Other Freedom of Speech and So Called “Hate Speech”

[ApfelSeine]

I think the first shouldn't fall under a free speech debate; what should be debated is whether any legislation is required. In the back of their minds, most people probably know it doesn't fall under that, so I think that it is something that can largely be settled in a civil suit unless someone is killed.

As for inciting violence, that is unfortunately something that I find to be too open to interpretation.
Say, if someone said that they personally did not believe Charlottesville was a terror attack, that could be interpreted as a call for violence because they want others to think that sort of thing is ok.
If someone said they personally do not agree with the Black Lives Matter movement, that could be interpreted as a call to violence against black people.
If someone said they personally do not agree with the entirety of the #metoo campaign, that could be interpreted as a call to violence against women.
It's not any of those; it's just an opinion that can be discussed or debated. But if someone interprets it that way, then the dissenting opinion can be silenced by saying they were inciting violence.

Again, these are just my opinions.

I don't think any of those examples could, in good faith, be interpreted as a call to violence. When I said call to violence, I meant saying things that literally incite a mob or rile people up in a way that leads to things like rioting or lynching. Disagreeing with a group or even condoning violence against a group is different (though the latter is pretty gross and any private institution would be justified in taking issue with it). Essentially, promoting or condoning hateful ideas is protected in public, and perhaps one might agree or disagree with that. But a call to violent action is in a similar vein to causing a mass panic. To ensure the safety of the citizens, it's not unreasonable to classify a rallying call to hurt a group or specific person as being dangerous to public safety. But since there's a lot under the umbrella of "hate speech", it would be difficult to justify banning all hate speech, since some of that is just hateful rather than actively violent. Hate speech alone can't really be banned, but there's no reason that trying to get a mob to destroy property or hurt people should be protected.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I don't think any of those examples could, in good faith, be interpreted as a call to violence. When I said call to violence, I meant saying things that literally incite a mob or rile people up in a way that leads to things like rioting or lynching. Disagreeing with a group or even condoning violence against a group is different (though the latter is pretty gross and any private institution would be justified in taking issue with it). Essentially, promoting or condoning hateful ideas is protected in public, and perhaps one might agree or disagree with that. But a call to violent action is in a similar vein to causing a mass panic. To ensure the safety of the citizens, it's not unreasonable to classify a rallying call to hurt a group or specific person as being dangerous to public safety. But since there's a lot under the umbrella of "hate speech", it would be difficult to justify banning all hate speech, since some of that is just hateful rather than actively violent. Hate speech alone can't really be banned, but there's no reason that trying to get a mob to destroy property or hurt people should be protected.

Indeed, in good faith many could not. However, there is a very large chance that they can be interpreted maliciously as such and result in the silencing of a dissenting opinion. I understand what you mean, and if that were the only effect such a legislation likely would have, I would be on board. Unfortunately, people are sneaky, and if they manage to convince someone with enough authority that it is, in fact, a call to violence, then it would be then legally justified to silence them.
I'd be all for it if there was no potential exploitation of that rule, but since there is a very very good chance that that may happen, I personally do no agree with the current proposed form of silencing "incitation of violence."

 

[Gravitational Force]

Indeed, in good faith many could not. However, there is a very large chance that they can be interpreted maliciously as such and result in the silencing of a dissenting opinion.

You keep asserting that's happened, but have failed to provide even a shred of evidence.

 

[Meredith]

Inciting violence, legally speaking, isn't open to interpretation. It's literally defined as planning violent acts (conspiracy) or telling people to riot/kill/maim/injure/harm others. Chanting "KILL ALL THE insert xyz here" can't be taken as anything but inciting violence. It's like saying "let's go burn the white house"! You might not get in trouble right now, or you might (dependent on tone - it could be an imminent threat), but yelling constantly about burning the white house makes you a prime suspect when it burns down.

Free speech is important - but let's be clear on what free speech means. Free speech means that the government can't detain you based on your opinions. In the case of inciting violence, your right to free speech is suspended, because you are committing a crime. When you commit a crime you sacrifice your rights. Free speech does not eliminate consequences to actions.

