Other Freedom of Speech and So Called “Hate Speech”

[Peacemaker .45]

Currently in the West, one of the debates has been centered around freedom of speech, and the lack thereof of it on campuses across America, but not limited to the US. A common trend being seen is the censorship to right leaning speakers. Or, if not being flat out denied to speak, they are met with fierce hostility by radical left wing authoritarians. These left winger authoritarians start to accuse the speakers of being things such as, but not limited to; homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic, sexist, racism, and so on. They further accuse them of “hate speech.”

The problem is further being escalated by legislation being passed, such as Bill C-16 in Canada. The bill looks to “add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination” to the Canadian Himan Rights Act. Therefore, “discrimation” such as misgendering someone is against the law, giving the government the ability to police and enforce Speech. Professor Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto psychology professor and clinical psychologist, came out against the law, and argued that it was a total infringement on freedom of speech. Furthermore, he states, “we can’t debate is the fact that putting restrictions on freedom of speech is something dangerous beyond comprehension.” He believes restrictions on freedom of speech are how totalitarianism starts, by restricting what people can say and think. This prompted him to be called transphobic by the radical, authoritarian Left.

In the UK, law enforcement have been arresting people for so called “hate speech.” People who say things, on Twitter, for example, that are considered “hateful” has prompted law enforcement in the UK to start monitoring it and going after such “hateful speech.”

My question to everyone on here is how do you view freedom of speech? Do you believe in hate speech. Why do you or why don’t you believe it? And do you believe in hate speech? Should this so called “hate speech” be illegal? Why or why not? Should certain right leaning speaker be allowed to speak at colleges? I know how I feel. But I look to see how others feel.

This will be a thread where we debate each other. So I ask in advance that we be respectful of one another, and have a civil, reasonable discussion on it. Thanks, everyone.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

The right to the freedom of speech has flaws. Flaws, that allow people to discriminate (or what people interpret as discrimination) against one another. However, we are underestimating such a privilege - essentially only available within developed libertarian nations - to the extent where we a prohibiting one another from speaking out about our beliefs if we consider them ‘hurtful’ to our feelings. It is only made worse by the double standards of society, where discrimination against certain groups of people is considered fictional, with the definition of what types of discrimination actually are (racism, sexism, etc.) massively warped to fit an unjust narrative. Freedom of speech is something we should embrace. No matter how hurtful or hostile one’s words may be, we still have to accept the fact that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech - no matter their race, sex, political stance, sexuality, beliefs, and all that.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

I believe Freedom of Speech is fair game as long as citizens have a general appreciation for Wil Wheaton's Law, or simply, Wheaton's Law. It is possibly the single simplest and most effective way to keep yourself in the good graces of those around you. It is a summation of social morality and behavior that encompasses the Golden Rule, Hobbes's theory of the State of Nature, and Kant's categorical imperative, with a simplicity that goes far beyond all of these in its delivery and conciseness:

Don't be a dick.​

 

[Peacemaker .45]

I believe Freedom of Speech is fair game as long as citizens have a general appreciation for Wil Wheaton's Law, or simply, Wheaton's Law. It is possibly the single simplest and most effective way to keep yourself in the good graces of those around you. It is a summation of social morality and behavior that encompasses the Golden Rule, Hobbes's theory of the State of Nature, and Kant's categorical imperative, with a simplicity that goes far beyond all of these in its delivery and conciseness:

Don't be a dick.​

I’m confused. Don’t be a dick, sure. But you have a right to be. Are you arguing that there should be legislation to stop people from “being a dick,” or in other words, (though this is an assumption) hate speech or discrimination?

 

[Caffeine Freak]

I’m confused. Don’t be a dick, sure. But you have a right to be. Are you arguing that there should be legislation to stop people from “being a dick,” or in other words, (though this is an assumption) hate speech or discrimination?

There shouldn't be a legislation. It should just be common sense. You're given the right to speak your mind, be respectful of that right.

Thas it.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

There shouldn't be a legislation. It should just be common sense. You're given the right to speak your mind, be respectful of that right.

Thas it.

Okay, gotcha. I was a little confused by what you mean. Thanks for clearing it up!

