Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ann

Hate speech? The fight for free speech.

Recommended Posts

Guest Ann

This guy got convicted for hate speech in the UK for posting a stupid video on Youtube. Scary times....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem we have is Tony Robinson, Lauren Southern and their far right ilk are now shit trolling for effect.

 

And they are wondering why it's biting them in the bum.

 

Should we allow, even encourage such trolling? Well there's free speech, and then there is reality where some people get genuinely upset when you shit troll something that is precious to them.

 

I disagree with Islam as strongly as any other person on this site - but I also know posting signs saying "Allah is gay" is not dialogue, its not even pointing anything out, its just an attempt to get a reaction and stir up people. (In Lauren's case... I haven't followed Tony so much but they are all in the same boat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free speech that offends someone is protected. Free speech that incites to violence is not. It's simple. Violence occurring after a verbal hate fest is well documented.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, florduh said:

Free speech that offends someone is protected. Free speech that incites to violence is not. It's simple. Violence occurring after a verbal hate fest is well documented.

 

This is a good point. And for anyone confused by the difference in speech that offends verses that which incites take these examples:

 

Me to a Muslim: "I do not think Allah exists because the proposition is self contradictory." This is likely to offend a great number of Muslims but is not inciting or hateful.

 

Me to Muslim: " Allah is [insert intentionally derogatory term]" This is obviously both offensive (Which I don't care if people are offended) but it's also intended to inflame the target of the message, and in a manner that is clearly predicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This is a good point. And for anyone confused by the difference in speech that offends verses that which incites take these examples:

 

Me to a Muslim: "I do not think Allah exists because the proposition is self contradictory." This is likely to offend a great number of Muslims but is not inciting or hateful.

 

Me to Muslim: " Allah is [insert intentionally derogatory term]" This is obviously both offensive (Which I don't care if people are offended) but it's also intended to inflame the target of the message, and in a manner that is clearly predicable.

 

I would argue that even your third example would not be considered to incite. Merely calling a deity a derogatory term, while it could elicit a violent response, is not in itself a call to violence. But if someone called upon a crowd to attack someone, then you've got a case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, older said:

 

I would argue that even your third example would not be considered to incite. Merely calling a deity a derogatory term, while it could elicit a violent response, is not in itself a call to violence. But if someone called upon a crowd to attack someone, then you've got a case.

 

What happens when you are deliberately attempting to elicit a response?

 

In the case I'm talking about, Laruen wasn't attempting to incite her side to violence, but she was intentionally provoking Muslims. It was a deliberate attempt to incite. Now she can claim she didn't intend violence, and that may well be, and we can also say that it is the Muslims choice as to how they respond - true. But the intention was there to incite some reaction knowing full well that Muslims do not take kindly to derogatory terms about their deity or religion. This may be immature of Muslims, but that's reality. Do we allow someone in this situation to have their 'free speech'?

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

What happens when you are deliberately attempting to elicit a response?

...

 

 

Thoughts?

 

I think this is where the burden of proof would lie. In the specific case of calling a deity a profane name, I'd have to rule that this is not an explicit call to action. Now this standard may vary from one country to the next as there are different measures based on the prevailing law. But here in America, the standard leans in favor of the speaker.The government would have to show a compelling interest in silencing the blaspheming of a deity, and I can't see that happening here.

 

Edit: Here's an example I just found from France. It's illegal there to speak favorably about terrorism or to approve a terrorist act. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/25/596849231/french-man-praises-police-death-is-arrested-for-apologizing-for-terrorism]

 

But here in America, you can voice your opinions about terrorism or terrorist acts as long as you don't call for someone to commit them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nazis have a dangerous agenda, they're not just all talk. That realized, people are a little touchy about providing them a platform to spread their message. Shocking, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Well, I've said this before but I may as well say this again since it seems the right spot.

 

     Way back when I ran an ISP I had neo-Nazi's sign up.  They had a web presence and all that on my system.  I told them that they could do whatever they liked as long as it didn't violate the law or my TOS (Terms of Service).  Basically, if they called for anything illegal or wanted to incite anyone to do anything objectionable then I'd shut them down otherwise they could go about their business.  So they did.

 

     I'm pretty sure they signed me up for one of their mailing lists because for years I got some sort of white power type newsletter that I couldn't unsubscribe from.  It was fairly crazy but gave me lots of insight into their way of thinking so I guess good for my education in that.

 

     Anyhow, I really didn't treat them any different from any of my other customers but I did make sure to touch base with them because they were more controversial and when I did speak with them their website was starting to get to the borderline with some of its graphics even though the text was generally not too bad (given the context of course).  Ultimately, they closed down (I have some recollections why but they don't matter here but it wasn't any sort of censorship).

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All you White Christian Americans gathered here today, I need to give you an urgent warning. Mexicans are taking your jobs and niggers are taking your tax dollars. Muslims are terrorizing decent white folks in every neighborhood they move into as they try to take us over. The white race has built every country that amounts to anything and it's time we take back ours."

 

Such rhetoric has historically resulted in subsequent attacks on minorities, mosques and churches. Protected free speech or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So England(?) wasted some serious tax dollars on this shit. Might have been less costly to just ask that Google take it down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, florduh said:

"All you White Christian Americans gathered here today, I need to give you an urgent warning. Mexicans are taking your jobs and niggers are taking your tax dollars. Muslims are terrorizing decent white folks in every neighborhood they move into as they try to take us over. The white race has built every country that amounts to anything and it's time we take back ours."

 

Such rhetoric has historically resulted in subsequent attacks on minorities, mosques and churches. Protected free speech or not? 