Free speech does NOT make the media obligated to give you a platform. It does NOT mean that people can't contest your point or write you off due to your opinion. It also doesn't mean that you are allowed to say anything you want in a privately owned venue.

Nobody is obligated to listen to you.

On a further point, misgendering someone isn't hate speech in my opinion, but it CAN become harassment. If somebody called you something that you didn't like and you asked them to cease - for example, a coworker nicknames you 'Beans' because you dropped a can of beans in the lunch room, and that causes you embarrassment - you ask them to cease. If they continue for a period of time despite your clear wishes , you have every right to bring that up to your boss and file a harassment claim. Same with gender. Getting it wrong isn't hateful, but disrespecting other people is.

Restrictions of freedom of speech, in my opinion, have to be imposed by the government to mean anything.

[ Also, an obligatory 'keep this thread peaceful', please. ]

 

[Hall Kervean]

You keep asserting that's happened, but have failed to provide even a shred of evidence.

I refuse to debate any claim you make because it has never worked to anyone's mutual benefit from my own observation.

Inciting violence, legally speaking, isn't open to interpretation. It's literally defined as planning violent acts (conspiracy) or telling people to riot/kill/maim/injure/harm others. Chanting "KILL ALL THE insert xyz here" can't be taken as anything but inciting violence. It's like saying "let's go burn the white house"! You might not get in trouble right now, or you might (dependent on tone - it could be an imminent threat), but yelling constantly about burning the white house makes you a prime suspect when it burns down.

This is the only thing I want to address from it; essentially, my worry is that it is actually is up to interpretation.
iDubbbz ironically told a Garfield Twitter account that he would rape them. Clearly just an edgy joke. But taken out of context, it could be seen as a threat by iDubbbz to rape someone or requesting that his fanbase attack them.
It's the case with some fake accusations; despite them being fake, their existence in the first place against someone hurts their life greatly and in many, many ways. It would be the same with a claim that they were inciting violence.
If a white supremacist told whites to rise up and kill all blacks then yes that's inciting violence, but if someone is venting and says they wish someone would die, they're not inciting violence; they're just venting. But both say they want to kill someone.

 

[Gravitational Force]

iDubbbz ironically told a Garfield Twitter account that he would rape them. Clearly just an edgy joke.

There's already a term for that kind of lie.
You're claiming the person who threatened to rape someone was 'just joking' and are trying to cast him as a victim. Despite him threatening to rape someone. So actually all you've done is weaken your claim by admitting the only evidence you have is people responding appropriately to a threat. 'Irony' is one of the weakest excuses trolls have for when they face consequences for their actions. Try that in court and see how it holds up.

 

[Meredith]

This is the only thing I want to address from it; essentially, my worry is that it is actually is up to interpretation.
iDubbbz ironically told a Garfield Twitter account that he would rape them. Clearly just an edgy joke. But taken out of context, it could be seen as a threat by iDubbbz to rape someone or requesting that his fanbase attack them.
It's the case with some fake accusations; despite them being fake, their existence in the first place against someone hurts their life greatly and in many, many ways. It would be the same with a claim that they were inciting violence.
If a white supremacist told whites to rise up and kill all blacks then yes that's inciting violence, but if someone is venting and says they wish someone would die, they're not inciting violence; they're just venting. But both say they want to kill someone.

I'd say the solution to that is not making rape threats as 'jokes'. Seriously, I'm not sure if that's EVER appropriate, especially when your online persona is linked to your real life one. I'm not sure an online DJ(?)'s poor decisions discredit the point.

 

[Suum]

I'd say the solution to that is not making rape threats as 'jokes'. Seriously, I'm not sure if that's EVER appropriate, especially when your online persona is linked to your real life one. I'm not sure an online DJ(?)'s poor decisions discredit the point.

This is the only thing I want to address from it; essentially, my worry is that it is actually is up to interpretation.
iDubbbz ironically told a Garfield Twitter account that he would rape them. Clearly just an edgy joke. But taken out of context, it could be seen as a threat by iDubbbz to rape someone or requesting that his fanbase attack them.
It's the case with some fake accusations; despite them being fake, their existence in the first place against someone hurts their life greatly and in many, many ways. It would be the same with a claim that they were inciting violence.
If a white supremacist told whites to rise up and kill all blacks then yes that's inciting violence, but if someone is venting and says they wish someone would die, they're not inciting violence; they're just venting. But both say they want to kill someone.