 

[Oneirois]

Freedom of speech is as integral to our freedom as eating and breathing. The left has started to stomp on those rights in places like Canada and now are even moving into America. An example in America is when a group of thugs went up on stage and took Milo Yiannopoulos' microphone (The DePaul Debacle), or when he was banned from twitter. This is happening to everyone the left seems to disagree with, including Milo, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and other right leaning people. This is not helped by the left-leaning media perpetuating this. Hate speech is just another way for the left to silence those with opposing views.

 

[TheRockInception]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -The First amendment to the US Constitution
Although my grandparents and great grandparents immigrated here legally from Lithuania and Poland, I could not say the same to my neighbors, who escaped the Nazi and Soviet Terror to the US. People come here because we have things others don't: The right to speak your mind as long as it does not endanger the lives of others, the government guarantee you may own firearms, not actively trying to kill its own citizens, among other things our country has. When we as a nation chose what is the wrong type of speech, or hate speech, we enable precedent that can be used to silence the wrong opinions on both sides of the spectrum. It almost seems like when colleges chose who gets to speak and who doesn't, it's similar to fascism and bigotry, which they claim to oppose.
I am not a right winger in any way, but Richard Spencer has the right to speak at Berkley University as much as Anita Sarkesian does. I may not agree with Anita or Spencer's opinions at all, but they have the right to share their opinions with others. As the left and the right both scream at each other, I can't help but wonder: what will my future children's future be like? My grandchildren? Will they be shot and killed because they didn't praise Comrade Shazdofnorx enough? Will they be put into a concentration camp because they were of the wrong religion? Granted, these are scenarios that are quite a bit of a stretch, but that's what the citizens of the Weimar republic thought.

tldr say what you want man, as long as it doesn't cause injury or harm to others

 

[Vudukudu]

I’ll simply be addressing the American case because I don’t consider myself familiar enough with Canadian law to make a reasoned, semi- scholarly contribution in that area.

Your “right to free speech” is only a protection from the government, not your fellow citizens, from a simple legal standpoint. There’s nothing inherently unlawful about protestors shouting down a speaker they disagree with, unless a law is in place (which would be a restriction of free speech, actually.)

The Supreme Court, in a case who’s name I cannot recall because I am both still waking up and quite hungover, has actually enshrined “counter speech” as being utterly necessary to the principle of free speech. The short version is roughly as follows: “The government cannot intervene in speech, so it is fundamentally the responsibility of citizens to shout down vile and unethical speech.”

This isn’t new. People historically have always been engaging in counter speech in America, especially the right wing who has even outlawed political parties and most frequently been on the wrong side of Constitutional law. What IS new is the issues that are considered worth making counter speech against. LGBTQ+ issues, feminism, etc. have become issues that, whether you agree or not, the statistical majority of the country supports.

(In the purely general “you”)
If you find your opinions are being shut down, it is because your opponent’s opinion has the force of representation in your audience, which might just mean your opinion is wrong. And before you cry about it, maybe you should recall that they are engaging in free speech, and believing they should be shut down by the law is an actual violation of the principle you’re pretending to protect.

And this is good! Ideas do not develop in a vacuum. Debate and counterspeech are essential to opinion formulation. It is a sorting process for democracy, wherein the political opinions of the time are made clear and where ideas no longer considered to be in keeping with the values of the community can be opposed.

It’d be cool if this could be done without violence, and for the most part it is despite what media outlets may show you. It’d also be cool if some figures, Milo Yiannopoulis or however you spell it, weren’t trying to deliberately stir up controversy to gain publicity and promote an anti-counter speech narrative.

Tl;dr - Protest speech is also free speech and is absolutely critical to the opinion-forming processes that make up the basis of democracy.

 

[Oneirois]

If you find your opinions are being shut down, it is because your opponent’s opinion has the force of representation in your audience, which might just mean your opinion is wrong. And before you cry about it, maybe you should recall that they are engaging in free speech, and believing they should be shut down by the law is an actual violation of the principle you’re pretending to protect.

I agree, but the way that the left functions these days is not just free speech. For example in the DePaul Debacle with Milo a bunch of thugs got up on stage and took the microphone and threatened Milo while the university staff forced the security staff to do nothing even though Milo and his supports had payed thousands of dollars for that security. That is not free speech, that is a crime but universities are so entrenched in far left ideology they will stand by while things like this happen to their political opponents like Milo.

