to be a fact. This is not an opinion. Saying the Earth is flat is not an opinion, but a lie. Should this be allowed? Of course. Let the weak sort themselves out. Plus, if you want to silence this behaviour, then “children” either should be exempt, or be put in prison a lot (they tend to be more in their fantasy worlds and talk about them). Slander, threats, and incitement to illegal acts (again, depending on the severity) should not be allowed (and in many cases, they aren’t). If you try to portray one political person as bad to make him lose an election, you definitely should be arrested for that. If you threaten to burn your neighbour’s house, say hello to the police. If you incite your friends to kill your rivals, join them in prison (in fact, I don’t think this is so different from giving orders to kill and being arrested for that). This could all be part of free speech, but shouldn’t be, except for lying. However, funny thing, there are cases where you will be arrested for lying (such as when being questioned by the police and/or under oath, I believe).

And the only reasons why we allow people to say “bad things” to each other is because it is too hard to control, too difficult to set a line, and would make people afraid of saying things that might or might not offend someone else. It’s up to us to educate people into becoming less ignorant and seeing which things are lies.

There is no such thing a free speech and never has been. It’s another in a long line of simplistic statements that mislead about the true nature of what they’re meant to represent.

In the US, speech now is “freer” than it has ever been in the past. The people on the right complaining are generally those that want to use hate speech, but see no contradiction with their attempts to ban “obscenity” or “blasphemy”. Hypocrites.

But beyond that, there are plenty of restrictions on free speech that are not at all controversial. National security secrets, inducement to criminal acts, slander, libel and defamation laws, causing public panic, advertising restrictions, broadcast restrictions, political campaign restrictions, and so on. Yet, banning hate speech is the one that they decide is too far? Their interest in this matter is pretty damn clear and it is not a respect for free speech.

Moreover, the attempts to pretend that political correctness is anything to do with free speech are the same. Not a legal issue at all, but people voluntarily choosing to phrase matters in neutral or unoffensive language. If their interest was in free speech, how could they possible object to this? Except that it makes their own choice to use offensive or charged language look worse by comparison. They don’t seem to like it when people notice what they’re really saying, they much prefer to pretend to be decent people, and it’s hard to call someone a nigger and not look like a prick unless everyone else is doing it too.

Damn, Redem…why hold back? Please, tell us how ya really feel….LOL

Seriously, (well, mostly) I just woke up and reading your post has “inspired” me to face another day of hell in America where we “have absolutely no morals any more”—at least so says TaylorFire.

NOW, really seriously this time, YOU have sooooo deeply, poignantly described the (ugly?) truth of ADULT views on life….esp. for here in America. What are ya gonna do next…tell us there isn’t a Santa or Tooth Fairy? We Americans sooooo luv to hold on tightly to our many, MANY fantasies. I guess if ya put the right spin on BULLSHIT, it can taste mighty fine.

I esp. like what ya said about PC. jhco’s moronic exposure of his “distaste” for it got me to thinking. I’d like to go into it much deeper than what YOU did. BUT, I think ya addressed it to its reasonable limit….for this thread on HATE speech.

I view the lack of PC (the REAL PC) as a MUCH MILDER form of hate speech. BUT, I want to go into a lot more detail on this. I think I’ll start a thread on it.

Slander, threats, and incitement to illegal acts (again, depending on the severity) should not be allowed (and in many cases, they aren’t). If you try to portray one political person as bad to make him lose an election, you definitely should be arrested for that.

I strongly disagree. People who can’t defend themselves shouldn’t be imprisoned, and free speech works for stupid things too. The supreme court even ruled that way. Believe it or not, even if someone is saying something you disagree with, they still have the right to say it.

If you threaten to burn your neighbour’s house, say hello to the police. If you incite your friends to kill your rivals, join them in prison (in fact, I don’t think this is so different from giving orders to kill and being arrested for that).

I agree to some point. If you have the ability and will to cause a law to be broken in another way, and it directly causes physical or psychological harm to someone, that I would say shouldn’t be allowed. But then there’s the question of if you argue that one ethnic group is more beautiful than another, and that leads to someone becoming a rape victim, are you at fault?

And the only reasons why we allow people to say “bad things” to each other is because it is too hard to control, too difficult to set a line, and would make people afraid of saying things that might or might not offend someone else. It’s up to us to educate people into becoming less ignorant and seeing which things are lies.