I think my take on this would be that it's naturally not an appropriate joke to make, though I would also clarify that appropriateness is about the sensitivity of topics, and this so whether it could ever be appropriate would depend on if the issue ever desensitises. It probably won't for reasons I shouldn't need to explain, but I just wanted to add note to that as many topics do desensitise and that does make jokes more appropriate. You do, for example, get jokes about killing people or even physically abusing them and depending on how that's phrased, people are traditionally able to see the jokes in these comments due to those not being quite as culturally sensitive topics right now.

That said, I think this is where a lot of the confusion around hate speech can come from. It's simply not up to the public to try and interpret motive or consequences behind what people say. As I said earlier, it's about governmental definitions and realistically, whatever his fans or those watching the debacle think, their opinion is an opinion and I get a little tired of people twisting that form of observation into fact. You get this kind of behaviour an awful lot and I do personally think that, if your opinion isn't handled earnestly as an opinion and not an accusation, that this kind of thing can be quite damaging to society. Why? Simply because not everyone is as intelligent as they think. I've been on the receiving end of assumptiveness as to why I do or do not do things and you'll also find good examples in politics and even the arts. Everyone apparently has the ability to read minds and motives, which simply isn't true, and trying to enforce law based on assumption over fact just isn't how the legal system should, or I'd argue does, work. Interpretation shouldn't and (to my knowledge) isn't in the mix when it comes to the legal definition of hate speech and I'm rather glad that's the case.

I haven't read much into the case, but I'd be surprised if iDubbbz were punished by the law for that activity, and as much as I feel it's distasteful and that I don't approve of what was said, I'd also support the notion that this shouldn't be enforced. Interpretation and the drawing of conclusions is a slipperly slope which I think is why you have pockets of the population so wound up over free speech and hate speech. I don't think most people are are remotely bothered or disagree with the enforcing of actual provocation of violence, but more that people are bothered and disagree with other people trying to contort their words or derive meanings beyond what they said which are then enforceable - this being why there's such as debate on PC culture.

On a further point, misgendering someone isn't hate speech in my opinion, but it CAN become harassment. If somebody called you something that you didn't like and you asked them to cease - for example, a coworker nicknames you 'Beans' because you dropped a can of beans in the lunch room, and that causes you embarrassment - you ask them to cease. If they continue for a period of time despite your clear wishes , you have every right to bring that up to your boss and file a harassment claim. Same with gender. Getting it wrong isn't hateful, but disrespecting other people is.
[ Also, an obligatory 'keep this thread peaceful', please. ]

On a final note, and just to play devil's advocate here, I agree misgendering isn't hate speech, though there are concerns that people are trying to have it incorporated or enforced in a similar manner that would equally restrict the use of language. Your example actually sums up where I think the problem comes from and interlinks with what I've said above. The assumption is that not adapting to gender pronouns as requested or demanded (some people are polite, others are rude) is done to offend or harass, is disrespectful, and the person is just intentionally ignoring someone's wishes for the sake of ignoring them or ignoring their gender choices. On the other hand, I'd remind that sex and gender terms used to be synonymous in our society, and it's actually assumptive to assume the position that someone is referring to your gender with pronouns, especially considering that our traditional use of language is actually not this way at all.

If you look at how we refer to other species for example, there are debatable gender roles for other species. For example the assumed role of the lioness is to hunt, or that certain species see the female looking after young and the male having no involvement. These aren't biological necessities, but roles of a similar nature in what different members of the species traditionally do. The point is, however, that we don't refer to other species with this in mind, we use "he" and "she" to refer to biological sex, and I'd argue the vast majority of people are actually referring to biological sex when referring to another human being also. Consequently you actually have a far more complicated situation whereby someone is being corrected in their language, when their use of language may actually be entirely correct and factual, not remotely disrespectful, and so the link into the "beans" example becomes very, very loose.

