On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[FBM]

The words are not actions, though...

Rolling my eyes is an action. Thinking is an action. I'm asking you to elevate your level of discourse to reflect exactly what you mean. So far, you haven't matched your intended message with your typed message. (I mean 'you' collectively to include the others who are arguing in the same vein.)

[FBM]

Speech is behavior.

[FBM]

*sigh*

You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?

I'm imagining Hitler pounding the podium and screeching, "The German people are the best jelly donuts the world has ever seen! We will achieve the purity of our race by changing the oil in our cars every 50,000 miles! The llama is a quadruped!"

[Cunt]

would a good Muslim refer to Mr. Hitchens' work as 'hate crimes'?
Should his hatred be removed from civilized discourse?


Free speech isn't the problem - it's the solution.

[Trolldor]

*sigh*

You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?

I'm imagining Hitler pounding the podium and screeching, "The German people are the best jelly donuts the world has ever seen! We will achieve the purity of our race by changing the oil in our cars every 50,000 miles! The llama is a quadruped!"

And he damn well could have.

He would speak for hours on end, and often in beer halls, while the beer was still flowing.

[FBM]

*sigh*

You do understand that being a skilled orator has very little to do with what you say, right?

I'm imagining Hitler pounding the podium and screeching, "The German people are the best jelly donuts the world has ever seen! We will achieve the purity of our race by changing the oil in our cars every 50,000 miles! The llama is a quadruped!"

And he damn well could have.

He would speak for hours on end, and often in beer halls, while the beer was still flowing.

He had that going for him, at least.

[Coito ergo sum]

But when an individual has great influence over a significant portion of the community, I'm not sure. - whether it's a politician, a media mogul, or a religious leader - I think it gets dangerous when too much power is in the hands of too few people.

In the case of the media, it's the wild west. A lot of people watch Fox News, but they do so by choice. There are 200 other channels on my cable television, and the news sources I have at my fingertips at any moment are legion. Newspapers, websites, radio, television, magazines, you name it. There are so many choices in so many differing views, that the only way one media mogul is getting power is by producing programming people like to watch.

When somebody has so much influence, is it acceptable for them to be spreading outright lies?

Yes, because we do not have a Ministry of Truth, or clearinghouse of facts to approve and reject certain statements as "outright lies." I have had discussions man times with people who say "this person lied!" I say, "give me an example," and they proceed to cite something with which they vehemently disagree, but which can't fairly be characterized as a "lie." And, "lie" involves an element of intent - merely speaking something that is incorrect is not the same as lying. When we believe we know a fact, and state it, it's only lying if we know it's not true.

h

Perhaps what I'm getting at isn't so much a free speech issue, as an abuse of power issue.

"Abuse of power" is a broad statement. You'd have to be specific about what a person did that constitutes that abuse of power. For example, did he or she take bribes? Sell political favors? What? In the context of free speech, I would need to know an example of an abuse of power that you're referring to.

[

Sure there's a lot of choice with things like news but, given that Fox News regularly spreads absolute bullshit,

Says you. So do other news outlets. But, let's take the Fox News - what are your top three statements that you think constitute the abuses of power? And, what would you have done about it? A Federal Bureau of Truthtelling to come swooping in and set broadcasting content?

[

the reason so many people watch it must be beacuse Fox are very good at manipulating people, one way or another, into following what they say.

Seems no more difficult to change the dial from Fox than from any other channel.

[

The same goes for religion, but it's usually a bit more obvious, when people are convinced by the religion that they will go to hell if they don't follow the religion, it seems wrong to me to allow religious leaders to tell their devout followers whatever they want.

You want it to be unlawful for a person to voice their opinion that people are going to hell?

[

But like I said, I can't see any easy way around it without harming free speech for others.

It is precisely the hateful and the unpopular speech that we should most vigorously protect.

Noam Chomsky, a guy with whom I disagree on many things, stated poignantly that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

John Milton said it well in his Areopagitica (a must read, IMHO), "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."

One of my favorite philosophers, John Stuart Mill wrote in his "On Liberty, " that "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. " I agree. EVEN IF we are sure that something is false, it should be protected.

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Justice Potter Stewart That's the kind of sentiment that makes me wonder why so many Left leaning folks are so willing to sell their birthright down the river. Under the rubric of people being kind and good to each other, we would castrate our society.

Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson - Think of that one. It's always for the protection of other people that we seek to muzzle our fellow citizens. Nobody says "I shouldn't be allowed to read Mein Kampf." They say, "they" shouldn't be allowed to read it.

[Coito ergo sum]

would a good Muslim refer to Mr. Hitchens' work as 'hate crimes'?
Should his hatred be removed from civilized discourse?


Free speech isn't the problem - it's the solution.

They already have referred to Mr. Dawkins' work, the God Delusion, as hate speech in Turkey.

[RuleBritannia]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

[FBM]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

I agree. If you present the entire context of what I said, it was that too much restriction is just as disastrous as no restrictions at all. Avoid extremes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

I agree. If you present the entire context of what I said, it was that too much restriction is just as disastrous as no restrictions at all. Avoid extremes.

I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest that unrestricted freedom of speech is or ever has been "disastrous." Inconvenient for the government, offensive to certain people, etc., sure, but "disastrous?" Never. To much restriction has shown itself to be invariably disastrous.

[FBM]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

I agree. If you present the entire context of what I said, it was that too much restriction is just as disastrous as no restrictions at all. Avoid extremes.

I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest that unrestricted freedom of speech is or ever has been "disastrous." Inconvenient for the government, offensive to certain people, etc., sure, but "disastrous?" Never. To much restriction has shown itself to be invariably disastrous.

You missed the Hitler clip? I can find more, if you like.

[Trolldor]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive.

It's also how they implode.

I agree. If you present the entire context of what I said, it was that too much restriction is just as disastrous as no restrictions at all. Avoid extremes.

I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest that unrestricted freedom of speech is or ever has been "disastrous." Inconvenient for the government, offensive to certain people, etc., sure, but "disastrous?" Never. To much restriction has shown itself to be invariably disastrous.

You missed the Hitler clip? I can find more, if you like.

And in every case I can only ever think of the absence of opposition. Hitler was Fox News without Jon Stuart.

[Trolldor]

lol, also:

Gestapo.

[PsychoSerenity]

The freedom that allows them to 'spread such outright lies' is the same freedom that gives you the right to publically demonstrate as such.

If you want to silence someone for holding a view you disagree with, then you have to be prepared to hold your own tongue.

But nothing I say will ever reach 10 million people every night, because (aside from other things) I'm not going to manipulate people into following me. I think all I'm arguing for, is that people with massive influence be required to express truth rather than opinion, or at least, not be allowed to pass their opinion/views as truth, without evidence or reason.

But I suppose that could all be be avoided by education promoting science rather than simple facts.

---

Sure there's a lot of choice with things like news but, given that Fox News regularly spreads absolute bullshit,

Says you. So do other news outlets. But, let's take the Fox News - what are your top three statements that you think constitute the abuses of power? And, what would you have done about it? A Federal Bureau of Truthtelling to come swooping in and set broadcasting content?

Say for example when they were caught out, clearly falsifying figures, because their poll added up to 120%.



It may be quite funny, but how many things have they fabricated that haven't been caught out?

The same goes for religion, but it's usually a bit more obvious, when people are convinced by the religion that they will go to hell if they don't follow the religion, it seems wrong to me to allow religious leaders to tell their devout followers whatever they want.

You want it to be unlawful for a person to voice their opinion that people are going to hell?

Not "a person" but perhaps "a person with massive power and influence".

I'm not saying I know what should be done about it, but I don't think it's right.