Freedom of Speech

[History_Buff]

Hate speech being banned is a load of crap, and #4 is far too subjective.

Which of the following stateemnts would you say crosses the line for "Hate speech?" (No particular order.)...

6. We should restore the Old Testament laws against homosexuality.

7. Homosexuals are f--s

8. Homosexuals are abominations.

9. Homosexuality is an abomination.

10. Everyone should just start lynching the gays.

The spirit 10 definitely would be, though it would depend on the context in which you were saying it. 8 and 9 are borderline; it's unlikely to be hate speech, unless you're screaming it to a huge crowd.

As for holding media institutions accountable for lying, it's not really that blurry a line. Hard to catch them out on it, but if they're saying anything they know is false, or that they should know is false if they had done their due diligence, then punish them. It's actually an area the law deals with all the time in negligence cases. Essentially all #4 does is hold journalists to a professional standard, which I see no problem with.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The spirit 10 definitely would be, though it would depend on the context in which you were saying it. 8 and 9 are borderline; it's unlikely to be hate speech, unless you're screaming it to a huge crowd.

OK, you drew the line a bit further than I thought you would. Not that I agree necessarily, but I thought you would have called #6 illegal hate speech since its calling for the execution of gays.

#10 should be illegal not because its "Hateful" but because its advocating murder. "Hate" doesn't need to play into it.

 

[Zack]

The moderators may full well think that arresting people for speech is wrong.

No shik.

 

[History_Buff]

OK, you drew the line a bit further than I thought you would. Not that I agree necessarily, but I thought you would have called #6 illegal hate speech since its calling for the execution of gays.

#10 should be illegal not because its "Hateful" but because its advocating murder. "Hate" doesn't need to play into it.

And that's basically where I draw the line. If you're not advocating for death, or trying to vilify a group of identifiable people, then carry on.

 

[civver_764]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. " - Noam Chomsky

I don't think any speech should be censored. People can say absolutely horrible things, but by using violence(or the threat of) to stop them you are worse.

 

[Truronian]

I think it's odd when we protect companies more than we protect people. If that film had been called Innocence of McDonald's employees how long do you think it would have stayed on youtube?

 

[wolfigor]

in my view there should be the least limitations possible to freedom of speech: it should be allow to express any opinion bar some special cases.

The special cases are:

- inciting violence, directly or indirectly
e.g. sentences like "kill all gays" or "all gays must die" or "the world would be better if all gays were dead" should be forbidden.

- inciting to break the law
e.g. "Lets sell heroin" should be forbidden because it incite to break the law, however a sentence like "the law should be changed to allow selling of heroin" should be allowed.

At the time of writing I don't see any other limitations.
Especially I don't think there should be any limitation due to hurt sensitivities: if you get offended that's your problem.

 

[WindFish]

Which of the following stateemnts would you say crosses the line for "Hate speech?" (No particular order.)

1. I don't like homosexuals.

2. Homosexuality is a sin according to my faith.

3. Gay marriage should not be allowed.

4. Civil unions for gays should not be allowed.

5. We need new sodomy laws.

6. We should restore the Old Testament laws against homosexuality.

7. Homosexuals are f--s

8. Homosexuals are abominations.

9. Homosexuality is an abomination.

10. Everyone should just start lynching the gays.

3 imo is where the line is crossed and 5 imo is where bigotry starts. Although not all homosexuals engage in sodomy and quite a lot of heterosexual couples do.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can't roll with "hate speech" either. Either personally or in support of the current iterations of so named laws.

"Lets sell heroin" though? Don't you think a better line for criminality would be when a material step is taken towards actual sale of said product? This is a bit too fluffy-wuffy conspiracy/sedition/I just don't like what you are saying for me, at least.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I can't roll with "hate speech" either. Either personally or in support of the current iterations of so named laws.

"Lets sell heroin" though? Don't you think a better line for criminality would be when a material step is taken towards actual sale of said product? This is a bit too fluffy-wuffy conspiracy/sedition/I just don't like what you are saying for me, at least.

The libertarain side of me says that perhaps even threats shouldn't be illegal. No limits on speech. That would mean you could even potentially threaten the President and get away with it, unless you actually take a material step towards it. I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be.

 

[wolfigor]

The libertarain side of me says that perhaps even threats shouldn't be illegal. No limits on speech. That would mean you could even potentially threaten the President and get away with it, unless you actually take a material step towards it. I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be.