To clarify, my argument here isn't specifically to debate that it's not disrespectful to use the pronouns you believe are correct rather than the pronouns or another, but just to highlight that there is a logical path of thought into that conclusion and that the topic can be far more complex than people assume. This complexity means I once again think it's very much open to interpretation and the drawing of conclusions which I hope (on the same merit as above points) is never brought into law.

 

[Hall Kervean]

There's already a term for that kind of lie.
You're claiming the person who threatened to rape someone was 'just joking' and are trying to cast him as a victim. Despite him threatening to rape someone. So actually all you've done is weaken your claim by admitting the only evidence you have is people responding appropriately to a threat. 'Irony' is one of the weakest excuses trolls have for when they face consequences for their actions. Try that in court and see how it holds up.

He sent it to a Garfield twitter account. You tell me if you think that's serious.

I'd say the solution to that is not making rape threats as 'jokes'. Seriously, I'm not sure if that's EVER appropriate, especially when your online persona is linked to your real life one. I'm not sure an online DJ(?)'s poor decisions discredit the point.

Again, it's sent to a Garfield twitter account. It was very obvious and very clear if looked into that it was a joke. The only problem being that some people fail to look into it.

I think my take on this would be that it's naturally not an appropriate joke to make, though I would also clarify that appropriateness is about the sensitivity of topics, and this so whether it could ever be appropriate would depend on if the issue ever desensitises. It probably won't for reasons I shouldn't need to explain, but I just wanted to add note to that as many topics do desensitise and that does make jokes more appropriate. You do, for example, get jokes about killing people or even physically abusing them and depending on how that's phrased, people are traditionally able to see the jokes in these comments due to those not being quite as culturally sensitive topics right now.

That said, I think this is where a lot of the confusion around hate speech can come from. It's simply not up to the public to try and interpret motive or consequences behind what people say. As I said earlier, it's about governmental definitions and realistically, whatever his fans or those watching the debacle think, their opinion is an opinion and I get a little tired of people twisting that form of observation into fact. You get this kind of behaviour an awful lot and I do personally think that, if your opinion isn't handled earnestly as an opinion and not an accusation, that this kind of thing can be quite damaging to society. Why? Simply because not everyone is as intelligent as they think. I've been on the receiving end of assumptiveness as to why I do or do not do things and you'll also find good examples in politics and even the arts. Everyone apparently has the ability to read minds and motives, which simply isn't true, and trying to enforce law based on assumption over fact just isn't how the legal system should, or I'd argue does, work. Interpretation shouldn't and (to my knowledge) isn't in the mix when it comes to the legal definition of hate speech and I'm rather glad that's the case.

I haven't read much into the case, but I'd be surprised if iDubbbz were punished by the law for that activity, and as much as I feel it's distasteful and that I don't approve of what was said, I'd also support the notion that this shouldn't be enforced. Interpretation and the drawing of conclusions is a slipperly slope which I think is why you have pockets of the population so wound up over free speech and hate speech. I don't think most people are are remotely bothered or disagree with the enforcing of actual provocation of violence, but more that people are bothered and disagree with other people trying to contort their words or derive meanings beyond what they said which are then enforceable - this being why there's such as debate on PC culture.

Indeed, I do see what your point is; my point was that many people would immediately call that an incitement of violence. However, if you look into it, not only is the man known for his edgy jokes, but it was also sent to a Garfield Twitter account; he did his best to make it clear it was a joke. Unfortunately, if you look at the Ricegum Content Cop response, it's easily manipulable if you cover up the obviously-necessary details.

To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of the joke, I'm arguing that it can be misinterpreted as a threat or incitation of violence when it was, if you compile all relevant details, just a joke.

Spoiler

It's about the same as tweeting @ Star Wars and making fun of the death of Fives in the Clone Wars animated series.

 

[ApfelSeine]

If joking threats made to random people on the internet are banned forever from popular online sites, I personally do not really see that as that great a loss, or a sign of the deterioration of free speech. In the age of the internet, we've seen people become less and less aware that they're accountable for the fallout of their actions. There's been a deterioration of social boundaries, allowing people to make shitty jokes to anyone and act surprised when it doesn't go over well.

