Support for free speech is rising, and is higher among liberals and college graduates.
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
I was going to take your avatar and draw dicks on it when I read your post in a quote... But ofc it had a be a bloody anime avatar...
Last edited:
No. That's only half the problem. There are people on both the left AND the right (as much as the right would deny it lol) that either purposely or deliberately blur the lines on what "hate speech" is.
I'm a free speech defender through and through (though I've recently evolved a bit in that if you are a fucking NAZI? You don't get a platform. You get fucking HANDS.)
All of that stuff creates a slippery slope I'm not willing to live on. And neither should you.
(GASP did he just "both-sides" this debate?!?!?) Yes. Yes he did. Think about who's in power now. A bunch of sensitive Christian men who would LOVE to silence my Atheist speech that criticizes their white privileged bullshit Christian grasp on this "secular" nation. They shouldn't have that ability and neither should we. Even if it hurts their pwetty wittle feewings.
And even worse, even if we were to establish hate speech laws, (which I'm not enTIREly against), what would that look like? How defined would it be? What is conisdered "hate" in a nation where "bi-partisanship" is loved so much, especially by moderates in leadership?
I just don't trust our current government to get that right. I would see it become a "don't say racist things ESPECIALLY against whites, and don't say bad things about my religion!"
The thing is, this isn't a legal issue, at least not this form of "deplatforming." It's a cultural and institutional issue. We have both legal protections for speech and cultural values that say we should give, say, invited speakers an opportunity to deliver their message without unreasonable interruption. Much of this debate centers around efforts to disrupt talks at universities by people deemed to have problematic opinions. I don't think the universities should permit that. Protest outside the event, or at the beginning of the event? Great. A protest that attempts to disrupt the event itself? Not so great. That punishes not only the speaker, but any individuals who came to hear him or her speak, and is generally antithetical to a free exchange of ideas.
I mean, would you be totally cool with white supremacist students crashing a talk on diversity and screaming so loudly that the event essentially couldn't proceed, under the theory that they were just exercising their right to free speech? That sort of thing doesn't seem to happen, thankfully, but the principles involved seem the same.
Universities literally have to allow that, or they are violating the protesters' rights to free speech. Sorry, that's just a fact.
Why do the people who argue that hate speech laws are problematic and easily abused by nefarious agents, like the current administration, never consider the fact that the courts exist? How often have actions by this administration, for example, been blocked and undermined by the judicial system? What you and those arguing this line of logic are posing is a government that has become authoritarian and not a realistic portrayal of a system of checks and balances that we have now, as imperfect as it is currently is.
Like, what, Sessions is going to accuse a reporter of hate speech and that's that?
This isn't true. Universities can and sometimes do discipline students who disrupt speaking engagements.
The students that interrupted Ben Shapiro at UW-Madison were literally escorted out by campus police, it was quite a scene.
My point? You've mostly ranted about the left in here in a thread about the left not being anti-free speech while repeatedly invoking a law written and supported by conservatives. Your hyper focus on the left in a thread about the left not being the mythical anti-free speechers they're claimed to me is just a bit odd..
And no I'm not defending conservatives lol.
The police as an institution is a public service in the UK. Again, in America, do you really want the police and state being able to arrest you and give you a criminal record for this?
You really think that is worthy of wasting money going through the courts and ending up with someone having a criminal record?
Personally, I think you should get a facebook suspension or something at worst. It was taken in a public setting and no personal details were shared.
I don't know how being a public servant somehow excludes you from several fundamental constitutional rights.
And also my dignity which is protected by the very first article of the German basic law would I indeed rate higher than your criminal record, though such a case would most likely only end with a fee.
This is just the very difficult reality of Free Speech. I am for it, even if it puts me in very awful positions of defending a right of someone to say exceedingly vile shit (obviously with respect to government regulation...not societal). Thats how much I believe Freedom of Speech is absolutely necessary to a free society and democracy.
