What do you think of free speech?

I believe in free speech, but hate speech should be a crime

 

Without free speech, free press, or right to assembly; we aren't truly free. Are the WBC and KKK horrible people? Yes. But all people deserve the right to speak freely without fear of persecution.

Sorry if I sound like a lawyer or Benjamin Franklyn or something, but I'm very passionate about free speech.

 

I also feel very strongly about free speech. While I would condemn the words of the WBC et al. all day long, I am also obliged to defend their right to that same message. Freedom is rarely lost all at once, but frequently little by little. If we put laws against hate speech into being, it then becomes the job of judges and lawyers, (and god forbid politicians) to determine what does or doesn't constitute hate speech. You bet your sweet ass people will manipulate hate speech laws in order to censor opponents with undesirable viewpoints. It will not just be the right to hate that is lost in the end, so we must be sworn to defend that too.

 

Everyone should have the right to say whatever ignorant, hateful, vulgar thing they want. It doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

And I maintain the right to curse them out in return.

 

Definitely agree with you here. Inciting hatred shouldn't be allowed - and thankfully isn't in a lot of countries. I'm not sure why the US is so fanatical about unreservedly allowing everything, no matter how vulgar.

 

From a legal point of view, I'm fine with free speech and believe that probably do not need more exceptions or more protections.

However, I want to emphasize that I think the way people view free speech morally, which is to say, in everyday discourse, is completely unacceptable. The reason I say that is that there seems to be, especially on the internet, an idea that not only are you entitled to say whatever you want, but other people have to be forced to listen to you, they have to actively provide a platform for you to spew your bile, and they can't even pile on and criticize you. (For "you" as the generic person.)

The problem here is that free speech is being considered in a way that actually infringes on free association. If you're going to be an asshole to me, I shouldn't have to listen to you. I shouldn't have to sell you anything, if I'm a business owner (and that includes I shouldn't have to sell you food even if you're starving). I shouldn't have to let you continue renting my property if I'm a landowner. I shouldn't have to keep you as help if I'm an employer. To the degree I'm compelled by law to do any of these things, my free association is being held completely hostage by your "free speech." If should never, ever be unlawful for private persons to take non-violent measures to punish harmful speakers.

Basically, I think that the way we look at free speech right now is excessively tolerant of intolerance, and people are being criticized too often for using informal social measures like ostracism and blacklisting to punish hateful speech.

On Westboro Baptist Church specifically, I think that we need to look at a way to expand what constitutes harassment. That could be a constitutional way to keep them away from the funerals without also having side-effects that hamper political speech.

 

Quite frankly, when it comes to "free speech" (homophobic drivel), I think those who use it as an excuse for hate ought to be arrested. If the same institutions said the same things about Jews or Hindus as they say about us, they would have a full prosecution on grounds of inciting hate. So I say no to "free speech" when it comes to inciting hate and lying about oppressed groups.

 

This idea is only perpetuated by entitled spoiled brats who say "It's a free country!" then cry foul when people tell them to shut up. I am pro free-speech, but I'm also pro-education and wisdom. When you have the latter two, the first one is hardly problematic.

 

I'm a very strong proponent of free speech, largely on the grounds that I simply do not trust the government to appropriately distinguish between "hate speech" and "critical speech."

 

Not living in the US I can see why you would not understand. You have to the look back to the people who first settled the 13 colonies. They had two things in common. A distrust/dislike of their government, and they didn't like being told what to do. These two traits have become very deeply engrained in our culture.

You put those together and how can you regulate hate speech. We won't tolerate the government telling us what we can and can not say, and we don't trust the government to determine what is vulgar.

 

That sounds like an excellent set of requirements to result in a government that never gets anything done... isn't that another complaint I often hear from you lot?

 

You'll never hear me complain about government not getting anything done. The only griping I have is about the inefficiency of low-level bureaucracy. The seeming sluggishness of Congress, etc. is because the system is set up so nobody has power over anybody else. Unfortunately it means more effort is put into politics, e.g. finding loopholes or persuading (usually tricking or bribing -.-) people into backing you, than actually coming up with plans that work. But that's the way it's got to be, or else we'd have Soviet Union Jr.

 

Well, our Constitution was deliberately written to make it hard for the government to do anything. For all our complaints, it's a feature, not a bug.

 

The attitude from Americans on this site makes me think that few Americans (apart from reactionaries/conservatives) have faith in your governments. Then again, given your political system, I'm not surprised.

 

There is a strong libertarian streak running through American culture that cuts right through the political divide. You'll find that most liberals and conservatives are equally ready to defend our rights. (Mostly because neither side trusts the other over what should and shouldn't be banned.) This is a good thing, considering what our country would look like if the government could actually determine what was vulgar.

Our politics can get pretty extreme and crazy, in case you haven't noticed. Also, we have a lot of whack jobs in our country, and quite a few of them are actually in positions of power within and outside of our government.

