Free Speech

[NickDagger]

This is one area where I think America actually gets it right and better than the supposedly more enlightened countries around the world, who seem to not have such a strong respect for free speech-instead seeming to value the protection of groups so that they are not criticized or offended:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html

Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.

By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps “basically a Puerto Rican program.” The First Amendment, Justice Eve M. Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase “the general level of prejudice.”

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

I wonder in light of the Muhammad cartoon controversy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

And the murder of Theo Van Gogh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

How do you people feel about free speech, should "hate speech" be made illegal? Some European countries actually have "blasphemy laws," which is insane to me.

I'd like to here from the Europeans and Canadians on the board as well. I remember watching Manufacturing Consent, being dumbfounded at this scene-even Chomsky almost seems flabbergasted at the lack of understanding of the idea of free-speech that he experiences:



Do people have the right to not be offended? Do people have the right to say or write what we find deplorable?

[NickDagger]

Well.

[McGarngle]

I'm canadian and from what I understand most of the rights have some limits.  I have no problem with not having hate speech but it sort of seems like we shouldn't allow free speech to be limited at all.  Like I said, I don't know that much i just know the limits from a law class.  Since Muslims are an identifiable group inciting hatred against them would be illegal. 

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I've always thought banning hate speech was stupid. Its not like these people will change their minds. If you banned it, who knows what sort of pricks I might be hanging out with.

[Sleazy]

some Canadian pal needs to start denying the holocaust. Comercial D, where you at? if anyone believe the holocaust was fake, i know you have too.

[longballlarry]

what the fuck is the holocaust?

[Sleazy]

it's when the canadian's tried to commit genicide on the jews and then they bombed pearl harbor and brought us in to WWII

[camel filters]

i feel like banning hate speech would make those who use it regualrly even angrier and maybe carry out their hatred with actions instead of just words. i would take a racist rant over a hateful beatdown any day.

[NickDagger]

I have no problem with not having hate speech but it sort of seems like we shouldn't allow free speech to be limited at all.

What is hate speech?

[Sleazy]

people need thicker skin, why the fuck would you care what someone else says

persecution should be illegal but people should be free to hate who ever they want

[Hakeem Olajuwon]

I can appreciate some good hate speech, now and then.

[Hakeem Olajuwon]

But on a serious note, 82% of Americans hate gooks.
I can imagine similar statistics in other regions, what would a ban do?

[McGarngle]

Expand Quote

I have no problem with not having hate speech but it sort of seems like we shouldn't allow free speech to be limited at all.

[close]

What is hate speech?

Anything that people would say to try to get people to dislike a group of people. Like if a dude went on a stage and said "Fuck all muslims." I don't thik it applies to conversations or anything.  Maybe it would but who's going to police that? It's like 1984 material only against dicks and retards. Basically i just wouldn't want authorities to have any more authority than they have to.

[danker peaches]

I didn't the USA make laws saying that take away your rights if they feel they need to? I know in Canada you can have most if not all your rights removed for up to 5 years at a time with no real backing or reason. Its not something that they use often if ever but it is a tool they can use and most likely will. Also if a country declares a state of emergency your rights are gone as well.

[Binomial Nomenclature]

while hate speech (promoting hatred against an identifiable group) is illegal in canada it is hard to charge someone as it is allowed in private conversation, or because of religious faith, or if the intent was to cause a public discussion about an important issue.  i think there are other ways out too.  charging someone with hate speech is not easy.  i think freedom of speech is important but in terms of public broadcasting it is important to draw the line at hate speech.

[danker peaches]

while hate speech (promoting hatred against an identifiable group) is illegal in canada it is hard to charge someone as it is allowed in private conversation, or because of religious faith, or if the intent was to cause a public discussion about an important issue.  i think there are other ways out too.  charging someone with hate speech is not easy.  i think freedom of speech is important but in terms of public broadcasting it is important to draw the line at hate speech.

hate speech has not place in broadcasting if you think of how censored the media really is theres no way they would even if there were not laws about it.

[Binomial Nomenclature]

i dunno, some talk shows are pretty borderline on hate speech.

[danker peaches]

if there were no laws against it and it was not frowned upon would it be in ads? such as "jew free toothpaste"

[ed...]

"I might not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

On the other hand, there's lots of research into linguistic relativity, basically saying that the perspective of a society has an effect on its language, and that the language of a society has an effect on its perspective.

But, making certain words illegal is definitely stupid.

[NickDagger]

while hate speech (promoting hatred against an identifiable group) is illegal in canada it is hard to charge someone as it is allowed in private conversation, or because of religious faith, or if the intent was to cause a public discussion about an important issue.  i think there are other ways out too.  charging someone with hate speech is not easy.  i think freedom of speech is important but in terms of public broadcasting it is important to draw the line at hate speech.

Then explain this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.

In comparison:

By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps “basically a Puerto Rican program.” The First Amendment, Justice Eve M. Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase “the general level of prejudice.”

I love Chomsky's argument, here, saying that there are really only two views you can take on free speech, and the irony of using fascist techniques to preserve the feelings of say the relatives of holocaust victims:

[fuckingvegan]

To me there is a huge difference between hate speech and free speech. I am not for banning either, though I think if somone is killed because of something you or the group you represent said then you should be held accountable for encoraging it. Also isn't it funny how it is almost always white people who are the ones rushing to defend hate speech, I wonder why bunch of hateful crackers!
And the person who was talking about talk shows and hatespeech, Fox news and Rush Limbaugh are both disgusting and hateful. I would say boarderline racist in the case of Fox and a racist in the case of Oxy Limbaugh.