The basic premise of the post you quoted is fundamentally wrong. No hate speech laws can't render constitutional rights obsolete, so hate speech laws can't be used to kill off any political opposition for example.
Reductionist take on my points that comes across more like you're just annoyed I'm sharing my opinions in the topic. Say what you mean rather than the "that is odd" or "I find it interesting...". Or when you attempt to say what you mean don't be so reductive about my posts to refer to them as simply "ranting", I'm happily having a conversation with other posters around what can and is written into law and ends up punishable by the state.
Because if the dissent is aimed at the institution more than an individual it does become more of a case of political dissent rather than personal dissent. When you have a uniform on you are representing the public institution of the police service, and if the snapchat dick photos do not name you personally and state something identifiable, it shouldn't be as clear-cut as you trying to make it about you as a private citizen having someone online draw dicks on your photo.
Anyway, if someone took your public FB photo and drew cartoon dicks on it, I still wouldn't be that impressed if the police arrested someone for it. For the most part behaviour like that should be dealt with by private platforms moderating their content and punishing. Not necessarily Government intervention. Have you seen how many photoshops exist online?
Last edited:
Ok, and are the courts now and forever going to support the hate speech definition you like? Are you willing to stake your great-grandchildren's speech rights on that?
This viewpoint seems astonishingly myopic to me. We don't build our system of rights so that it works in the world we have right now, we try to design it so that it protects happiness, liberty, etc. in the long run. Hate speech prohibitions are a ticking time bomb, and I'm skeptical that they do much to inhibit problematic viewpoints in the first place (you could argue that they do the opposite in fact - that which is not said is often not challenged).
No one has ever given me a satisfactory resolution to the "who watches the watchers?" problem vis a vis hate speech. 75 years ago (hell, 35 years ago), if hate speech had existed as a mainstream concept, it might well have included critiques of Christianity.
You mean the quickly growing conservative courts? You're putting way too much faith in that. And yes, didnt Sessions just try to prosecute somebody who laughed during one of his initial talks? I can't fully remember the details. Trump wants to "tighten and expand" libel laws to protect him from stuff he doesnt like.
Yeah, I'm not trusting that shit, sorry
Also, I don't feel like you read my whole post
I'm interested to know a case where hate speech laws were used against criticism/dissent against the executive.
I gave an example of the UK police being petty in a topic about America where the police are already fragile as fuck and act incredibly hostile to any criticism or dissent. The difference in America right now is if you do not get shot, the 1st amendment as things stand allows you to rip into the police in all sorts of ways. The point being if and when America adds speech regulation to the 1st amendment it would always be wise to consider what the current police state over there can use against the citizens.
Sure they can. To think otherwise is naive.
With respect to the law on Free Speech, SCOTUS has taken a very limited view on what can actually infringe that right. I agree with True Threats not being covered by the First Amendment and other very very small exceptions.
Your example is clearly an insult against a single person.
Excluding public servants from fundamental rights would be plain unconstitutional. There isn't really much to discuss about it.
And if the USA would introduce undemocratic laws against their own constitution and bill of rights or would be against constitutions of Western European countries then the USA has a bigger problem anyway.
Free speech laws in the U.S. are fine. The method of deplatforming vile racist Nazi shits is compatible with our free speech laws, as really it is boycott/protest/civil disobedience of freely associating private citizens that is moderating the platform, not the government censoring it. This is the best compromise.
So if the party of power is capable of basically getting rid of the constitution then hate speech laws aren't the problem there. It's like making the fallacy of comparing the censorship within the Warsaw Pact to hate speech laws.
Thats a strawman argument. Its not like this happens all at once. Its just a small chip. Then another, then another.
Keep in mind that this administration pushes the belief that white, christian males are the most persecuted group in the world. It would be so easy for them to pass protections against "misandry" speech or speech that offends religious sensibilities (such as pro-LGBT speech) if guaranteed free speech wasn't there to stop them.