 

[Oneirois]

Not to mention that just saying that if the majority supports it it's right is completely moronic. Was Adolf Hitler right when he was Democratically elected in Germany? Was slavery right when most people supported it? Of course not, our founding fathers warned us about the tyranny of the majority and simply saying you're wrong because you don't share your opinion with the largest amount of people is a completely flawed way of thinking.

 

[Vudukudu]

Jumping to Hitler-baiting didn’t take long at all.

 

[Oneirois]

Jumping to Hitler-baiting didn’t take long at all.

The point of my comment wasn't to "Hitler-bait" but to prove that the majority isn't always right. Being more specific it was James Madison who warned against the Tyranny of the Majority. My point would stand even if it didn't include Hitler.

 

[Funkybub]

Milo being banned from twitter isn't infringing his freedom of speech, twitter is a private company and is allowed to have anyone it wants on its platform.

 

[Oneirois]

Milo being banned from twitter isn't infringing his freedom of speech, twitter is a private company and is allowed to have anyone it wants on its platform.

It is an example of the left silencing its political opponents. And while not strictly violating the first amendment I don't believe it is in the right. I believe Sargon of Akkad had a great video on this.

 

[Pine]

ugh. honestly, i don't even know entirely where i stand in this debate.

let's just get this out of the way though. yeah haha reductio ad hitlerum/godwin's law whatever the fuck, but i think that's inevitable in this conversation. the majority, if not all, of the people of this thread are westerners, and if your education was anything like mine, the only relatively thorough example of historical fascism that was taught to you in school was hitler's germany. the group we're vaguing about being "silenced" in large part is often being labeled as neo-nazis, so i think hitler et al is relevant enough to this thread to be brought up when it comes down to it.

the idea of hate speech, from my understanding, is that it's speech that has an underlying ideology/message which is dangerous to a group of people, especially minorities. we know in western psychology (and probably other social sciences) that people are susceptible to accepting what perceived authority figures/experts are saying as an absolute truth esp. when that person has no background knowledge on the subject. so even if its just "their right to free speech," if someone with a clean haircut and a nice suit is given a seat at a news panel, aren't there going to be people assuming that this guest is an expert in the field? and if someone is giving a homophobic speech, then people esp those with preexisting homophobic biases are going to shift deeper into that hateful ideology and may even choose to mobilize for their cause. id say there's good evidence that there is at least a few hundred hate groups active in the u.s. alone.

so at the VERY least, i think it's completely appropriate to deny representatives of these dangerous ideologies platforms to speak at universities, private companies, etc.

the problem is all the dogwhistling thats going on from both sides. the left has lost a lot of credibility of accusing the right of dogwhistling when the left has been guilty of doing the same. there's not really an easy way to draw the line of what constitutes of hate speech, especially when people find ways to package bigotry in appealing ways. "we dont HATE gay PEOPLE, we only hate their LIFESTYLE :/ think of the children . .. .. , , :////////////////" "i would NEVER wish harm to a black person :/ i just want black people displaced from what i perceive to be my white inherited homeland by force because how else would i achieve my goals to see a revival of our lost white culture ://////////////" "i dont hate muslims :/ i just cant be fucked to spend the .5 seconds of research it would take to learn the diversity that exists within the religion just as it does with all religions think that islam is inherently more dangerous than any other religion :////////" "im not a nazi! :/ but did u know the guy who made facebook is one of the richest ppl in the world and also a jew????????? : / " and lol its really hard to call people out on their bullshit in every single situation and the most extremist within this group is FEEDING off of this ambiguity

but ofc if it starts becoming illegal to say certain things then yeah there's a huge danger if it isn't done right and maybe things that Aren't hate speech start to be punished. maybe even more likely is that then these speakers being charged become some sort of martyr/Champion of Free Speech and gain even more political traction. so idfk how far this should go.

for those of you in canada... at least in my state, i believe the law is that it counts as workplace discrimination/grounds to file for harassment if the person is being repeatedly/deliberately misgendered(/deadnamed?) when that persons gender(/chosen name) is known. is that not the same as the law in canada?

also for those of you fighting for absolute free speech, if i may make a request: please let me say fuck if i ever become a public school teacher thank u

 

[Funkybub]

It is an example of the left silencing its political opponents. And while not strictly violating the first amendment I don't believe it is in the right. I believe Sargon of Akkad had a great video on this.