Crass, "dark" humor is completely fine among friends who know how to interpret it and know not to take it seriously. Heck it's probably even fine among ones followers, as those followers likely share one's particular brand of humor. But nowadays people act surprised when their joke doesn't go over well with strangers, who they have no rapport with and who might not know that it's meant as shitty edgy humor.

Is the "joke" you reference an attempt at humor? Yeah, obviously it is. Should it be treated as a serious threat of violence? Well you wouldn't think so, but clearly you personally wouldn't be surprised if people did (even if you think that's unreasonable). I think to some degree you're aware that without that full context, someone might misconstrue it as a serious threat. Naturally, as someone who does know the full context, you're sympathetic towards his intent and wouldn't want his "threat" to be treated the same way a purposeful threat would be. But could you really blame whoever runs the Garfield Twitter account if they found the joke actually uncomfortable or threatening? They very well might have no idea that there's a deeper context behind the tweet, and if you don't have that context you don't treat it as humorous because you wouldn't think to do that unless you knew who he was.

That's what I mean when I say social boundaries are breaking down. Stuff that you'd normally keep between friends or people who "get the joke" are being lobbed at people who are completely uninvolved and who have no context for it. There's a person running that Garfield Twitter account, but do you think that people who make edgy jokes spend even a second considering this? It doesn't feel like one is talking to a real person when corporate accounts are basically presented as a faceless and unknowable entity. But the person (or people) behind that corporate account? All the people following the Garfield account who didn't subscribe to the idea of "joking rape threats" being humorous? A lot of edgy people just don't seem to understand nowadays that they're forcing others to put up with jokes that are immensely uncomfortable without the greater context.

Though technically speaking, it's on Twitter to remove posts like that for violating their TOS. It's incredibly poor taste, and it saddens me that people don't understand that it's completely unfair to demand that people understand that something is meant as a joke when you don't give them the full context ahead of time. If you walked up to some random business person and said the same thing to their face, but among friends you've got a reputation for pushing the envelope with your jokes, it would be silly to act surprised when the business person was bothered by your remark. Similarly, it's silly to imagine that everyone on the internet will understand that you're joking just because among some people you have that reputation. I would not presume to assume that someone is unreasonable for misinterpreting something that they're basically set up to misinterpret.

 

[Hall Kervean]

If joking threats made to random people on the internet are banned forever from popular online sites, I personally do not really see that as that great a loss, or a sign of the deterioration of free speech. In the age of the internet, we've seen people become less and less aware that they're accountable for the fallout of their actions. There's been a deterioration of social boundaries, allowing people to make shitty jokes to anyone and act surprised when it doesn't go over well.

Crass, "dark" humor is completely fine among friends who know how to interpret it and know not to take it seriously. Heck it's probably even fine among ones followers, as those followers likely share one's particular brand of humor. But nowadays people act surprised when their joke doesn't go over well with strangers, who they have no rapport with and who might not know that it's meant as shitty edgy humor.

Is the "joke" you reference an attempt at humor? Yeah, obviously it is. Should it be treated as a serious threat of violence? Well you wouldn't think so, but clearly you personally wouldn't be surprised if people did (even if you think that's unreasonable). I think to some degree you're aware that without that full context, someone might misconstrue it as a serious threat. Naturally, as someone who does know the full context, you're sympathetic towards his intent and wouldn't want his "threat" to be treated the same way a purposeful threat would be. But could you really blame whoever runs the Garfield Twitter account if they found the joke actually uncomfortable or threatening? They very well might have no idea that there's a deeper context behind the tweet, and if you don't have that context you don't treat it as humorous because you wouldn't think to do that unless you knew who he was.

That's what I mean when I say social boundaries are breaking down. Stuff that you'd normally keep between friends or people who "get the joke" are being lobbed at people who are completely uninvolved and who have no context for it. There's a person running that Garfield Twitter account, but do you think that people who make edgy jokes spend even a second considering this? It doesn't feel like one is talking to a real person when corporate accounts are basically presented as a faceless and unknowable entity. But the person (or people) behind that corporate account? All the people following the Garfield account who didn't subscribe to the idea of "joking rape threats" being humorous? A lot of edgy people just don't seem to understand nowadays that they're forcing others to put up with jokes that are immensely uncomfortable without the greater context.

