Jump to content

Freedom of speech


Recommended Posts

It took centuries for humanity to realize and admit that it is fundamental to prevent oppression and tyranny. Now it is under threat not only in dictatorship and authoritarian societies but even in some countries positioning itself as leading liberal democracies.

I propose a simple formula: anything that is not criminal (hate, discrimination, genocide etc) can be and is discussed freely, without constraints, suppression, personal attacks, harassment shaming and such.

This is not legalistic, but an objective, a benchmark. A mature democratic society can have these discussions, has forums, channels and instruments to conduct them and let the society come to understanding about its current state and prospects and objectives for the future. The society is interested and involved in maintaining this ability because it is essential and can be argued, integral to a vigorous and dynamic democracy.

And if a society avoids having them, under any justification and agenda, the democracy itself can be compromised. In my view, this is binary nor shades and semi-tones. A mature democracy must have freedom of speech, full and whole. And the opposite is true then: a society that limits freedom of speech cannot be a full democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, myata said:

It took centuries for humanity to realize and admit that it is fundamental to prevent oppression and tyranny. Now it is under threat not only in dictatorship and authoritarian societies but even in some countries positioning itself as leading liberal democracies.

I propose a simple formula: anything that is not criminal (hate, discrimination, genocide etc) can be and is discussed freely, without constraints, suppression, personal attacks, harassment shaming and such.

This is not legalistic, but an objective, a benchmark. A mature democratic society can have these discussions, has forums, channels and instruments to conduct them and let the society come to understanding about its current state and prospects and objectives for the future. The society is interested and involved in maintaining this ability because it is essential and can be argued, integral to a vigorous and dynamic democracy.

And if a society avoids having them, under any justification and agenda, the democracy itself can be compromised. In my view, this is binary nor shades and semi-tones. A mature democracy must have freedom of speech, full and whole. And the opposite is true then: a society that limits freedom of speech cannot be a full democracy.

How is hate criminal?

I don't mean that rhetorically.  I mean, at what point does a hatred of something worthy of such (or not worthy in another's view) become criminal? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

How is hate criminal?

I don't mean that rhetorically.  I mean, at what point does a hatred of something worthy of such (or not worthy in another's view) become criminal? 

At the point of initiating or propagating hatred by any factor; at the point of inciting, explicitly or implicitly violence based on the grounds of hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, myata said:

At the point of initiating or propagating hatred by any factor; at the point of inciting, explicitly or implicitly violence based on the grounds of hate.

Incitement to violence would be different than initiating or propagating hate though.  Any news outlet could be accused of the latter, simply for reporting the news.  Any random person could be accused of the same for repeating it to their friends.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Incitement to violence would be different than initiating or propagating hate though.  Any news outlet could be accused of the latter, simply for reporting the news.  Any random person could be accused of the same for repeating it to their friends.

This is already into legalistic area but it should be possible to differentiate, in a responsible and independent court an objective media report on ethnic crime from publicly inciting hate based on ethnic factor (freedom of speech relates to public expression of opinion).

There are legal precedents as well.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact in general, Myata you need to sit yourself down and have a deep think about what you mean by the word "objective."

There are people, and I suspect you're one of them, who have no idea what objective really means when they consider the terms you listed - (hate, discrimination, genocide etc). Too often they only mean what somebody disagrees with. You hateful racist. ;) (See what I mean?)

If you're not free to challenge ideas you disagree with you're not free. 

Sure there needs to be boundaries. But your "simple" idea of where those are, are way off the mark.

Here's an example for you. The Democrats and Fake Republicans thought Trump needed to be punished for what they called "inciting an insurrection" on January 6th. Others said (I would say knew) he incited nothing.

Go ahead apply your "simple, objective" rules of free speech and tell me who's right. The kings of Facebook and Twitter applied theirs. Are they your model for free speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 10:35 AM, myata said:

This is already into legalistic area but it should be possible to differentiate, in a responsible and independent court an objective media report on ethnic crime from publicly inciting hate based on ethnic factor (freedom of speech relates to public expression of opinion).

There are legal precedents as well.

Again. you're talking about incitement, which is against the law, as opposed to hate, which most certainly should not be.  If you can show that an expression of hate was intended to incite, that's one thing.  If it's simply an expression of hate, that's another.  What people do with it is up to them. 

