"Shouldn't Even The Foulest Speech Enjoy Freedom?"
Great question posed -- and answered by various thinkers -- at Spiked.
The headline on the piece: "Hate speech IS free speech."
Exactly right.
Nick Gillespie, editor-in-chief of Reason, says...
What the fuck is hate speech, exactly? Like another phony, malleable concept -- obscenity -- it is simply a political category that gives power to the powerful to pick and choose what lesser mortals are allowed to read, think, and discuss (in the US, obscenity law did keep Lady Chatterley's Lover from being published for decades, so it did have that going for it). Beyond that, hate -- like envy -- is the planet's greatest renewable energy source, motivating humans to live better, richer, freer lives (my grandparents didn't leave Europe in the 1910s because they loved it). In the US, libel, which by definition is false, is already punishable by law. So are 'fighting words', and plots and actions to cause physical harm. Beyond that, let speech rip like Lear howling on the heath.
Sociologist Frank Furedi:
A tolerant society does not censor speech; it allows its citizens to express their biases and hatred. From the standpoint of an enlightened democracy, the censoring of hate is a far worse evil than the expression of hate. Why? Because it prevents people from judging and evaluating for themselves how to respond to the views -- however prejudiced -- of their fellow citizens.
Spiked's Mick Hume:
A hard truth about free speech is that in a civilised society, if we are talking about vitriolic thoughts and words not violent deeds, then everybody must be free to hate what or who they choose. That means being free to hate, not just fascists or Nigel Farage, but Muslims or Christians, transsexuals or Scousers, bankers or Bono. For EU commissioners, UK cabinet ministers or judges to try to ban the right to hate should be seen as no less outrageous an interference in the liberty to think for ourselves than a tyrant trying to ban the right to love.
Matthew Lesh, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia:
Freedom of speech is not about protecting Bambi and Little Mermaid's right to speak; it means standing up for people's freedom to have, and express, views we vehemently dislike. We should of course deplore hate speech, and respect the freedom of private companies to moderate their platforms. Nevertheless, hate-speech codes amount to creating thoughtcrimes; their arbitrariness inevitably restricts legitimate speech; and they assume stupidity: that people are not smart enough to hear hateful ideas and not be indoctrinated by them. Ultimately, we shouldn't shut down hate speech, leaving it unchallenged; we should combat it with better ideas.
A free society is messy, but it's vastly preferable to the unfree kind, which is ultimately what the unfree speech advocates are pointing us toward.
Perhaps it's on.
I don't think Trump can make it in office to April.
Crid at February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
Terrible.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2017 5:43 AM
Fighting words are not punishable by law. They are mitigating circumstances to the benefit of the other person involved.
If I were assaulted by a black man and it came out in court that I had called him a "nigger," it might be a mitigating factor in his sentence.
But no, I cannot be legally punished for calling him that.
Patrick at February 3, 2017 5:45 AM
I hate Nickelback.
mer at February 3, 2017 6:04 AM
F&*k 'em all. Seriously, most were there for a good time "protesting" (BTDT in the '60's when men in black suits were taking pictures), but did they not see the men w/hoods and stuff coming?
Pretty sure they did and decided to watch some "good" times (yeah man I was there). Grow up, get a spine and some common sense. This is not a party.
People torching cars/buildings dressed in disguise need to snipered (new word) down w/non-lethal bullets/gas. Don't even go in to get them until the crowd disperses. Follow the ones that get away, quietly take them down (Seal training), Have people on the outside to see who is coordinating, if any, and FOLLOW THE MONEY. Take 'em down financially and if you can't give the story to FOX NEWS. O'Reilly will have fun with it.
People doing that not in disguise need to be photographed, arrested away from the scene, and in a peaceful manner. Treat stupid behavior different from riot inciting behavior. Make them PAY building play areas (new parks, infrastructure) and cleaning up after homeless people. Miss class doing it so Mommy needs to explain what that COSTS.
Welcome to the party Pal.
Bob in Texas at February 3, 2017 6:23 AM
Crid, seriously which April are you talking about 'cause this stuff was disgusting before and getting more and more tiresome.
Trump has nothing to do with it since these are old tactics in new places.
Bob in Texas at February 3, 2017 6:26 AM
Is the linkeater active? meanwhile, Sarah Silverman could be considered a seditious bitch, but I don't want to see her prosecuted until she starts actually organizing a coup attempt.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/02/clueless-celebrity-watch-lets-fight-fascism-with-a-military-coup-or-something/
Meanwhile, I'll point and laugh. But she'll call that hate speech, so...
I R A Darth Aggie at February 3, 2017 6:32 AM
The Hollywood Left won't be happy until it drags the country into a civil war to establish a left-wing dictatorship, which it will claim was done in order to save the country from civil war and a right-wing dictatorship, despite the fact that Trump has not tried to establish one at this time. He's still governing like a democratically elected president. But the Left knows that what's in his heart is evil and must save us from that evil.
And why not? After all, establishing a left-leaning dictatorship to save the country from a right-wing dictatorship has worked well everywhere it's been tried. Well, except for Russia, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, France, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Romania, Hungary, East Germany. Actually, it's failed everywhere it has been tried.
Not that right-wing dictatorships established to protect countries from left-wing dictatorships have fared any better. Best to just avoid governments established via one-sided coups, as well as ones established by tarts in lakes handing out swords.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2017 7:36 AM
We can see the folly of hate speech restrictions when at Emory U during the campaign, "Trump" written in chalk was called hate speech and people got the vapors about it. Building a wall is a legitimate public policy question--do it or not? Every country on Earth has a border and some sort of barrier (except failed states). Try to just waltz into Japan or England and get a job with no visa or citizenship. How many immigrants to allow is a legitimate issue for debate and public policy, as is abortion, welfare levels, policing, actual rape statistics, and on and on--all issues that people want to make "hate speech". All the crying about hate speech is to shut people up who have unapproved ideas.
cc at February 3, 2017 8:28 AM
Some more examples of "hate speech": saying that women might not want to share bathrooms with trans persons; saying that BLM isn't 100% right; not using weird pronouns that some demand; anything a man says (according to some feminists); any criticism of Islam (esp in Europe where you can go to jail for it).
All of these stifle legitimate debate. It also creates hate crimes. Head of a company in CA who did not support gay marriage back when even the president did not (like 8 yrs ago) nevertheless lost his job over that stance.
cc at February 3, 2017 8:37 AM
Conan, you know what our friends in Hollyweird could do that would be a great blessing to us all?
Move to Cuba. Get out from under Trump, avoid the unpleasantness of an actual civil war, and show some real stones, and live under a government that they seem to favor!
Besides, Raul would appreciate all that income tax money rolling in.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 3, 2017 8:46 AM
Hollywood has romanticized the left-wing revolutionary - Che in the mountains of Cuba, Mao on the Long March, Lenin in the streets of St. Petersburg, the French sans-culottes storming the barriers in Paris.
In opposing Republican presidents, they picture themselves walking in the footsteps of their heroes, fighting against the Nazis, Batista, the Tsar, the King, the forces of ignorance and oppression; without the risk of actually getting shot or beheaded, of course. They never acknowledge what happens afterward, when a group of fanatics takes over: the Terror, the Cultural Revolution, the Cabaña, or Lubyanka. They never look past the shimmering façade of the romantic notions of a glorious revolution; at the man behind the curtain.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2017 12:55 PM
Leave a comment