 

True, but it isn't possible to stop that kind of speech or the twisted thinking that goes with it. Kind of like trying to get rid of cockroaches. The little suckers figure out ways to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, florduh said:

"All you White Christian Americans gathered here today, I need to give you an urgent warning. Mexicans are taking your jobs and niggers are taking your tax dollars. Muslims are terrorizing decent white folks in every neighborhood they move into as they try to take us over. The white race has built every country that amounts to anything and it's time we take back ours."

 

Such rhetoric has historically resulted in subsequent attacks on minorities, mosques and churches. Protected free speech or not? 

 

Depends on if it's on a neo nazi website I'll never be visiting or on a billboard these assholes paid for that I drive by on the way to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

True, but it isn't possible to stop that kind of speech or the twisted thinking that goes with it. Kind of like trying to get rid of cockroaches. The little suckers figure out ways to survive.

 

Bring a large container of marbles to a protest march. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about carrying torches through a Jewish neighborhood chanting "the Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil?" How about NOT in a Jewish neighborhood but in front of a sympathetic crowd?

 

I'm interested where people draw their lines. I wonder if inciting to violence needs to be specific instructions for violence before it's deemed a problem; "Muslims are invading us to force their way of life on us and they need to be stopped" versus "Maybe burning down a few mosques will make Muslims think twice before trying to take us over."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

The Nazis used to have marches through the city of Skokie Illinois.  That was a very Jewish area of Chicago.

I know that, but the question is are you fine with that. I'm interested in where people draw their lines regarding free speech versus public/personal safety. Some of you I can guess but I'd just like to get a feel for the general mood of the community on this. This isn't about offending some snowflakes but rather the inherent dangers of whipping up a crowd to take revenge on the enemy presented to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

If we start limiting one group....where does it stop?  The Nazis marched, the police were there, other than maybe some insults shouted both ways, and maybe some projectiles thrown from the crowd, nobody was hurt.  The Nazis KNEW they would elicit a strongly condemned and at times possibly a violent response.  They took the risk.  Nobody said the people had to be onlookers there.  They could have starved the Nazis of attention.  There are natural consequences that would come from saying some things, but the only thing worse, would be to limit those insulting words or sanctioning of the people who said them.  The next person could be YOU.  That British fellow that made the silly but distasteful video with his little dog, I suspect, really only caused some government bureaucrat to get a run in his/her panties.  Freedom has a responsibility.  If anyone, government especially tries to protect you by preventing you from hearing some things, you then have something FAR worse than the people saying the offensive words. 

So I take that as no limits on speech up to and including encouraging people to physically attack the target group or burn down their buildings. Is that correct?

 

See, I'm not sure how far I can go with inciting to violence. Part of me understands "tough shit, burned down negro church, free speech is free speech" and another part says we should probably not permit people to call for attacks on minority groups. Curious where others have decided to draw the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

In the example you cite, if they do attempt to burn the church down, then the folks who's church it is has the right to use force against them...

Yes, anyone has the right to defend himself from force. The issue here would be, does the guy whipping up the crowd by telling them they need to take "action" against the "enemy" share in the responsibility for the burning even though they never actually lit a match themselves. Physical attacks against another have consequences, but how about for the guy behind the attack, the one who persuaded them to do it? Any responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/she-survived-the-holocaust-to-die-in-a-2018-hate-crime/ar-BBKJuAu?li=BBqdk7Q&ocid=mailsignout

 

I think this is where hate speech ultimately leads. I don't see any possible way that hate speech can be widely tolerated, even allowed to flourish, and it lead to peace.

 

(Note in this instance its not hate speech per se, but I think its a good example of what can happen when people are allowed to chant slogans against particular groups of people)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, florduh said:

Yes, anyone has the right to defend himself from force. The issue here would be, does the guy whipping up the crowd by telling them they need to take "action" against the "enemy" share in the responsibility for the burning even though they never actually lit a match themselves. Physical attacks against another have consequences, but how about for the guy behind the attack, the one who persuaded them to do it? Any responsibility?

 

Sounds like it might be deemed to be conspiracy to commit a crime depending on the exact circumstances. Like "Burn this bitch down" in Ferguson, Mo , for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, florduh said:

"All you White Christian Americans gathered here today, I need to give you an urgent warning. Mexicans are taking your jobs and niggers are taking your tax dollars. Muslims are terrorizing decent white folks in every neighborhood they move into as they try to take us over. The white race has built every country that amounts to anything and it's time we take back ours."

 

Such rhetoric has historically resulted in subsequent attacks on minorities, mosques and churches. Protected free speech or not? 

 

Obviously free speech. The above is all opinion. It doesn't matter how deluded the opinion may be. 

 

They haven't identified what taking back the country means. Does it mean taking the country back through political means? There's nothing there saying, "go out and attack people." 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

duplicate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/she-survived-the-holocaust-to-die-in-a-2018-hate-crime/ar-BBKJuAu?li=BBqdk7Q&ocid=mailsignout

 

I think this is where hate speech ultimately leads. I don't see any possible way that hate speech can be widely tolerated, even allowed to flourish, and it lead to peace.

 

(Note in this instance its not hate speech per se, but I think its a good example of what can happen when people are allowed to chant slogans against particular groups of people)

 

This reminds me of that sci fi movie from a while back about a future where literal thought police, police everyone's thoughts in an attempt to prevent crimes BEFORE they have taken place. At the very thought of potentially murdering someone, you're arrested. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This reminds me of that sci fi movie from a while back about a future where literal thought police, police everyone's thoughts in an attempt to prevent crimes BEFORE they have taken place. At the very thought of potentially murdering someone, you're arrested. lol

 

You mean Minority report with Tom Cruise? Interesting movie.

 

In which way does it remind you of the movie?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You mean Minority report with Tom Cruise? Interesting movie.

 

In which way does it remind you of the movie?

 

 

 

Where does one draw the line when trying to nip a potential in the bud, before it actually happens? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.