So we should live in a world with sunshine and rainbows where we’re all a bunch of softies? No thanks.

People who can’t defend themselves shouldn’t be imprisoned

I don’t know how this is relevant to what I said, and I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

and free speech works for stupid things too. The supreme court even ruled that way.

I hope both you and I agree that the only reason to march there was to troll those people.

This scenario was judged individually, and they argued it was not enough incitement to hatred. Maybe they were in a good mood. Maybe they were too afraid of the political protests afterwards about free speech. What I know is that you can’t indefinitely increase your incitement to hatred. It’s even in that same Wikipedia article.

Believe it or not, even if someone is saying something you disagree with, they still have the right to say it.

Read my post. No, they don’t. Not always, at least. You can say more than just your opinion. You have the right to be an online idiot (wink) by saying the Earth is flat, and all we probably would reply is that you don’t know what evidence is, but at least it doesn’t harm anyone (but yourself and your former teachers). That’s making up lies and while it’s sad there are still people so uneducated out there, we can’t exactly lock them up for that. You can also threaten, or incite hatred. That can be taken more seriously. Of course, practically, we shouldn’t be locked up for saying “Ima kill j00!”. But if it becomes more serious for a while, then it’s time to look into it. People should still feel safe.

Any way, maybe not the best examples, but you don’t have the right to say everything. And you shouldn’t have.

But then there’s the question of if you argue that one ethnic group is more beautiful than another, and that leads to someone becoming a rape victim, are you at fault?

Since each scenario is and should be judged on a case-by-case basis, this one is as well. You are not inciting hatred here. Even if you said “this ethnic group looks uglier than that ethnic group”, one cannot argue that it incites to have someone else become a rape victim.

So we should live in a world with sunshine and rainbows where we’re all a bunch of softies? No thanks.

I don’t think you read my paragraph, and this is irrelevant either way. I want a world where we don’t have the pathetic need to insult each other (knowing the other does not approve).

Originally posted by Redem:

There is no such thing a free speech and never has been. It’s another in a long line of simplistic statements that mislead about the true nature of what they’re meant to represent.

In the US, speech now is “freer” than it has ever been in the past. The people on the right complaining are generally those that want to use hate speech, but see no contradiction with their attempts to ban “obscenity” or “blasphemy”. Hypocrites.

But beyond that, there are plenty of restrictions on free speech that are not at all controversial. National security secrets, inducement to criminal acts, slander, libel and defamation laws, causing public panic, advertising restrictions, broadcast restrictions, political campaign restrictions, and so on. Yet, banning hate speech is the one that they decide is too far? Their interest in this matter is pretty damn clear and it is not a respect for free speech.

Moreover, the attempts to pretend that political correctness is anything to do with free speech are the same. Not a legal issue at all, but people voluntarily choosing to phrase matters in neutral or unoffensive language. If their interest was in free speech, how could they possible object to this? Except that it makes their own choice to use offensive or charged language look worse by comparison. They don’t seem to like it when people notice what they’re really saying, they much prefer to pretend to be decent people, and it’s hard to call someone a nigger and not look like a prick unless everyone else is doing it too.

When America was attached to England, no there was no free speech. We were not allowed to redress our problems with the King of England and guess what, America rebelled. Now we have to hear the English complain about our free speech.

Of course we have restrictions, but many of the examples given so far already have laws against them. Hate speech is an attempt to “not hurt someones feelings”. We are becoming a bunch of pansies.

I don’t know how this is relevant to what I said, and I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

Poor choice of words on my part. People who make arguments they cannot defend would be a better way of saying it.

I hope both you and I agree that the only reason to march there was to troll those people.

This scenario was judged individually, and they argued it was not enough incitement to hatred. Maybe they were in a good mood. Maybe they were too afraid of the political protests afterwards about free speech. What I know is that you can’t indefinitely increase your incitement to hatred. It’s even in that same Wikipedia article.

The point is of what they were saying, not how they were acting. If they had been singing jolly songs of murdering Jewish people, that’d make it wrong, the point is saying bad things is okay as long as it doesn’t escalate to doing bad things.

Any way, maybe not the best examples, but you don’t have the right to say everything. And you shouldn’t have.

