Not that long ago if an individual put forward hateful views, they would be challenged.
It was certain that hate was as unsavoury as aggression and precipitated violence.
The behaviour was considered unacceptable.

With the argument for free speech entering such a murky and degenerate phase, would it be possible to make the distinction between freedom of speech and freedom to hate in a bid to halt the march into chaos?

There’s already a distinction, there are incitement to hatred laws.

People should be free to say what they like, but if they want to spout hate and incite violence, they should not be protected from the potential consequences of such behaviour.

Those who defend freedom to hate, sorry speak tend to be those who can’t tolerate other people’s views very well. Kind of makes the whole thing a bit difficult.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/david-leyonhjelm-nsw-senator-lodges-complaint-over-journalists-claim-he-is-an-angry-white-male/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89
For example a very confused bloke who wants to be able to call people what he wants as “offence can only be taken not given” but didn’t like people saying things about him.

Goes back to Rule 1 in the end of the day and a bit of with great power comes great responsibility.

Not that long ago if an individual put forward hateful views, they would be challenged.

Is this not a key point? If hateful views are never aired, they can’t be challenged and so potentially just fester in the background unchecked?

(Obviously it would be nice if nobody held these views!)

But in the present climate, people are bypassing those laws with cleverly engineered dialogue, even though the meaning behind the dialogue is clear.

It’s giving rise to some very extremist views and agendas becoming completely normalised, leading to hate preachers being given a platform almost anywhere they choose.

Is this not a key point? If hateful views are banned and thus aren’t put forward, they can’t be challenged and so potentially just fester in the background unchecked?

All very well and good in a world where people are swayed by reason…….so yeah…bad idea in our ‘fake news’ world.

People in general are idiots, and cant reason the difference between freedom of speech and mouthing off like a total bellend.

People in general are idiots, and cant reason the difference between freedom of speech and mouthing off like a total bellend.

Winner, /thread.

Good story – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/godaddy-pulls-plug-daily-stormer-neo-nazi-site_us_5991318fe4b090964297f493

and as the thing about hosgting shows, you may retain the right to say something but you have zero right to a platform.

I think that’s definitely a key issue.
Should hosts be held more accountable for providing a platform?

I think it might be better to let these things fester and rot away in dark little holes, rather than allowing it to be normalised.
It’s like cleaning your work surfaces in the kitchen with a sponge.
If the bacteria is all contained in the sponge, it can’t spread so easily to the food that you’re preparing.

It’s still there but it doesn’t pose an immediate danger

Thanks for that Fin!

Unfortunately I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that people can no longer accept the consequences of their actions and therefore try anything and everything to get out of these consequences when they are unfavorable.
If you say something homophobic/racist/sexist/hateful be prepared for the consequences of saying that. If you are unprepared to accept that, dont say it.
But this is not just speech. “I got off speeding cos the camera wasn’t painted yellow…” “Even though I had had a couple beers and killed a cyclist while driving home, it isn’t my fault cos he was in the middle of the lane when I went round the corner…”

freedom to hate

You are free to hate whatever you want, you’re also free to say what you hate.

What you can’t do is tell/persuade/encourage other people to hate along with you. You also can’t use your views to tell/persuade/encourage hateful actions. And you also can’t expect that your views be given equal merit or legitimacy.

“I hate people who eat marmite”

^ allowed, although prepare to be questioned, challenged and ridiculed

“I think you should hate people who eat marmite”

^ grey area? you’re allowed to express that view, but it’s not nice

“I think we should hurt people who eat marmite”

^ not allowed

It’s still there but it doesn’t pose an immediate danger

Until you use the sponge to wipe the worktop again…

yunki – Member
It’s giving rise to some very extremist views and agendas becoming completely normalised, leading to hate preachers being given a platform almost anywhere they choose.

I don’t think normalised, there is an emboldening people that hold these view mind you. Not necessarily a bad thing though, we can challenge them.

I think in these circumstances, it can feel as if these views are overwhelming us, but it’s just agendas using them. We’ll push them back, i’ve no doubt. We just need to ride this wave of craziness, and try and understand the underlying reasons, which aren’t usually what they appear.

It’s manipulation imo. Divide and conquer. Don’t let it.

I think it might be better to let these things fester and for in dark little holes, rather than allowing it to be normalised.

But surely such views only become normalised if they’re voiced and nobody challenges them.

If they’re festering away and then someone like Farage or Trump comes along, up they come again, as is happening now. Or at least they’re in the headlines again.

Now they’re here again, there’s a lot of angry reaction, and stories like the one about hosting, which shows how much strength of feeling there is against such views.

Dunno. It comes down to how people react to things. I kind of think these views are never going to go away and that it’s better to have people condemning them than pretending they aren’t there

It’s still there but it doesn’t pose an immediate danger

Until you use the sponge to wipe the worktop again…

[/quote]Or until the sponge grows into a giant hateful fungus monster that threatens to consume the draining board…

fin25 – Member

People should be free to say what they like, but if they want to spout hate and incite violence, they should not be protected from the potential consequences of such behaviour.

But this just another way of saying the mob rules. Say what you want, but if a sufficiently large number of people disagree with you they can string you up.

Hyperbolic example but if you take Galileo’s claim of heliocentrism, enough people at the time regarded this as blasphemy that his books were banned, he was sent before the inquisition and lived out his life under house arrest.

Until you use the sponge to wipe the worktop again…

I think that’s exactly the mistake that has been made

Say what you want, but if a sufficiently large number of people disagree with you they can string you up.

No.
Say what you want as long as your intentions are not hateful

But in the present climate, people are bypassing those laws with cleverly engineered dialogue, even though the meaning behind the dialogue is clear.

The thing is the dialogue isn’t that clever really, but it’s audience is as thick as f.