A business can choose to operate anyway it wants. It's not the left silencing the right. It's a business operating in the way it wants which should be allowed.

 

[Oneirois]

A business can choose to operate anyway it wants. It's not the left silencing the right. It's a business operating in the way it wants which should be allowed.

I completely agree, a business should be allowed to operate how it wants, that's how capitalism works. But as I said I do not necessary think they are in the right by banning people that have done nothing to harm another person.

so at the VERY least, i think it's completely appropriate to deny representatives of these dangerous ideologies platforms to speak at universities, private companies, etc.

I do not think at all it's appropriate to censor any group because these groups have no real power. And even if they did silencing the speech of people we see as radical is not the way to go, discussing topics with them and figuring out what they think and why they think is it as much better solution. Allowing the government to silence anyone is the first step towards totalitarianism.

but ofc if it starts becoming illegal to say certain things then yeah there's a huge danger if it isn't done right

In my opinion there is no correct way to censor people.

If we let the government start to censor the more radical neo-nazis and such eventually they will censor everyone they disagree with.

 

[Idea]

wait is this a discussion about freedom of speech the law or freedom of speech the righ? Cause if you bring stuff like "the left" or "the right" then that leaves me confused as those have absolutely nothing to do with one's right or not

 

[Oneirois]

wait is this a discussion about freedom of speech the law or freedom of speech the righ? Cause if you bring stuff like "the left" or "the right" then that leaves me confused as those have absolutely nothing to do with one's right or not

If the left silences a political opponent that would be the taking away of that individual's right, would it not?

And the original question was what are your opinions on freedom of speech, which could be interpreted as the right or law considering the author talked about laws in the original post, but the reason the law was created was to protect the right to freedom of speech.

 

[Pine]

I do not think at all it's appropriate to censor any group because these groups have no real power.

i would argue that they do have power. right now, it's the power of influence that enables extremists. to further, they have growing membership. what happens if that memberbase decides to take action? anybody claiming to want something along the lines of a white ethnostate is unlikely to achieve such a thing in the current state of the political system IF adhered to properly. there may be some decades-of-work political-loophole that you can find (in which case that would be abusing the intentions of the laws in place) to achieve that, but otherwise the only way they're going to create a white ethnostate is by violently displacing non-whites from x territory. to give a VERY brief example/explanation (which isn't about nazi germany so like i deserve a fucking medal), in 1990s yemen, there was a youth-led revitalization of zaidism (a branch of shia islam) and over the past ~two-three decades, that transformed into what is today known as ansar allah a.k.a. the houthi rebels in yemen which took yemen's capital and effectively split their country into a violent civil war. so to say that organized groups do not/can never have any "real" power, i would argue, is false.

And even if they did silencing the speech of people we see as radical is not the way to go, discussing topics with them and figuring out what they think and why they think is it as much better solution. Allowing the government to silence anyone is the first step towards totalitarianism.

imo, i dont think having a little of both approaches would hurt. i think the left seriously suffers from their side looking completely unappealing. there needs to be more leftist 4chan-esque pepe the frog reappropriating trolls. instead there's a lot of black and white morality that will make people feel reactionary guilty if not absolute repulsion. but either way, the conversations ARE happening. but its really hard to have a Rational discussion when there's dogwhistling in the conversation. i would almost argue that certain people have been brainwashed. not to get 2 deep, but i think a lot of people just want something to cling onto, and some "revolutionary" group like white supremacists might just be able to fill that void in some peoples hearts/purpose. they aren't going to let go of that, no matter how rational your argument is. people have biases, and a lot of people do NOT want to acknowledge this about themselves. everyone, barring edgy 12 yos, thinks that theyre the good guy. i would love to sit down and have a nice conversation with people about why anti-semitism is irrational and fucking dangerous, but frankly, having that argument over and over again is emotionally draining and its so rare that you actually get through to them esp taking into consideration a little thing called c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e. (v brief summary is a v well supported theory in psychology that if your voluntary actions do not align with your moral beliefs then this creates this "tension" in your mind and you may adjust your beliefs to align with your actions to erase this tension in your mind. in other words, even if people find some part of their own beliefs disturbing, they're likely to swing themselves into a more extreme version of it.)