Of course not every situation allows for the defense of free speech, but trying to limit it when there is no direct chance for psychiatric harm is (in my opinion) wrong.

Besides, would you rather someone threaten to kill your dog if it shits on their lawn one more time, or would you rather they just did it?

I don’t think you read my paragraph, and this is irrelevant either way. I want a world where we don’t have the pathetic need to insult each other (knowing the other does not approve).

So you want a world that is full of sunshine and rainbows where we’re all a bunch of softies.

When America was attached to England, no there was no free speech. We were not allowed to redress our problems with the King of England and guess what, America rebelled. Now we have to hear the English complain about our free speech.

That’s a lie. The UK has had free speech laws comparable to early US free speech laws for longer than the US has been in existence. Modern English free speech laws comparable to modern US free speech laws.

Of course we have restrictions, but many of the examples given so far already have laws against them. Hate speech is an attempt to “not hurt someones feelings”. We are becoming a bunch of pansies.

That statement makes basically no sense. You’re saying that it’s ok to have laws restricting some sorts of speech because you already have laws against them but that you can’t have new laws restricting speech because uh… you don’t have laws against them… ?

People who make arguments they cannot defend would be a better way of saying it.

Sorry, I still don’t understand the relationship between this and what I said. I stated that “slander, threats, and incitement to illegal acts” should not be allowed. That doesn’t count you saying it once, but there must be a limit. What does it matter if they can defend their arguments?

The point is of what they were saying, not how they were acting. If they had been singing jolly songs of murdering Jewish people, that’d make it wrong, the point is saying bad things is okay as long as it doesn’t escalate to doing bad things.

Yeah, but mostly I’m trying to convey is that there’s a limit to free speech and we can think of examples on both sides of the road.

Of course not every situation allows for the defense of free speech, but trying to limit it when there is no direct chance for psychiatric harm is (in my opinion) wrong.

I’m pretty sure this chance can’t be calculated, but threats about killing should be taken seriously (if reported).

Besides, would you rather someone threaten to kill your dog if it shits on their lawn one more time, or would you rather they just did it?

That’s like asking if I’d rather be hit in the face or had my knees broken. Neither. Both are illegal, but you would only focus on one of them being “less bad” than the other. I’m not so sure if this threat could be taken as too dangerous, as animals are held in a lesser regard in society. Threats to kill me or my family, however, should be taken seriously.

So you want a world that is full of sunshine and rainbows where we’re all a bunch of softies.

To you, there may only be black and white, but I’d like you to look beyond that view.

Truly free speech is a terrible thing.

Some speech needs to be restricted.

Saying that all black/muslims/gays/etc… need to be killed should not be protected by “free speech”

Yelling ‘FIRE!!’ in a crowded building should not be protected by “free speech”

We can’t have 100% free speech because stupid people will do stupid things unless told they can’t do it.

Originally posted by Redem:

When America was attached to England, no there was no free speech. We were not allowed to redress our problems with the King of England and guess what, America rebelled. Now we have to hear the English complain about our free speech.

That’s a lie. The UK has had free speech laws comparable to early US free speech laws for longer than the US has been in existence. Modern English free speech laws comparable to modern US free speech laws.

Of course we have restrictions, but many of the examples given so far already have laws against them. Hate speech is an attempt to “not hurt someones feelings”. We are becoming a bunch of pansies.

That statement makes basically no sense. You’re saying that it’s ok to have laws restricting some sorts of speech because you already have laws against them but that you can’t have new laws restricting speech because uh… you don’t have laws against them… ?

England was allowed free speech, America wasn’t. Why do you think we went to war with your country. and stomped your arses by the way.

We have laws restricting some speech, true, but this so called hate speech is just trying to control words we use. We have laws that will get you sued if you libel someone. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or you will more than likely be arrested. Common sense laws. This so called hate speech is just as I said, we don’t want to hurt someones feelings.

Actually Darkruler2005, threatening to kill the neighbors dog is not illegal. Carrying out the act would be.

England was allowed free speech, America wasn’t. Why do you think we went to war with your country. and stomped your arses by the way.

Again, simply not true.

Also, as I must repeat this often, I am not British.

We have laws restricting some speech, true, but this so called hate speech is just trying to control words we use. We have laws that will get you sued if you libel someone. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or you will more than likely be arrested. Common sense laws. This so called hate speech is just as I said, we don’t want to hurt someones feelings.

