[Closed] Freedom of speech vs Freedom to hate

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...

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.

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

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 [i]will[/i] 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.

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.

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.

This is fairness

Life's not fair though.
And I think it's fair to draw a line in the sand.

Live and let live or stfu would be roughly where I would draw that line

It's hate that needs to be outlawed....

You can't stop the [i]feeling[/i]. You can challenge the reasons for it it, discuss it, oppose it, and ultimately try to reverse it, but you can't stop the emotion itself.

You can (and should) stop/outlaw the action.

That is why I posted the marmite example as it was the nearest I could come to adequately demonstrating the separation between those concepts.

You say you don't [i]allow [/i]you kids to hate, and I know what you're trying to say and achieve, but what you're actually saying there is that you don't want your kids to harbour hateful thoughts and opinions, and that you challenge them and try to reverse them when/if they do happen, teach them not to hate if you will, but that is subtly different to not [i]allowing [/i]it.

It's hate that needs to be outlawed....

Rubbish

amedias - Member

It's hate that needs to be outlawed....

You can't stop the feeling.

I agonised over whether or not to edit that bit 😛

Ok, ok.

So we're clearly not evolved enough for this yet..

Surely the forum owners can ban ninfan though?
The bloke is clearly not right and brings nothing useful. I strongly suspect that he needs professional help for his sociopathic disease..

Unfortunately I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that people can no longer accept the consequences of their actions

Of course if you are not a dick you won't fall into this trap.

yunki - Member
Surely the forum owners can ban ninfan though?

i personally defend ninfans right to be a bit of an arse, so nah, I don't advocate his banning! 😆 just don't read him or use the killfile people mention if he offends that much..

yunki - Member

Ok, ok.

So we're not evolved enough for this yet..

Yunki, compare the society you live in with any where freedom of speech and expression is much more limited. Any way you cut it curtailing individual expression and freedom of speech is a step towards authoritarianism.

I get that Jimjam.
Hence the question about how we can separate freedom of speech from freedom to hate

i personally defend ninfans right to be a bit of an arse

Just remember that someone probably once said exactly the same thing about Nigel Farage

So, Yunki = Stalin

Living in a free society means we can think & hate what we want!
Ok comrade! 😉

yunki - Member

I get that Jimjam.
Hence the question about how we can separate freedom of speech from freedom to hate

Going back to your OP

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?

I think a key aspect of how we got from were we were (not sure where that was but anyway) to where we are today was due to the failure or degradation of political integrity and intellectual honesty - by BOTH sides. And the fact that there are only two percieved sides.

That combined with much of what wobbliscott posted is how we got to here.

So, Yunki = Stalin

Living in a free society means we can think & hate what we want!

What do you want hate for though?
Why should we defend that right?
Should we defend your right to want child porn?

Yay freedom!

What do you need to hate for though?
Why should we defend that right?

I hate Nazis. I also hate communists. I really hate mushrooms, too.

Am I allowed the right to hate?

What do you need to hate for though?
Why should we defend that right?
Should we defend your right to child porn?

Yay freedom!

It is "defended" by your right to free speech, not defended "specifically"
Child pornography is illegal just as certain "speech" is illegal. That is the boundary, cant you see that?

How do you "define" hate? How does it manifest itself?

You dont hate those things flasheart.. you may be scared of them or frustrated by them, or you may prefer the taste and texture of other stuff

Learn to express yourself properly.

I dunno surfer.

I dunno.
In this context the best I can come up with is irrational intolerance.
Being horrible about someone before they've even opened their gob.

I haven't got the brains to figure out the details..
Maybe we could just enforce rule one?

So we're clearly not evolved enough for this yet..

We're discussing it, so clearly we are.

That combined with much of what wobbliscott posted is how we got to here.

😆

London liberals and political correctness? If it requires this sort of thing to force a modification of behavior onto people with irrational hatred then so be it.

Am I allowed the right to hate?

Only if you hate the right

Only if you hate the right

I wonder why so many hate the right eh?

As a direct result of the trendy London liberals labelling anyone which [sic] concerns about immigration as racists or xenophobes

So what you're saying is that it's all the fault of people saying that others who are frightened of outsiders are xenophobes?

El-bent

London liberals and political correctness? 😆 If it requires this sort of thing to [b]force a modification of behavior[/b] onto [b]people with irrational hatred[/b] then so be it.

wobbliscott

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.

wobbliscott
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.

wobbliscott
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.

wobbliscott
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.

wobbliscott
Immigration is a classic. As a direct result of the [s]trendy London liberals[/s] leftist ideologues 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.

wobbliscott
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.

I wonder why so many hate the right

Because they are afraid of being wrong?

We can't hate the right ninfan.. The right is a group made up of very complex and unique individuals, much like the left
We can hate hate maybe

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.

If we'd carried on for another 50 years, we might well have forgotten all about it completely

You should have the freedom to say absolutely anything mixed with the intelligence to know when not to.

Well done you Jim Jam for being able to use quotes. Your point is what?

Because they are afraid of being wrong?

Only if it was in brexit fantasy land.

El-bent - Member

Well done you Jim Jam for being able to use quotes. Your point is what?

My point was to reiterate or reinforce that wobbliscott's post was solid. Furthermore by breaking the post into individual points I thought that it would make it easier for you or anyone else to tackle or deconstruct them one by one should you wish to do so, in the interests of honest debate and critical thinking, as opposed to isolating four words from the entire post and adding one of these - 😆

Instead of trying to mock, deride or otherwise silence opinions that you don't agree with, or in your words force a modification of behaviour, you could try to engage with them.

Anyway......... 😉 while I was setting the stove it occured to me that one massive factor no one has mentioned is the internet and how we use it to communicate.

There is little to engage or debate with. History tells us what the Nazi's the communists, the right wing dictatorships have done, and here we are once again "listening" to people preaching that shit all over again.

Its peoples willingness under free speech like wobbliscots ramblings that let let these apologists have a fair crack of the whip, and societies weakness that they flourish once again.

Time to end it.

Actually I might change my mind. Seeing Ninfan get his a** handed to him on a plate on the chartlotsville thread is epically funny.

Yunki going for 2 for 2 10 pagers 🙂