Though technically speaking, it's on Twitter to remove posts like that for violating their TOS. It's incredibly poor taste, and it saddens me that people don't understand that it's completely unfair to demand that people understand that something is meant as a joke when you don't give them the full context ahead of time. If you walked up to some random business person and said the same thing to their face, but among friends you've got a reputation for pushing the envelope with your jokes, it would be silly to act surprised when the business person was bothered by your remark. Similarly, it's silly to imagine that everyone on the internet will understand that you're joking just because among some people you have that reputation. I would not presume to assume that someone is unreasonable for misinterpreting something that they're basically set up to misinterpret.

I'm not arguing the morality of the humor; but at the same time, if someone is not allowed to speak over a joke, poor taste or otherwise, then what else can someone be silenced for if we make a blanket statement of "Incitation of violence gets you silenced."
If, say, I had an actual opinion that said that one country should go to war with another country, would I be soliciting violence if I stated that? After all, I'm giving a recommendation to an action that would result in thousands if not millions of deaths.
Misconstruing can be accidental, but it can also be intentional. And if someone can be silenced over an accidentally misconstrued joke, what prevents someone from silencing an intentionally misconstrued opinion because it doesn't align with their own?
If we give the inch to silence the bad guys, there are too many ways the devil can take a mile after that.

 

[ApfelSeine]

I'm not arguing the morality of the humor; but at the same time, if someone is not allowed to speak over a joke, poor taste or otherwise, then what else can someone be silenced for if we make a blanket statement of "Incitation of violence gets you silenced."
If, say, I had an actual opinion that said that one country should go to war with another country, would I be soliciting violence if I stated that? After all, I'm giving a recommendation to an action that would result in thousands if not millions of deaths.
Misconstruing can be accidental, but it can also be intentional. And if someone can be silenced over an accidentally misconstrued joke, what prevents someone from silencing an intentionally misconstrued opinion because it doesn't align with their own?
If we give the inch to silence the bad guys, there are too many ways the devil can take a mile after that.

I disagree with that. I don't see taking down offensive jokes as "silencing" someone. Particularly in a privately owned setting. Plus I think your example is somewhat bewildering. You don't have the ability to send an army out to attack a country (though if you did, then yeah that would be reasonable to take as a legit threat). In contrast, you do have the capacity to track someone down and assault them, so if you threatened a specific individual then it would not be unreasonable for them to feel threatened. Threats that are completely outside your capacity to back up are obviously not threats worth taking seriously. And if you just make the suggestion that something should happen, that's different than inciting violence.

I'm not sure why you have such little faith in the Justice system's ability to comprehend nuance or look into context behind an incident and take that into consideration. If you say that America should attack Canada and someone were to "intentionally misconstrue it" for whatever reason, just get yourself a half decent lawyer to point out that you have no power to actually accomplish that, nor the degree of specificity that could imply intent of criminal action. Now if you actually made plans to attack Canada and amassed a militia to do so, they might have cause to take that threat seriously (and also other reason to treat your actions as criminal, so a tweet would be the least of your worries). But your example didn't say that you'd do anything that would give the law probable cause to strict you off a crime, it just said expressing your opinion, which is always benign even if it's bloodthirsty. An opinion that something violent should happen is different than actually threatening violence.

 

[Elowyn]

Interesting conversation.

I myself am rather right-leaning. Social conservative, I think. It's really problematic if people cannot even speak freely when clearly Freedom of Speech is part of the United States' history and a prime part of the basis of our civilization. Just sayin'.

A part of me is very sad that this is the current state of the country, and of the world. It is a testament to how far the world has fallen. I do not believe government should have the power to stop people from speaking like this. It is reminiscent of absolute rulers who would kill off dissenters or those of the old reign/dynasty. It simply cannot and should not be done in this day and age. "This is the 21st century" they say. Well, if it is like that, then we should be able to at least talk freely and without fear of criminal punishment! What kind of authorities would ban the speech of their own people? I can understand that some info cannot be disclose, top secret, national security, private files and stuff-- that makes sense-- but non-violent thoughts and opinions should have a place at the table of public forum discussions.