No, it's not. The text at the bottom of the picture refers to the police as an entity, not the individual as an individual. It says "police" not "this police officer". In court, it was argued he done it due to being frustrated at the institute taking over 2 hours to interview him as a witness to another crime
Then there is this suggestion from the courts
The police using a citizen to "set an example" because they are frustrated in their line of work is not a good precedent to set to be arresting citizens of the country and giving them criminal records. Prank phone calls to 999? Okay, that wastes time when real people need to call in. People saying mean shit on Twitter about the police or drawing dicks in snapchat? Cmon. Not unless there is incitement or a credible threat.
Yes, it was stupid, but teens/young adults are sometimes stupid. A criminal record over this is just outrageous. FB should have just deleted it when it went viral and maybe temp suspended his account.
Now the interpreting of the first amendment as protecting the "expression" (read unlimited corporate donations to campaigns) of corporations because they are "people" is absolute bullshit that was used to subvert campaign financing laws that were in place for good reason (see result of last presidential election). Citizens United should be reversed.
Because the way you put that makes it seem like one party all at once can "do away with the Constitution." Constitutional Law doesn't work that way. Its more of an erosion of rights. Slow over time. By introducing "hate speech" into the jurisprudence ( direct, personal, and either truly threatening or violently provocative, notwithstanding), opens up another avenue of theory that will be pushed one case at a time.
Ah, i see you are an educated man.
Citizens United, while I understand its reasoning, really took the idea that the legal fiction of a corporation being a person to its illogical extreme.
Exactly.
Additionally, its seems like there are those that willfully forget or ignore the fact that protesting against hate speech is also protected speech.
If I dont like the thought of a mysoginistic, racist, homophobic, transphobic speaker wanting to discuss whether or not I'm a person is something I have the right to not tolerate.
To protest is also speech, so if you want to protect hate speech as speech, also protect those protesting hate speech.
So then people who protest/interrupt/disrupt against others should be heard by that merit as well?
Otherwise you stand to contradict yourself, as you only like speech presented in a very specific way, rather than all speech.
Last edited:
That is a violation of their first amendment rights. Protest is protected speech. If you don't support a student's right to peaceful protest, you don't support freedom of speech. It's that simple.
She was convicted and found guilty of disorderly conduct. So when you're saying we currently live in society that values free speech above the negative consequences that speech presents, that's objectively untrue. We have always placed limits on what free speech entails.
The United States isn't the same organism that existed in the 18th century when these laws were written. Our easy access to information, or more accurately disinformation, and how these hateful messages propagate so easily and manipulate people's perspective didn't exist back then. From what I can see, hate speech has only a negative effect on society and should be hampered the same way we hamper slander and libel and threats of violence. If you're worried about a slippery slope due to there being a level of interpretation that can be abused, then you might as be arguing for anarchy since a plethora of laws operate the same way and you are truly arguing that laws shouldn't exist in the first place due to the same problems you're expressing. How many times were minorities pulled over and ticketed just because they're minorities? Yet we still operate with the belief that speeding laws are a good thing, right?
Like I said before, we have a system of checks and balances. An administration can't just imprison or punish citizens with wanton disregard because it can. No, there are a number of checks built into our system to help prevent that.
You're basically imaging a dystopian future were people have no recourse to defend themselves as if it's realistic. If we get to that point, we'll have bigger problems to address.
Last edited:
I don't know that being stupid was ever an effective way to defend yourself in court after breaking laws. Even ignoring the fact that the guy even stated that he was insulting that police officer.
And you still fail to explain how hate speech can be used to erode constitutional rights.
Not exactly. They are often the same. Hate speech is covered by the First Amendment. (not a True Threat).
The second part of the post nails it. Protest them back. Go for it. Its protected.
Are you serious? Can you really not see it? Can you not see the abuse of power (always assume an abuse of power) by allowing Congress to pass "common sense" hate speech raws (then slowing bringing Constitutional Challenges) will erode the First Amendment?
You are correct that protests are protected speech. Shouting down a speaker or otherwise disrupting a speaking engagement is not. Those are two completely different things, both philosophically and legally.