If we let the government start to censor the more radical neo-nazis and such eventually they will censor everyone they disagree with.

maybe, but also what happens when neo-nazis have NO resistance at all in their movement? this is where i say i cant see it as anything good but shrug emoji anyway

 

[Idea]

If the left silences a political opponent that would be the taking away of that individual's right, would it not?

No it wouldn't. For starters because you can't say freedom of speech is being oppressed because you first need to establish what is or not infringing about said freedom of speech, making such an argument circular

 

[Elizabeth Cooper]

The right to free speech is a political right, and ends where other people's political rights begin.

Like say, the right to not be harassed, or to not be made unwelcome in public spaces that you need to make use of.

Hate speech in't just mouth noises. It's an act of aggression that makes places hostile and unwelcoming to minorities. Said minorities have the right to be in those places, so hate speech laws are put in place as protection for those minorities.



Fundamentally, the right of "free speech" as it exists in the US (I speak of the US since I live there and it is the legal system I know) is very narrow, legally speaking. It simply means the government cannot punish you for speaking out or expressing yourself in ways that the government does not like. If you scream "fire" in a crowded amphitheater and cause a panic, you will get smacked by the law - and this is not a violation of the principle/law of free speech, because the "speech" you made was not political or artistic or any other category of "protected" speech - it was in fact a harmful act that caused harm.

This right exists to allow for political discourse and cultural and artistic creativity. It is not a blank check to say whatever you please. In fact there are many things it is illegal to say, such as saying "I am a policeman" when you are not an officer of the peace.



So, no, OP, the stuff n college campuses has nothing to do with "Free Speech" as a legal concept. Universities are institutions that generally have the right to use their property as they see fit within the law - including refusing to invite people they feel are hateful or unsuitable to speak.

 

[Oneirois]

The thing with neo-nazis is that there are almost none, while maps of hate groups might make it look scary, all those people at Charelstovile (maybe 500?) are probably all the neo-nazis actually willing to do anything. The idea that neo-nazis will overthrow the government is ludicrous, of course the media makes it look scary but the fact is is that the the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans do not approve of white supremacy or a Nazi Regime and would never vote for one. Now am I saying that it's impossible that a neo-nazi could be elected, no. But the odds are extremely low and I think we have better things to worry about.

If you scream "fire" in a crowded amphitheater and cause a panic, you will get smacked by the law - and this is not a violation of the principle/law of free speech, because the "speech" you made was not political or artistic or any other category of "protected" speech - it was in fact a harmful act that caused harm.

My lord, I've heard the fire in the theater argument so much I'm almost sick of it.In 1969 that law was actually overturned by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". So no, this argument is not valid.

Also since when is there a right to not be harassed? As much as I'm sure you'd love for it to exist, it doesn't.

One of my favorite quotes: "Words only have the power that you give them."

Everyone else shouldn't have to conform their speech just to not step on the toes of minorities, the idea is absolutely moronic.

And to respond to Idea, I believe I've proved that at least in the USA that even "hate-speech" as it is called is protected making it an infringement of right to silence someone.

 

[Pine]

The thing with neo-nazis is that there are almost none, while maps of hate groups might make it look scary, all those people at Charelstovile (maybe 500?) are probably all the neo-nazis actually willing to do anything.

i seriously doubt that dude. you're saying that the only neo-nazis willing to take action are people who were either geographically close to charlottesville or have the wealth/resources to travel there. 500 is way too big of a number for me. (not to mention that i think we're both just looking at the us right now, but this is also a huge problem in europe from what i can tell.) no, i don't foresee the government being overthrown, but what i DO think is worth considering is violence on the ground against minority groups. at best, these radical ideologies are going to be so shocking that it normalizes other forms of less obvious systematic discrimination. id suggest looking up the overton window. also there is...... no reason a neo-nazi should EVER earn an elected position. that goes against so much of whats good about western democracy.