Who makes threats should face consequences for their words.
Making a threat is the first step toward violence (e.g. "give me your wallet or I will kill you"): even without actual violence there is coercion.
In many cases people wouldn't risk to challenge the threat, making the threat almost as coercive as violence itself.

"Lets sell heroin" though? Don't you think a better line for criminality would be when a material step is taken towards actual sale of said product? This is a bit too fluffy-wuffy conspiracy/sedition/I just don't like what you are saying for me, at least.

One is inciting people to commit a crime.... yes... it's borderline sedition somehow.
Maybe I should have found a better example... but the most clear cut examples coming from my mind are connected to direct violence.

 

[King Kalmah]

I think it's odd when we protect companies more than we protect people. If that film had been called Innocence of McDonald's employees how long do you think it would have stayed on youtube?

Not everyone has an army of lawyers...but I do agree common sense should come into this...besides the film was so bad,not even college level production...

 

[BvBPL]

The libertarain side of me says that perhaps even threats shouldn't be illegal. No limits on speech. That would mean you could even potentially threaten the President and get away with it, unless you actually take a material step towards it. I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be.

The consequences would be that blackmail and extortion would go through the roof. Neckless Guidos would run around with baseball bats gently "persuading" shopkeeprs to part with their money.

 

[Farm Boy]

Who makes threats should face consequences for their words.
Making a threat is the first step toward violence (e.g. "give me your wallet or I will kill you"): even without actual violence there is coercion.
In many cases people wouldn't risk to challenge the threat, making the threat almost as coercive as violence itself.



One is inciting people to commit a crime.... yes... it's borderline sedition somehow.
Maybe I should have found a better example... but the most clear cut examples coming from my mind are connected to direct violence.

Threats or deciding to engage in drug trafficking require additional steps beyond speech though. If you mug somebody you need to approach a victim, or acquire a weapon, or any number of different material steps. Same with heroin sale. "Let's sell heroin" may be idle speculation, or a joke, or it may have some potential truth to it, but without any work on details such as how to acquire said product, working out how to find customers, etc etc - the speech itself is not harmful enough at this point. I don't want to criminalize everyone who has ever considered a criminal act and perhaps even vocalized that consideration unless they actually do something. Speech itself can raise to this level, but it should be pretty crystal that harm is being done in the moment with that speech in order for it to be a criminal act.

 

[Core Imposter]

Free speech, all the way, except for these 4 conditions:

1. Yelling FIRE in a theatre scenario
2. Hate speech against protected classes
3. Lying about a product or service you are selling in some sort of an advertisement (TV, paper, etc.)
4. News networks lying or misrepresenting facts

There shouldn't be protected classes.

As for 3 and 4, think of XXXXXX'X warped sense of perception. XXXXXX would see some test of the emergency broadcast system and leap forth foaming at the mouth, write liar and conservative on the screen in blood and demand prosecution. So those simply can't work.

 

[Core Imposter]

Not that I won't be banned again anyway. Soon.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Free speech, all the way, except for these 4 conditions:

1. Yelling FIRE in a theatre scenario
2. Hate speech against protected classes
3. Lying about a product or service you are selling in some sort of an advertisement (TV, paper, etc.)
4. News networks lying or misrepresenting facts

1. ok.
2. tooo vague
3. what about if i am not selling it?
4. is a movie maker "a news network"?

 

[warpus]

1. ok.
2. tooo vague
3. what about if i am not selling it?
4. is a movie maker "a news network"?

2. I did not want to get into specifics because each geographical and political region will have its own rules as to which class of people should be "protected". As for all the people saying that this sort of thing should not exist, enjoy being a white male

3. If you're not selling, producing, or promoting it, then it should be fine

4. A news network is a network that claims to dispense "the news"

 

[Verbose]

There shouldn't be protected classes.

I think that's something all sides here should be able to agree with — in principle. There shouldn't be... but, that's also a matter of "there should be no need"...

"Protected classes" is badly worded btw. What this generally deals with are rather "minorities in a weak position in society, that as a result might warrant special protection".

Could mean Jews for starters...

Anyway, the question rather boils down to whether there is a perceived need to pay special attention to protection of certain minorities, or not?

 

[Verbose]

Just generally re the OP; as someone recently put it re the uproar in parts of the Muslim world over Muhammed on youtube:

"Blasphemy is a right. It is not a duty."