How do you want to define Hate Speech? Who is going to define it?
Do you think all the photoshops on the internet should therefore always lead to arrests then the second anyone complains? Or is it the penises that make this one that offensive it should be an arrest? Or is your call to authority here heightened because it's the police that were offended? I think I'd be in a majority who thinks that specific case was a complete waste of court time/money and daft to give someone a criminal record over, but maybe more will come forward in support of that case being a good example of speech laws being enforced by the state.
The reason I thought it would be mildly amusing in this topic is due to the historical problems America faces with their police forces, that are arguably some of the worst in the world. I think it's quite clear from those words above in court most people in the UK do get to throw dissent at the police without being arrested, but that is precisely a reason why speech law infractions can be debated. Inconsistency. One person is arrested for something another person doesn't get arrested for.
Maybe with moving a little away from that American exceptionalism and look how the European socialist hell holes are doing it.
Disrupting a speaking engagement purely through your own speech is protected speech. That's literally one of the most common forms of protest. If you run up on stage and tackle the speaker then obviously that's not protected, but we aren't talking about that. Heckling, booing, etc. are protected forms of expression.
Here's the thing tough: Just because they aren't allowed to interrupt the speaker doesn't mean they don't have the right to protest. I'm sure they would be allowed to protest outside the building if they wanted to.
Look at it this way; you absolutely have the right to take a shit, but do it in the streets and you'll get punished for it.
A private venue can remove you for disruptions, but that isn't the same thing as the government punishing you for your speech.
Victim > offender. If the victim of such offensive and insulting photoshops feels attacked by those, absolutely.
The "European Hell Holes" are less free than the United States with respect to Freedom of Speech. (and you didn't give an answer).
Like the dude in the UK who just got found guilty of hate speech by teaching that dog to Hail Hitler. Vile? Yes.
And there it is.
It is neither. The law introduces a concept of "a reasonable person" in many facets of the law. Its cold, and difficult, but from a governing standpoint the subjective mind of a victim is not a basis to pass law or fine criminality (as a general rule).
So what makes the European states less free regarding to freedom of speech?
You mean that guy who stated in his video to gas the jews?
I don;t know if we are talking about the same video, but it could be. You can say vile things if you want to. So long as its not a True Threat (thats a legal term of art), then yes.
Under First Amendment, the dude would not be fined or improsined in the US. He is in the UK.
U.S. More Free than the UK.
Tell that to the Second Amendment.
Oh God no. Again, you're assuming there's no gray area. And there is. There's nuance, interpretation, and perception differences in speech. Slander, Libel, and threats of violence don't carry the same gray area. Look at what happened in the John Oliver vs that coal tycoon asshole. Perfect example IMO. Oliver said some pretty rough shit, including telling him to "eat shit". Coal asshole snowflaked out and sued for slander and defamation. But literally everything John said was verifiable truth, and the case is being dropped.
Now look at potential hate speech laws here in America. That shit would get co-opted to fuck and back, and you and I both know it. Sure we've had some wins with the court against Trump. But some losses as well. I'm not willing to hedge my bets unless everyone could reasonable agree where the line is drawn. And neither the left or the right can do that
Would you accept that is a pretty authoritarian stance to take, to widely invoke the actual Government and police state to arrest/charge people over offensive photoshops? Don't you think there is a middle ground where the majority of photoshops of cartoon penises onto people get dealt with by the likes of Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Snapchat or whoever handling moderation/banning/suspending?
If I posted my photo on this forum in the show yourself off topic, and someone decided to be a dick and photoshop it (with some cocks or whatever), it might offend me, but I'd report it to the forum staff (I'd probably just laugh and call you a... dick, but humour me here). I don't personally think I'd report it to the police and want someone arrested. I'd go to the police if someone was threatening. Maybe that is just me.
It's interesting to debate this nevertheless, as everyone does have varying tolerances for the state being involved in speech violation arrests.