 

[One Last Dawn]

Freedom of speech is an unfortunately generic term applied to many different topics--not all of which are applicable to the foundation of such social freedoms. Here in the United States, the freedom of speech concept is as old as our Declaration of Independence. The original idea behind it is that in a country governed by elected representatives, the fear of speaking out against such a government is counterproductive to a functioning democracy. On top of that, fear of speaking out against the government had always been a trademark of an absolute leader such as a king or emperor. The whole "King George, God save him" mentality was adopted by necessity to make absolutely certain that it could not be said an individual was an enemy of the Crown.

I believe that in the way freedom of speech was meant to be represented, it must remain. People must be able to say whatever they feel to be true about their government without fear of reprisal. That fear is what puts power in the hands of the few over the many rather than the other way around. This is the reason that people are afraid of government surveillance and censoring--when the government begins holding you accountable for everything you say and keeping you from saying what you feel to be true, it is growing larger than democracy should allow. The argument, of course, is that security depends on sacrifices of small freedoms. While true, we should be asking if security is worth more than liberty. It is a matter of probability that a government will one day come into power and abuse these intrusions on freedom to the point of tyranny.

Getting away from the foundation of freedom of speech we have individuals who claim they can say whatever they want without reprisal because they are protected by the freedom of speech. This is decidedly not true. Freedom of speech protects a citizen from legal reprisal for what they say, but does not protect them from social repercussions. If an individual makes a public declaration that is unpopular, the public is entitled to respond how they see fit--another pillar of democracy. Those who claim they could not or should not suffer reprisal in terms of employment termination (to name one example) due to freedom of speech are forgetting several key points. First and foremost, all organized companies/corporations have the right to refuse service or employment on any ground outside of ethnicity or religion. Employees sign contracts that state they are not to make any representation of their company that may reflect poorly upon it, and should the company deem their reputation at stake due to the employee's actions, they can be terminated from employment. Secondly, that which falls under the category of "hate speech" is an infringement upon the base-most rights of all citizens: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When a fellow citizen is ostracized due to hateful intent, those basic and inalienable rights are suddenly at risk--all people have the right to feel safe within reason. The government cannot act on hate speech due to the freedom of speech, but they cannot and (hopefully) will not protect the offender from social reprisal--hence the right of employers to terminate, establishments to refuse, and other citizens to tell you exactly how they feel about your unpopular opinion. Lastly, when pushing one's "opinion" too far into the social sphere, the line becomes blurry between opinion and "defamation of character" which is also not protected under freedom of speech. The difference is the intent to purposefully and dishonestly slander an individual in public as to put their livelihood at risk. While this is difficult to prove, a sufficiently unpopular opinion can at least fall under this kind of suspicion.

To summarize, the freedom of speech is at its core a tool to speak out against the government without the fear of the governing body crushing those it disagrees with. It does not protect an individual from the social or corporate ramifications of their open views.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I disagree with that. I don't see taking down offensive jokes as "silencing" someone. Particularly in a privately owned setting. Plus I think your example is somewhat bewildering. You don't have the ability to send an army out to attack a country (though if you did, then yeah that would be reasonable to take as a legit threat). In contrast, you do have the capacity to track someone down and assault them, so if you threatened a specific individual then it would not be unreasonable for them to feel threatened. Threats that are completely outside your capacity to back up are obviously not threats worth taking seriously. And if you just make the suggestion that something should happen, that's different than inciting violence.

I'm not sure why you have such little faith in the Justice system's ability to comprehend nuance or look into context behind an incident and take that into consideration. If you say that America should attack Canada and someone were to "intentionally misconstrue it" for whatever reason, just get yourself a half decent lawyer to point out that you have no power to actually accomplish that, nor the degree of specificity that could imply intent of criminal action. Now if you actually made plans to attack Canada and amassed a militia to do so, they might have cause to take that threat seriously (and also other reason to treat your actions as criminal, so a tweet would be the least of your worries). But your example didn't say that you'd do anything that would give the law probable cause to strict you off a crime, it just said expressing your opinion, which is always benign even if it's bloodthirsty. An opinion that something violent should happen is different than actually threatening violence.

