Violence vs. Free Speech

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,595
Location
near Cologne
There is no such thing as hate speech, only speech you immensely dislike.
I'd love to agree with that, but alas, that statement is utopian. My impression is that you, personally, don't seem like someone who is easily (if at all) influenced by hate speech, but please don't ignore those who are. History is full of examples where hate speech has led to death and destruction, one of those was Der St?rmer.

We may simply be misunderstanding each other because we define the term "hate speech" differently, but I do believe that we fundamentally disagree on the consequences of speech. In my view, it can be and is all too often used to provide and promote a framework of radical ideas, words and actions that support and amplify each other. Any freedom, i.e. human or civil right, needs to be used wisely and defended even more wisely. For instance, someone's resentment may be illogical, annoying, misguided and the stuff of nightmares, but they should be free to voice it because their resentment is (usually) easily recognised.

Hatred is different because it involves the wish for someone to come to harm, it is both pervasive and seductive. It seeks to destroy its object and all that is associated with it. It is no longer the stuff of nightmares, but a nightmare trying to become a twisted, warped and unrecognisable reality.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
Do you believe that "hate speech" should be restricted?
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
If "hate speech" is to be restricted, who determines what it is? I'd like to know who our one party state will be ruled by.

One who cares about freedom of speech, defends speech they disagree with. I despise both fascism and communism, yet will defend the right of people to speak for them.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,884
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I'd love to agree with that, but alas, that statement is utopian. My impression is that you, personally, don't seem like someone who is easily (if at all) influenced by hate speech, but please don't ignore those who are. History is full of examples where hate speech has led to death and destruction, one of those was Der St?rmer.

We may simply be misunderstanding each other because we define the term "hate speech" differently, but I do believe that we fundamentally disagree on the consequences of speech. In my view, it can be and is all too often used to provide and promote a framework of radical ideas, words and actions that support and amplify each other. Any freedom, i.e. human or civil right, needs to be used wisely and defended even more wisely. For instance, someone's resentment may be illogical, annoying, misguided and the stuff of nightmares, but they should be free to voice it because their resentment is (usually) easily recognised.

Hatred is different because it involves the wish for someone to come to harm, it is both pervasive and seductive. It seeks to destroy its object and all that is associated with it. It is no longer the stuff of nightmares, but a nightmare trying to become a twisted, warped and unrecognisable reality.
I fully recognize the importance and danger of speech, however the problem with restricting speech is where do you stop and like argatoga said who defines it? There is a distinction however between expressing ideas and call to action. "All people who wear purple are subhuman" is not the same as "we need to eradicate all those who wear purple", former is just an expression of an opinion, latter is a call to action.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,595
Location
near Cologne
If "hate speech" is to be restricted, who determines what it is?
Same as always: the people making the laws provide a broad definition and the people interpreting the laws provide a detailed one. In other words: elected representatives, judges and jurors.

I'd like to know who our one party state will be ruled by.
If anyone likes to try and take us down that road, it's the people who abuse their freedom of speech, not the ones trying to defend the victims of their hatred.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
What is the benefit of "hate speech"?
What is "hate speech" and who defines what it is?

- - - Updated - - -

Same as always: the people making the laws provide a broad definition and the people interpreting the laws provide a detailed one. In other words: elected representatives, judges and jurors.
So once elected, those in power criminalize their opponents views as "hate speech", and we get a one party state.


If anyone likes to try and take us down that road, it's the people who abuse their freedom of speech, not the ones trying to defend the victims of their hatred.
You can't "abuse" the freedom of speech. How do you define freedom of speech?
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,595
Location
near Cologne
I fully recognize the importance and danger of speech, however the problem with restricting speech is where do you stop and like argatoga said who defines it?
We have that problem every time someone has to draw the line between e.g. murder and manslaughter. We also have it every time someone has to decide how much over the limit you were going. That problem is inherent in all legal systems, but IMHO people have come up with remarkable (though always partial) solutions to it.

There is a distinction however between expressing ideas and call to action. "All people who wear purple are subhuman" is not the same as "we need to eradicate all those who wear purple", former is just an expression of an opinion, latter is a call to action.
Hence my distinction between resentment and hatred.

- - - Updated - - -

So once elected, those in power criminalize their opponents views as "hate speech", and we get a one party state.
Only if they were able to eliminate the First Amendment, which is not at all what I'm advocating. Also, how do you explain that Germany, where you can actually go to prison for saying certain things, is not a one party state?

You can't "abuse" the freedom of speech. How do you define freedom of speech?
Not as the absolute freedom to say, write, print etc. anything you want without consequences. :p

- - - Updated - - -

One who cares about freedom of speech, defends speech they disagree with. I despise both fascism and communism, yet will defend the right of people to speak for them.
Will you also defend their right to hold rallies where they call their opponents e.g. "subhuman scum that needs to be dealt with"?
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
We have that problem every time someone has to draw the line between e.g. murder and manslaughter. We also have it every time someone has to decide how much over the limit you were going. That problem is inherent in all legal systems, but IMHO people have come up with remarkable (though always partial) solutions to it.
Speech doesn't kill people. Cenk Uygur glorifying a group that wanted to kill my Greek grandmother doesn't kill me. That Mein Kampf is in print doesn't mean I will be put to slave labor for being born part of the inferior "slavic" race either. When Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussain, and other genocidal dictators banned speech they said they were doing it protect the people, guess how well that worked out? All it did was protect their own totalitarian regimes.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -


Only if they were able to eliminate the First Amendment, which is not at all what I'm advocating. Also, how do you explain that Germany, where you can actually go to prison for saying certain things, is not a one party state?


