Do you think freedom of speech should protect hateful speech?

[wolram]

Are you a do good er? a person that thinks freedom of speech is a given, even though this freedom of speech CAN be hateful and harmful.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Are you a do good er? a person that thinks freedom of speech is a given, even though this freedom of speech CAN be hateful and harmful.

Doing good (as in do good er) is not a matter of thinking (as in thinks freedom of speech is a given), but of doing. I do think that hateful speech should be protected, but not harmful speech. That too is a matter of the difference between thinking and doing as hate is a thought, but harm is a deed.

 

[lisab]

Doing good (as in do good er) is not a matter of thinking (as in thinks freedom of speech is a given), but of doing.

Otherwise, you'd just be a think good er.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you a do good er? a person that thinks freedom of speech is a given, even though this freedom of speech CAN be hateful and harmful.

Here in the US, the right to free speech is fundamental but with limits. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can yell "theater" in a crowded fire station.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see what doing good has to do with free speech.


I do not believe that hateful speech should be protected. It's a pretty fine line I grant, to determine what's hateful and what's not, but I believe in the principle.

 

[tribdog]

I've got about 5 infractions that say I don't have freedom of speech.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I think all forms of speech should be protected. There's no such thing as harmful speech since words can't harm you. There are harmful actions, but not harmful speech IMO.

 

[Proton Soup]

Are you a do good er? a person that thinks freedom of speech is a given, even though this freedom of speech CAN be hateful and harmful.

free speech is like sunshine. it lights your way, disinfects, and sends cockroaches scurrying. if you burn easily, wear a wide-brimmed hat.

 

[Proton Soup]

hey wolfram, the missing part of my post was in reply to your derogatory "do gooder" insult.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There's no such thing as harmful speech since words can't harm you. There are harmful actions, but not harmful speech IMO.

Incitement to riot is harmful speech.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Incitement to riot is harmful speech.

I don't consider that harmful speech, that's harmful action.

 

[wolram]

hey wolfram, the missing part of my post was in reply to your derogatory "do gooder" insult.

It was meant as an insult i agree, i too think there is a fine line between say, incitement to riot and just hateful speech, i think anyone who protects extreme speech IS a do good er.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't consider that harmful speech, that's harmful action.

As long as I'm not rioting all I'm doing is talking (or yelling maybe).

Alternatively, you can accept the fact that speech is an action.

 

[Proton Soup]

It was meant as an insult i agree, i too think there is a fine line between say, incitement to riot and just hateful speech, i think anyone who protects extreme speech IS a do good er.

i think you've got it exactly bassackwards about who's the do gooder here, but i support your right to be wrong.

 

[mgb_phys]

I think it's a divided by a common language thing.
In UK English - a do gooder is a self appointed authority who wants to restrict what you can do for your own good, the "won't someone think of the children" effect.

So a common headline is: council 'do gooders' ban children from throwing snowballs (in case they get hurt). It also applies to groups calling for censorship of TV / films etc.
It's normally used as a derogatrary term.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I hate this thread. Hate HAte HATe HATE[/color] it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually, that was what I was going to point out.

I do think hate-mongering is something that should not enjoy the benefits of free speech. Ernst Zundel for example should not have free reign to speak all his views publicly.

 

[lisab]

I hate this thread. Hate HAte HATe HATE[/color] it.

It's ok, jimmy. Hate posts are protected.

 

[wolram]

Actually i guess there is some form of protection from hate mongers, i bet they will be investigated by one agency or another, but why let it go so far and cost the tax payer?
Some of these people have even had police protection, may be this is a step to far.

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually i guess there is some form of protection from hate mongers, i bet they will be investigated by one agency or another, but why let it go so far and cost the tax payer?

Because I think the censorship of them should be sanctioned by law.

Otherwise, agencies could investigate them all they want but what can they do if it's legal?

Some of these people have even had police protection, may be this is a step to far.

Well, that's a separate issue. That moves from speech into action. As a society, we would never allow a person to come to harm, regardless of how we as individuals feel about them. That would be worrisome. That would sew the roots of anarchy: allowing the people to mete out ad hoc justice.