We'd see situations like what happened to the ice cream company Antonio Federici in the UK, except on a massive scale that impacts both individuals and businesses. In short, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned their ads because, and I quote, "it mocks the virgin birth of Jesus and the beliefs of Roman Catholics."

Here is the ad:


Now, maybe that will offend some Roman Catholics. However, I think banning it is silly and way over the line. In the United States it would be a hundred times worse than something like that...

Pretty much immediately starting in the most conservative states and on the local level in conservative areas, it'd be against the law to deny the existence of God. Why? Because doing so offends Christians. Hell! Tennessee just this year attempted (again!) to push a bill that bans the use as well as the discussion of homosexuality in schools. Right now, thanks to our strong free speech rights, this would be deemed unconstitutional.

However, this is what we'd face. Truly offensive and bigoted speech likely wouldn't even be targeted.

When you have people like we do in the United States near the levers of power, the thought of them controlling what we can and cannot say is absolutely terrifying.

 

Free speech is very important to a free and fair society. However, that being said, I have over time come to appreciate that hate crime legislation has its place.

Often those with opinions which are hateful and discriminatory abuse free speech laws to further their own agenda - sometimes infringing on the rights of others in the process. The Nazis took advantage of the Weimar Republic's experiment with democracy by organizing mass political meetings which blamed minorities - such as Jews and homosexuals - for their country's ills.

In Canada, hate crime legislation exists and is much more enforced and universal than in the USA. The case "R. v. Keegstra" enshrined the precedent of hate crime legislation over the Freedom of Speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I agree with the decision made in that Supreme Court case.

 

TN gov banned the word gay or use of similar terms in public schools (from what I heard on the news). They ‘said’ they did it to stop hate speech – like saying “that is so gay” … stop kids from using it in a derogatory manner. I believe they did it to get the homo-lifestyle out of the everyday speech of kids, to “shield” them from the existence of the LGBT community. If you don’t see or hear it often it gets pushed under the rug & forgotten about.

Similar to the behavior of some celebrities – getting in a lot of trouble to stay in the spotlight – even if it is negative attention. They are trying to stay relevant & in the minds of the public, because they believe (might be true) fewer people will watch their work (tv/movies) if the public hasn’t heard from them in a long time.

TN does a lot of things like that. They word their laws in a tricky way to make it seem progressive, but it is meant to set our society back decades. From what I can tell, they are slowing the wheels of technology by not teaching kids in public schools much about computer use – saying they just don’t have enough state funds to keep updated computers in the classroom. Parents teaching them that computers make you stupid & really don’t need to be used in everyday life – “only the rich need them fancy toys; we’ll stick to good-old-fashioned hard work.”

Poor people (the majority of the state) doesn’t have access to updated technology – and the media providers do a really poor job of maintaining and running new cable lines. Access is spotty in most rural areas; although, the liberals have been doing a pretty good job of forcing access periodically and fighting to lower costs for the lower classes. I live between rural & city, but nearly everyday my internet access is cut off for an hour or 2. I wonder if someone in the gov has paid the larger providers to do this. It would make consumers believe it isn’t worth the money if you can’t use what you pay for all the time. Here, every dollar counts – when the value of your dollar decreases & you get less then you pay for, most here just go without or feel they can’t do anything about it (because more money is needed to fight the issue).

Gov has a way to spin things to their advantage -- & make it seem as if they are doing you a favor. The larger providers don’t have to worry about losing customers, because they monopolize certain areas around here & don’t have much competition. Large companies & schools don’t have a lot of choice as to who they choose to do their media services.

There is a law that says if you own a newspaper you can’t own a tv-news station, & vice-versa. You can’t have a monopoly on media coverage. However, I would not be surprised to find out that owners of the newspapers & tv-stations here have formed an alliance – giving them control over what is prominently visible.

Yes, I support free speech -- even if it contains hatred. However, speech doesn't equal correct or moral. Speech doesn't need agreement by all; morals & ethics are subjective ideas. Who decides what is moral & ethical? People should have the right to their ideas & be able to voice them. What they can't do is act on anything they believe or speak about without the law backing them up. The law (the US constitution) says we can talk trash, but can't act on it.

I would be miserable in a world were I can't talk trash about extreme conservatives :tantrum:

---------- Post added 12th May 2013 at 10:09 AM ----------

1. Do you think that gay pride parades shouldn't be allowed as it takes up city blocks and people are forced to see it?

Since being gay is still controversial, & we don’t have the same rights as straight people, we need an outlet for peaceful protests. The prades are meant to say, “Hey, we exist & are not going away. We are proud of who we are and should not be shamed into the closet.” We are still fighting for equal rights under the law.

2. Is there some point in hate speech where being forced to listen can be counteracted by simply walking away from the speech?

Exactly. Peaceful protests in all forms – including walking away – is likely the best answer to hate speech. Deny them an audience & they will falter in their motivations. They need supports to continue. If we act in aggression, it will only make us look bad. It is unfortunate that some point to the worst offenders of morals & ethics within the LGBT community & use them as examples for all of us. That is what they did to justify racism.