What makes hate speech the limit for your sensibilities? Slander laws are no different, they restrict the words you can use. As are the old obscenity laws, so you don’t hurt some poor old granny’s feelings.

Actually Darkruler2005, threatening to kill the neighbors dog is not illegal.

I addressed that here:

I’m not so sure if this threat could be taken as too dangerous, as animals are held in a lesser regard in society. Threats to kill me or my family, however, should be taken seriously.

I don’t think it’s illegal, or should be, and I think it’s about as “bad” as them threatening to throw one of my plates on the floor (animals are still perceived as possessions).

Sorry, I still don’t understand the relationship between this and what I said. I stated that “slander, threats, and incitement to illegal acts” should not be allowed. That doesn’t count you saying it once, but there must be a limit. What does it matter if they can defend their arguments?

If something is correct and has evidence to back it up, is it really a “lie”?
Where is this glorious limit? Does it vary person to person? If so if my limit is people committing suicide to make their voices heard, should that be allowed, even though it pseudo invites people to kill themselves?

Yeah, but mostly I’m trying to convey is that there’s a limit to free speech and we can think of examples on both sides of the road.

And at heart I disagree.

I’m pretty sure this chance can’t be calculated, but threats about killing should be taken seriously (if reported).

Let’s raise the alarm when someone’s having a shitty day, and shouts “I’m gonna shoot a bitch if this day gets any worse” too.

That’s like asking if I’d rather be hit in the face or had my knees broken. Neither. Both are illegal, but you would only focus on one of them being “less bad” than the other. I’m not so sure if this threat could be taken as too dangerous, as animals are held in a lesser regard in society. Threats to kill me or my family, however, should be taken seriously.

You didn’t answer my question. Let’s make it more OMAHGOD dramatic then. Would you rather someone gave you an ultimatum involving killing you and your family or would you rather they just killed you and your family? Yes you can report it, and the police can come to protect you, but for the sake of argument, let’s just make this an either or question.

To you, there may only be black and white, but I’d like you to look beyond that view.

Spare me the “critical thinking” bs, you’re not good at it either.

Originally posted by Redem:

England was allowed free speech, America wasn’t. Why do you think we went to war with your country. and stomped your arses by the way.

Again, simply not true.

Also, as I must repeat this often, I am not British.

We have laws restricting some speech, true, but this so called hate speech is just trying to control words we use. We have laws that will get you sued if you libel someone. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or you will more than likely be arrested. Common sense laws. This so called hate speech is just as I said, we don’t want to hurt someones feelings.

What makes hate speech the limit for your sensibilities? Slander laws are no different, they restrict the words you can use. As are the old obscenity laws, so you don’t hurt some poor old granny’s feelings.

Yes, it is true. It is the reason we fought a war with England for our independence. We were being taxed heavily and controlled with soldiers who suppressed our people. We were subjects of the King and he made that clear. Yet we were not allowed to redress our concerns to the King and we rebelled. This is history Redem.

Slander laws work differently than hate speech. You can tell someone they are a child rapist for instance. Free Speech. However if you spread that rumor and ruin the persons life, you have slandered him and will reap the repercussions. Hate Speech laws ban actual words in the hopes of changing our language. If I tell you you are an SOB, that might offend you and the use of the word alone will be used to smite you offender. That would become an abuse against our free speech.

Oh come on jhco, weren’t you paying attention during your history lessons. The revolution was primarily about lack of representation – a fairly novel idea at the time. I seem to recall that the rallying cry was “no taxation without representation”. In point of fact the American colonies were so heavily taxed that most of the time we didn’t even bother to collect it.

Hate speech laws actually work in a similar way to slander and libel laws, which are there to protect us from speech intended to damage us. If I express my view that uncontrolled immigration is detrimental to life in Britain, that is a valid subject for discussion. On the other hand, if I proclaim that all illegal immigrants should be shot on sight, and attempt to convince others to do just that, then I am intentionally seeking to bring harm to those immigrants, and would expect to have my collar felt in very short order. Surely you can see the difference here.

And none of this has much to do with political correctness, which does embrace the ludicrous idea that everyone should be able to go through life without ever being offended, deliberately or otherwise.