I think we're having a miscommunication because while I agree with much of what you say, I don't feel like my point has actually been addressed.
The primary reason I have so little faith is from Mock Trial, where the Defense and the Prosecution have an equally potent case, so it comes down to presentation.
The second is this:
Societies change. My beliefs may be acceptable now. They may be radical two years.
But laws don't change.
And if my beliefs are deemed radical, it would be very easy to misconstrue them as violent and get me silenced.
Because laws do not change, when this period of history is over, and the witch-hunt against people of opinions that differ from one's own is over, the law will remain. And it is not hard, from my own Mock Trial experience, to skew things in your favor.
In our current case, we have literally no forensic evidence for our side, and they have legal favor. But because of minute details, we have the capability of twisting things so that it favors us.
We had a protest with 200 participants listed on the application, but ended up having 1000 people. Legally, the city is in the right for not providing a police officer because they have to provide one if there are over 200 people, and many of the forces were tied down elsewhere. Legally, the city is in the right. So we're arguing that they should have used common sense and sent a single officer to prevent the incident which ended up occurring.
So from my own experience, anything in the courtroom is subjective.

 

[Elizabeth Cooper]

Interesting conversation.

I myself am rather right-leaning. Social conservative, I think. It's really problematic if people cannot even speak freely when clearly Freedom of Speech is part of the United States' history and a prime part of the basis of our civilization. Just sayin'.

Multiple people in this thread including site staff have laid out pretty clear explanations of what free speech actually is. It isn't what you seem to think it is based on the following paragraph. Just sayin'.

A part of me is very sad that this is the current state of the country, and of the world. It is a testament to how far the world has fallen. I do not believe government should have the power to stop people from speaking like this. It is reminiscent of absolute rulers who would kill off dissenters or those of the old reign/dynasty. It simply cannot and should not be done in this day and age. "This is the 21st century" they say. Well, if it is like that, then we should be able to at least talk freely and without fear of criminal punishment! What kind of authorities would ban the speech of their own people? I can understand that some info cannot be disclose, top secret, national security, private files and stuff-- that makes sense-- but non-violent thoughts and opinions should have a place at the table of public forum discussions.

What exactly is the "table of public forum discussions"?

I mean if there is an actual, physical, completely public table, sure, anyone who can find a seat at that table can say whatever.

Meanwhile in the real world, most people need to use some sort of media platform to communicate to a large audience. Most such media platforms are privately owned and operated, and can in fact choose not to provide you with the use of their platform if they think what you are saying is going to be problematic for them.

So I have to ask: what you are actually calling for here, action-wise? Because right now i see platitudes that sound nice but don't line up to actual IRL function.

 

[Gravitational Force]

When certain people claim to want free speech they actually mean they want their speech to be free of negative consequences for them.
Either because there's money and fame in it, they're trying to broadcast their bigotry, or they're ignorant of what free speech is,

Richard Spencer, one of the leading figures in the white supremacist alt-right movement, told his podcast co-host that the alt-right didn’t actually believe in free speech and that the alt-right only claimed to advocate for it for “radically pragmatic” reasons.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Are my eyes deceiving me?


Oh no.


Not again.


I thought this abomination of a thread had died off. Lord have mercy on those caught in the shitstorm it could bring back.

 

[Troldmand]

Are my eyes deceiving me?


Oh no.


Not again.


I thought this abomination of a thread had died off. Lord have mercy on those caught in the shitstorm it could bring back.

Heated discussions go well with some Viking Metal.

Spoiler

 

[adrian_]

Heated discussions go well with some Viking Metal.

Spoiler

"Viking Metal".

Ew.

 

[Troldmand]

"Viking Metal".

Ew.

What?

 

[adrian_]

What?

I find that Viking metal is just a reskinned, retarded version of Norwegian Metal.

not trying to start an argument

 

[Kaerri]

This thread ended several months ago and there is no need to revive it now. Closing before it turns into a mess.