Legal doesn't mean right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Again. you're talking about incitement, which is against the law, as opposed to hate, which most certainly should not be.  If you can show that an expression of hate was intended to incite, that's one thing.  If it's simply an expression of hate, that's another.  What people do with it is up to them.

The distance from 1) public and 2) based on specific quality or characteristic such as: gender; ethnicity; religion; and so on expression of hate to incitement of harm (in any form, physical or other) is very narrow indeed. And even if not said explicitly, it can be used as a surrogate for inciting. We all know that words don't always tell the full story. It has to be up to an competent and impartial body to judge on these matters.

Personally, I would need to be convinced that any reason for such a statement if / when made publicly does not involve an intent to cause harm. It can be argued that a public statement of hate as defined above can in itself be harmful to innocent people due to well known examples what followed such statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, myata said:

The distance from 1) public and 2) based on specific quality or characteristic such as: gender; ethnicity; religion; and so on expression of hate to incitement of harm (in any form, physical or other) is very narrow indeed. And even if not said explicitly, it can be used as a surrogate for inciting. We all know that words don't always tell the full story. It has to be up to an competent and impartial body to judge on these matters.

Personally, I would need to be convinced that any reason for such a statement if / when made publicly does not involve an intent to cause harm. It can be argued that a public statement of hate as defined above can in itself be harmful to innocent people due to well known examples what followed such statements.

Sure, but there's nothing wrong with hate.  It's a perfectly reasonable human emotion.  Given that, expressing it is a right. 

Or it should be.  If you tell me you hate Trump, and I egg him, that's on me, not you.

Besides, what about disgust, contempt, anger, etc.  I don't think I hate anyone, but I sure feel those emotions a lot.  Should I be restricted from expressing myself about the causes?

 

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 Should I be restricted from expressing myself about the causes?

 

No, and I basically never read anybody saying that you should be restricted by edict. It's up to you to restrict yourself according to the consequences and administer some self-control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, and I basically never read anybody saying that you should be restricted by edict. It's up to you to restrict yourself according to the consequences and administer some self-control

In case I end up supporting murder...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, and I basically never read anybody saying that you should be restricted by edict. It's up to you to restrict yourself according to the consequences and administer some self-control

How would I know the consequences if I didn't do it?

How much responsibility would you relieve someone of if they managed to point to an opinion that helped them form the desire to hurt someone?

What if that opinion was one you agreed with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, but there's nothing wrong with hate.  It's a perfectly reasonable human emotion.  Given that, expressing it is a right.

Nothing wrong with talking about hate as emotion, little point in pretending it does not exist. It shouldn't criminal to talk about different forms of hatred privately. But if and when hatred is expressed publicly and indiscriminately against a group selected by some characteristic, it's too close, in the view of history and background, to threatening the group. And public threats can be criminal. I would say it should be made clear that such statements can be considered criminal, but there has to be an objective and impartial process to take into account all details and circumstances.

Maybe someone could comment how this case is handled in countries with strong culture of freedom of speech? Are statements like "Y hates group U" allowed in public space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1. How would I know the consequences if I didn't do it?

2. How much responsibility would you relieve someone of if they managed to point to an opinion that helped them form the desire to hurt someone?

3. What if that opinion was one you agreed with?

1. How do you know about anything you haven't done ?  You have to develop a way to gather knowledge.

Some use their eyes to read things.  Some ask questions and then listen to the answer.

Feel free to develop a method that's right for YOU :)

2. I would recommend that sentence to people too old to play Twister.  Let's see... I just read it three times and I think my answer is ... zero ?  Unless there's something else going on there like hypnosis, or hypno-coins perhaps.

3. I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Speech is free, and nobody is saying the government should start stopping people from speaking as they do today.  You seem to be trying to squeeze an argument out of me saying that there are implications to speech.  I would say we can find something else to talk about if you're that desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, myata said:

Nothing wrong with talking about hate as emotion, little point in pretending it does not exist. It shouldn't criminal to talk about different forms of hatred privately. But if and when hatred is expressed publicly and indiscriminately against a group selected by some characteristic, it's too close, in the view of history and background, to threatening the group. And public threats can be criminal. I would say it should be made clear that such statements can be considered criminal, but there has to be an objective and impartial process to take into account all details and circumstances.