Not as the absolute freedom to say, write, print etc. anything you want without consequences. :p

- - - Updated - - -


Will you also defend their right to hold rallies where they call their opponents e.g. "subhuman scum that needs to be dealt with"?
You say the First Amendment will protect us, but then redefine free speech so as to make it void and worthless. Germany is a state in which one political group has been banned. That shows the power of banning speech. East Germany showed how easy it was to go further.

I have cited the ACLU's defense of the KKK as a noble act before. Not because I agree with the KKK, but because they know that freedom of speech must be defended. Speech doesn't kill people, it destroys dictatorships.
 
Last edited:

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,595
Location
near Cologne
Speech doesn't kill people.
I agree, speech alone doesn't kill them. Which is why I said this earlier:

In my view, it can be and is all too often used to provide and promote a framework of radical ideas, words and actions that support and amplify each other.
When Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussain, and other genocidal dictators banned speech they said they were doing it protect the people, guess how well that worked out? All it did was protect their own totalitarian regimes.
In the case of Hitler, the only reason why he rose to power was the hate speech from his side. One of the biggest problems of Germany's present-day anti-democratic far-right is the laws against hate speech. It seems to be working rather well.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I agree, speech alone doesn't kill them. Which is why I said this earlier:


In the case of Hitler, the only reason why he rose to power was the hate speech from his side. One of the biggest problems of Germany's present-day anti-democratic far-right is the laws against hate speech. It seems to be working rather well.
We agree, actions should be regulated. Speech alone is not enough. Hitler rose to power through thuggish actions and solidified it by immediately banning speech.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,098
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Except my banning certain speech, you are also banning open criticism of said speech. Therefore, you are emboldening a group who feels that given position could be valid because it is outlawed from open discussion.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,595
Location
near Cologne
You say the First Amendment will protect us, but then redefine free speech so as to make it void and worthless.
No, I really don't. Right now, I'm not even trying to define free speech, that would be quite a difficult and lengthy process since I don't like to see issues in black & white. What I have said is that the definition and its interpretation should be entrusted to the people we entrust with running our legal systems.

Germany is a state in which one political group has been banned. That shows the power of banning speech.
So? It's also a state where banning any political group is extremely difficult, and for good reason. It's a state that shows that your slippery slope argument has no merit.

East Germany showed how easy it was to go further.
The Soviets told East Germany where to go and they obeyed the orders with typical German efficiency. West Germany was given different orders.

I have cited the ACLU's defense of the KKK as a noble act before. Not because I agree with the KKK, but because they know that freedom of speech must be defended. Speech doesn't kill people, it destroys dictatorships.
Again: speech alone doesn't kill people etc.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
calvinhobbes is against the freedom of speech. Why am I not surprised?
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
No, I really don't. Right now, I'm not even trying to define free speech, that would be quite a difficult and lengthy process since I don't like to see issues in black & white. What I have said is that the definition and its interpretation should be entrusted to the people we entrust with running our legal systems.


So? It's also a state where banning any political group is extremely difficult, and for good reason. It's a state that shows that your slippery slope argument has no merit.


The Soviets told East Germany where to go and they obeyed the orders with typical German efficiency. West Germany was given different orders.


Again: speech alone doesn't kill people etc.
We're repeating ourselves. I don't want to enter another LeVeL loop, so I'll wait until a new argument has been made.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,595
Location
near Cologne
We agree, actions should be regulated. Speech alone is not enough. Hitler rose to power through thuggish actions and solidified it by immediately banning speech.
His first noteworthy "thuggish actions" landed him in gaol. Hitler alone wouldn't have led the NSDAP anywhere, he needed a chief propagandist for that: Joseph Goebbels. About that "framework of radical ideas, words and actions" which I mentioned earlier... I hope the Nazis are an acceptable example?

- - - Updated - - -

Except my banning certain speech, you are also banning open criticism of said speech.
How so? I'll need an explanation; mostly because it's perfectly legal to discuss Nazi ideas in Germany as long as you don't propagate them.

- - - Updated - - -

We're repeating ourselves.
I think we might be done here. You seem to consider it a black & white issue, I do not. Did I misunderstand you or do we agree to disagree?

I don't want to enter another LeVeL loop, so I'll wait until a new argument has been made.
BTW, has he been contributing anything worthwhile?
 
Last edited:

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,098
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
I must say you astonish me if you really mean that you can't discuss the Nazis unless someone in the discussion takes their side.
I am saying a civilized discussion has to allow for any/all sides to be represented, and not in a "Kangaroo" court style sanctioned way.

It doesn't matter how distasteful I find Nazi ideology (or any other that encourages genocide), the ideas are not what kills people and they need to be fully vetted.

EDIT: I believe there is a line, but "hate speech" is too nebulous. Any position that explicitly endorses bodily harm is one that should be considered unconstitutional/illegal, etc. However, the importance of maintaining free speech as much as possible is to prevent those who MIGHT be remotely affiliated with others who MIGHT have such a position from having their own, separate views from being discussed.

Case in point: Milo Yiannopoulous. He's not a white supremacist, but he's being (erroneously) linked to them. That's not an indication for his freedom of speech to be revoked.
 
Last edited:
Top