Also isn't it funny how in our country we care more about some backwards assholes right to hate speech then we care about the health and well being of our fellow country person. I will trade the right to hate speech for universal health care anyday.


*highlighted for Fig Newton*

[Dr Newton]

The idea that any of you have even thought about banning speech is a real testament to how stupid you all are. You'd trust Big Brother to do anything under the blanket of "saving whales," and "helping the poor/oppressed."

[fuckingvegan]

The idea that any of you have even thought about banning speech is a real testament to how stupid you all are. You'd trust Big Brother to do anything under the blanket of "saving whales," and "helping the poor/oppressed."

Could you point out where I said this in my response? And please just use my qoute do not assume or read into what I said. Thanks 

[OldDirtyBastardChild]

I have no problem with the way canada runs there free speech laws. to me it prevents mass racism and the eventual hate crimes. but thats just my opinion

[MyriadChoices]

The right to free speech in the United States is restricted by court cases, specifically if words will cause imminent lawless action. The phrase often attributed to this is "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre," and though it's not the most perfect example to use, it suffices.

But I know that we ain't talking about legal rights, but rather moral rights and the personal value one holds of free speech.

Limiting speech is an unfortunate and difficult reality. One cannot slander, libel, or essentially cause damage to someone through false remarks. I think most people can see how this acts as a benefit to society. But then how do you handle someone saying, "Fuck it, don't limit speech!" because that notion allows people to run rampant with lies. I suppose one could say that a free society will course correct itself, but I don't find this to be true.

So, with this in mind, I think it's clear that there must exist some limit on free speech. And these limits should include hate speech. People are entitled to opinions, racist ones as well as accepting ones, but when these opinions become words, and specifically words which endanger someone's security, then they must be stopped. Having a neo-nazi conference, or a nazi protest where participants are yelling slurs wouldn't directly endanger a counterprotestor's security because it's safe to assume that there would be police in the area. But if it was at a bar and some dude was calling a Jew a kyke etc, and enticing people to attack him based on his Jewishness, then that should be limited.

But that's my opinion.

[dtrigiani]

I didn't the USA make laws saying that take away your rights if they feel they need to? I know in Canada you can have most if not all your rights removed for up to 5 years at a time with no real backing or reason. Its not something that they use often if ever but it is a tool they can use and most likely will. Also if a country declares a state of emergency your rights are gone as well.

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about the anti-terrorism act, not something that would be applied on a day-to-day basis. That is almost a different discussion entirely.

I'm all for free speech as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of other individuals. If banning hate speech is going to stop racists congregations from forming, and possibly save lives, then I'm for the ban. It is possible that there are many factors, where the banning or allowing of "hate speech" could increase or decrease the likelihood of worse things occurring.

[MyriadChoices]

Expand Quote

I didn't the USA make laws saying that take away your rights if they feel they need to? I know in Canada you can have most if not all your rights removed for up to 5 years at a time with no real backing or reason. Its not something that they use often if ever but it is a tool they can use and most likely will. Also if a country declares a state of emergency your rights are gone as well.

[close]

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about the anti-terrorism act, not something that would be applied on a day-to-day basis. That is almost a different discussion entirely.

I'm all for free speech as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of other individuals. If banning hate speech is going to stop racists congregations from forming, and possibly save lives, then I'm for the ban. It is possible that there are many factors, where the banning or allowing of "hate speech" could increase or decrease the likelihood of worse things occurring.

Stopping congregations doesn't automatically save lives. If all it does is stop a congregation, then that's too much of an interference.

[grimcity]

Free speech all the way. I think public-airwaves radio and TV are too censored. Talking shit is awesome.

Harassment, inciting a riot, libel/slander and similar are are already on the law books, but hate speech in an of itself shouldn't be illegal... if the "hate speech" gets to the point where it resembles one of the things already on the books, roll with it.

More often than not, hate speech is just ignorant-ass speech, and though it would be tempting to make stupidity illegal, it would make life very boring, and probably pretentious.

[danker peaches]

Expand Quote

I didn't the USA make laws saying that take away your rights if they feel they need to? I know in Canada you can have most if not all your rights removed for up to 5 years at a time with no real backing or reason. Its not something that they use often if ever but it is a tool they can use and most likely will. Also if a country declares a state of emergency your rights are gone as well.

[close]

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about the anti-terrorism act, not something that would be applied on a day-to-day basis. That is almost a different discussion entirely.

I'm all for free speech as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of other individuals. If banning hate speech is going to stop racists congregations from forming, and possibly save lives, then I'm for the ban. It is possible that there are many factors, where the banning or allowing of "hate speech" could increase or decrease the likelihood of worse things occurring.

ITs not something that could be applied day to day but there is still the rule that if they make a new law it can over ride your rights for up to 5 years

[fuckingvegan]

Free speech all the way. I think public-airwaves radio and TV are too censored. Talking shit is awesome.

Harassment, inciting a riot, libel/slander and similar are are already on the law books, but hate speech in an of itself shouldn't be illegal... if the "hate speech" gets to the point where it resembles one of the things already on the books, roll with it.

More often than not, hate speech is just ignorant-ass speech, and though it would be tempting to make stupidity illegal, it would make life very boring, and probably pretentious.

So where do we draw the line? Someone like Oxy Limbaugh making false racist statements against Michele Obama is libel in my opinion.