Maybe someone could comment how this case is handled in countries with strong culture of freedom of speech? Are statements like "Y hates group U" allowed in public space?

Public threats are criminal.  You would have your work cut out convincing me that expressing hatred of something constitutes a public threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How do you know about anything you haven't done ?  You have to develop a way to gather knowledge.

Some use their eyes to read things.  Some ask questions and then listen to the answer.

Feel free to develop a method that's right for YOU :)

2. I would recommend that sentence to people too old to play Twister.  Let's see... I just read it three times and I think my answer is ... zero ?  Unless there's something else going on there like hypnosis, or hypno-coins perhaps.

3. I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Speech is free, and nobody is saying the government should start stopping people from speaking as they do today.  You seem to be trying to squeeze an argument out of me saying that there are implications to speech.  I would say we can find something else to talk about if you're that desperate.

1) Well, I've been complaining about the more brutal aspects of Islam for some time now.  I haven't been able to ascertain what my comments have done, except a debatable contribution to a recent mass killing.

2) It's not hard.  You accused me of supporting the murder of a Muslim family, but your real point was that I, and others, contributed to the action.  How much responsibility does the actual killer get to attribute to me and my kind?

3) Again, you seemed to associate justifiable (IMO) comments with a crime.  I'm assuming you opposed the comments.  What if you didn't?  Let's say someone went out and killed a police office in Michigan.  Would that change your opinion of how much people should be saying about the actions of other police officers?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Public threats are criminal.  You would have your work cut out convincing me that expressing hatred of something constitutes a public threat.

It's not just of something. Not all expression of hate is criminal there isn't much wrong with "Y hates oysters" or even Christmas. But as already said, historically, the connection between indiscriminate public expression of hatred toward a group and a threat to that group is very strong. In a society pretty much all things need to be taken in a broader context - nothing, probably literally, exists just by itself and only as written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

How much responsibility would you relieve someone of if they managed to point to an opinion that helped them form the desire to hurt someone?

No legislation can prevent criminal hate as it can be disguised into double speak, symbols etc; that is well known and the only path to prevent it is for society itself to bring such intents to the light, discuss them and show them for what they are. The aim of good legislation is not to restrict or constraint the society, but to outline clearly its principles and values.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, myata said:

It's not just of something. Not all expression of hate is criminal there isn't much wrong with "Y hates oysters" or even Christmas. But as already said, historically, the connection between indiscriminate public expression of hatred toward a group and a threat to that group is very strong. In a society pretty much all things need to be taken in a broader context - nothing, probably literally, exists just by itself and only as written.

Well, perhaps a poorly worded comment but a group is something.  I didn't mean oysters or Christmas.  The comment remains my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, myata said:

No legislation can prevent criminal hate as it can be disguised into double speak, symbols etc; that is well known and the only path to prevent it is for society itself to bring such intents to the light, discuss them and show them for what they are. The aim of good legislation is not to restrict or constraint the society, but to outline clearly its principles and values.

Then force people to adhere to them?  I'm not arguing that everyone is working from a principled position with laudable values.  I'm arguing they have the right to be a jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'm arguing they have the right to be a jerk.

Where the right becomes an entitlement to threats and / or violence against others that right is void. And the freedom of speech goes all ways, it is also to bring out jerks who make people feel threatened to the light, without suppression or intimidation. And it's the responsibility of the society to remain rational and engaged and react to such cases. Otherwise, the path from some hate to group hate to threats and intimidation and ultimately, violence up to crimes against humanity and genocide is well known in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) Well, I've been complaining about the more brutal aspects of Islam for some time now.  I haven't been able to ascertain what my comments have done, except a debatable contribution to a recent mass killing.

2)How much responsibility does the actual killer get to attribute to me and my kind?

3) Again, you seemed to associate justifiable (IMO) comments with a crime.  I'm assuming you opposed the comments.   

1)  I doubt you had any effect.
2) Well, most all of it I would think.
3) You have to go back and read the posts.  I am not going to explain over and over the difference between criticizing Islam and demonizing Muslims.  If you don't know how to do that... I don't know.  If it were me, I would likely shut up until I could get it straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...