 

[wolram]

Because I think the censorship of them should be sanctioned by law.

I agree whole heartedly, i am only searching for some fair means to judge who is a hate monger, i could name some who i think are, but would the do gooders agree? i doubt it.
they want to live in a world where every thing is protected, even if it is their dertriment.

 

[jim mcnamara]

I've got about 5 infractions that say I don't have freedom of speech.

Ya. But I see no line thru your name. It means you can be taught, or more correctly there is hope for you... :)


As a pointless aside -

Just because you construct a special thought does not mean it has to be heard by someone else. This more often earns us castigation or a line thru our names - or both.

D Hofstadter noted that English sentences with ~16 or more words have a measurable probability of never having been uttered or even constructed before. So we can all retain our 'unique' label, that most deplorable aspect of living in the USA, without verbalizing every thought we have. Then we can be content within ourselves and wreak social havoc inwardly. Even old stinkers like me can learn this trick... maybe.

 

[misgfool]

Because I think the censorship of them should be sanctioned by law.

But where do you draw the line? Can you be objective? Do you trust that the watchers are objective? Or more like hope for that? "Homo Homini Lupus" even though that discredits noble creatures such as the wolves. Speech can cause no physical harm to anyone. Whistleblower's have been forced to speak/write anonymously throughout history for their own safety. How can that be if they spoke the truth and the best interest of the people in mind? Obviously, if the law allows for people in power to prevent unwanted opinions they will use it sooner or later.

 

[wolram]

But where do you draw the line? Can you be objective? Do you trust that the watchers are objective? Or more like hope for that? "Homo Homini Lupus" even though that discredits noble creatures such as the wolves. Speech can cause no physical harm to anyone. Whistleblower's have been forced to speak/write anonymously throughout history for their own safety. How can that be if they spoke the truth and the best interest of the people in mind? Obviously, if the law allows for people in power to prevent unwanted opinions they will use it sooner or later.

I am sorry but this is where people are lilly livered, they will not decide what is good for them, and so we have the do gooders, the do gooders mean well but they take the good and bad as read, if people are bad they should be labeled as such, and not as some lamb that has strayed from the fold.

 

[Proton Soup]

I agree whole heartedly, i am only searching for some fair means to judge who is a hate monger, i could name some who i think are, but would the do gooders agree? i doubt it.
they want to live in a world where every thing is protected, even if it is their dertriment.

is this part of your schtick for which you're famously funny? the irony here is giving me hemochromatosis.

 

[wolram]

is this part of your schtick for which you're famously funny? the irony here is giving me hemochromatosis.

May be i am famously funny because i do not understand what the heck you said, what ever it is i hope it gets better or cured.

 

[Andre]

This thread also drifted to freedom of speech. Especially towards the end.

So here is my take.

 

[misgfool]

I am sorry but this is where people are lilly livered, they will not decide what is good for them, and so we have the do gooders, the do gooders mean well but they take the good and bad as read, if people are bad they should be labeled as such, and not as some lamb that has strayed from the fold.

I am not entirely certain that I understood that, but how do we know that people are bad if nobody can say that they are bad? Anyway with Borg efficiency I would have to say: "Could you clarify, please?".

 

[Proton Soup]

May be i am famously funny because i do not understand what the heck you said, what ever it is i hope it gets better or cured.

i guess we have something in common, then, because i have no idea what you're getting at, either. do you really think people need to be protected from words or ideas? maybe you could be more specific and lay it out for us just exactly what you want to censor and what you think will happen if you don't censor it. because where i sit, i don't see the harm you see. i just see a lot of people disagreeing, yet getting along.

 

[DaveC426913]

You cannot label a person as bad, only an action. If a person has a high probability of committing bad acts (such as serial offenders) then we take take some precautionary measures.

We justify this by way of the "social contract": This land* belongs to all of us. To live here, we agree not to harm* each other. Violate* that, and you violate the contract ,and we can by rights protect* ourselves from you. (*all these terms are arbitrarily open to interpretation and degrees of enforcement without substantially affecting the core contract.)

I made above up. It explains in very loose terms why we have freedoms, but not necessarily rights such as free speech i.e they can be revoked.