Or until the sponge grows into a giant hateful fungus monster that threatens to consume the draining board…

We have a new winner.

The problem with the festering argument is there will ALWAYS be some kind of festering resentment/hate in people for something. Whether it is logical or not, it will not go away. What will (hopefully) is the actions from these feelings and the spread of them to others.

But this just another way of saying the mob rules. Say what you want, but if a sufficiently large number of people disagree with you they can string you up.

[/quote]

I disagree, the right to live free from hatred and threat is primarily about protecting the minority from the emotional and fickle masses.

yunki – Member

Say what you want, but if a sufficiently large number of people disagree with you they can string you up.

No.
Say what you want as long as your intentions are not hateful

Galileo’s intentions weren’t hateful though. So rather than “Say what you want as long as your intentions are not hateful” what you’re actually advocating is “Say what you want as long as your opinions are not controversial”.

The root cause here is the politically correct brigade quashing those with hateful views from airing them. We managed for decades with a low level of extremism, but now its rife. If you quash it rather than confront it which is what’s been happening over recent years, then it just festers and grows in the absence of any counter arguments or points of view to challenge them.

It’s political correctness, lack of tolerance or others who have views that differs to your own and the most popular views, and shouting down of those people with different views and labelling them ‘ists’ or stupid that is at fault.

Lets encourage extremists to speak, lets challenge them. We might not change that individuals point of view, but we might offer up alternatives to others who have yet to form a strong opinion.

these issues are not always polarised, in fact they are rarely polarised. The simplistic view of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ no longer applies, its shades of grey and by not having the debate in a free and open manner we’re not discussing all the various shades of grey leaving vast swathes of our population unsatisfied with the their representation and feeling they are being ignored and marginalised. And so they turn to the more extremist end of the argument.

Immigration is a classic. As a direct result of the trendy London liberals labelling anyone which concerns about immigration as racists or xenophobes and preventing them from speaking or debating the many complicated facets of this vast topic, people just clam up, find others with similar concerns, whinge and moan amongst themselves with just leads to ever more extreme views.

It’s nothing about freedom to hate. How can you stop someone from hating its a human trait and emotion. You either deal with someone’s hate head on, or try to ignore it and sweep it under the carpet. We’ve been doing the latter for too long.

You are free to hate whatever you want, you’re also free to say what you hate.

And that’s what needs to change.

I don’t think you should be free to hate. If you do hate then that’s your own thing, and you need to address your internal inadequacy, not seek others to indulge it.
You should NOT be free to express that problem publicly, or seek to normalise it by seeking others who are unable to control their emotions to give you positive affirmation.

deal with someone’s hate head on

No.
Hate precipitates violence.
Hate in and of itself is something people should learn to be ashamed of.

yunki

And that’s what needs to change.

I don’t think you should be free to hate. If you do hate then that’s your own thing, and you need to address your internal inadequacy, not seek others to indulge it.
You should NOT be free to express that problem publicly, or seek to notmalise it

So you want to ban free speech.

And that’s what needs to change.

I don’t think you should be free to hate. If you do hate then that’s your own thing, and you need to address your internal inadequacy, not seek others to indulge it.
You should NOT be free to express that problem publicly, or seek to notmalise it

I can see your point and agree to a certain extent but using this example from above:

“I hate people who eat marmite”

^ allowed, although prepare to be questioned, challenged and ridiculed

“I think you should hate people who eat marmite”

^ grey area? you’re allowed to express that view, but it’s not nice

“I think we should hurt people who eat marmite”

^ not allowed
Going with what you are saying, you cannot say “I hate marmite” which MUST have an impact on freedom of speech as surely this ‘level of hate’ is not the same as ‘I hate muslims/blackpeople/scum sucking tories’

It’s hate that needs to be outlawed.
I don’t allow my kids to hate.
I teach them a wider lexicon to enable them to express themselves more truthfully.

Why should we allow adults to hate?

It’s not a slippery slope either.. what purpose does hate serve?

If you want to talk about hate, do it in a therapy session, the same as you would paranoia, or an inclination towards paedophilia

jimjam – Member
So you want to ban free speech

free speech isn’t as all encompassing as people believe the simple statement “free speech” implies. it does have caveats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

So you want to ban free speech

Well, when that free speech advocates violence….f yeah..

It’s hate that needs to be outlawed.
I don’t allow my kids to hate.
I teach them a wider lexicon to enable them to express themselves more truthfully.
Why should we allow adults to hate?

Because people will hate. It’s part of being human, judging by history. Your kids don’t hate because you teach them not to. Same thing with adults. They won’t necessarily address, think about or even realise they have an ‘internal inadequacy’ until it’s pointed out to them.

No.
Hate precipitates violence.

Been watching Star Wars recently?

Stupid double post

mrlebowski – Member

Well, when that free speech advocates violence….f yeah..

That’s my understanding of the laws at present yes.

yunki – Member

It’s hate that needs to be outlawed.

Don’t you hate racism and injustice?

It’s hate that needs to be outlawed.

Good luck with that.

On a serious note, what you are proposing isn’t really a bad thing, and teaching kids from a young age is definitely the way to minimise it, as hate serves no purpose as far as I can see, but humans don’t work like that.

I didn’t even finish the original trilogy! 🙁

I didn’t even finish the original trilogy!

😯 😥

Your freedom to object to me believing something is the same freedom that allows me to dislike or the other way round.
You cannot have both. To expect that is childish at best.
If you can force your views on me then why can I not do the same to you? If you want to have a view point and the freedom to express it then I allowed to express mine in the same manner.
I cannot see why some people are too stupid to realise this. This is fairness.
The issue is irrelevant.

btw yunki, be careful what you wish for, the laws are already adequate, we don’t need more.