3 ms·

The problem with the free speech debate is everyone has a different definition or understanding of what free speech is. Free speech should be considered the ri

by retube 10y ago

The problem with the free speech debate is everyone has a different definition or understanding of what free speech is. Free speech should be considered the right to publically criticise and call to account governments, police, judiciary and other state institutions. It should not mean the right to say absolutely anything to anybody. Having laws on racism and hate speech (for example) provide well-meaning guidance on acceptable behaviour within civilised society and help reduce discrimination, bias etc. But like all rights "free speech" confers privilege and responsibility on the holder: just because you have a right to doesn't mean you should (e.g the video referenced at the beginning of the article).

talmand 10y ago
The problem as I see it; define "hate speech".
- retube 10y ago
  Sure but the definition of anything is subject to interpretation/context/intent etc. If you dealt only in absolutes it would be impossible to have any laws at all. Even defining something like "murder" has plenty of room for grey areas. But still I hope we agree that having a "no murder" law is probably desirable in society.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Ok, no definition then. That's fine. The point I'm making is that once you've opened the door to banning speech on completely subjective topics that a subset of the group gets to decide, then things will go bad. But murder is a hugely different subject than something so abstract as "hate speech". I can define murder, I ask one to define hate speech. There is definite evidence of harm when it comes to murder, a person has been deprived of life by another. I fail to see how "hate speech" itself deprives anyone of anything nor causes real harm. Of course, incitement to violence due to speech is a potential problem, but that's already covered by existing laws.
    - retube 10y ago
      Dude - abuse based on ethnicity, religion, disability etc can have a devastating impact on people, particularly the young. It can lead to social division, discrimination & violence. So absolutely it can a negative impact, not just on one persons' mental state, but wider society. It might not be as bad as murder, but still have horrendous consequences. You say you can define "murder" - but that's my whole point: I can also define, and enshrine in law, something called "hate speech". Both definitions will be subject to interpretation, intent, mitigating circumstances etc, and it will be for the court and jury to thrash out whether an incident should be classed as "murder" or "hate speech". Of course some incidences may be clear cut. Lots won't be.
      - talmand 10y ago
        Ok, then I'll ask again, please define "hate speech". To add to this based on your response, please define "hate speech" in the same easily understood definition of "murder". I'm not saying that hate speech does not have a negative impact on people, of course it does. It's why people discuss trying to outlaw it in the first place. I'm simply saying that it's such a subjective topic that there is no way to accurately to define it, therefore the attempt to solve the problem will only make the problem worse. Never mind the fact that people with nefarious intentions will seize on the highly subjective language of the law to make use of it for themselves.
orthoganol 10y ago
You're not thinking of free speech in its standard Western form. Enlightenment era ideals about the power of individuals to self-govern with reason, to dispose of laws that don't treat people like they are fully self-sufficient. Any offensive speech laws that purport to 'protect others' is infantilizing to one side and cynical about the other. Just saying, laws make assumptions about people. Protecting freedom of speech is really about protecting our inherent individualism. Minor concessions are a slippery slope. If you want to curb it, you're also likely saying you don't share the same classical enlightenment ideology of self-sufficiency.
- retube 10y ago
  But you can make the argument that any law is "infantilising" the individual. Are you saying we shouldn't have any laws at all?
  - orthoganol 10y ago
    Sorry, you don't think there are laws that regulate how rational self-sufficient actors interact with one another in a society? I invite you read any work by an enlightenment era thinker, maybe start with Voltaire or Rousseau, if you have interest in learning where Western freedom of speech ideals come from. If you're going to be arguing about the meaning of free speech you ought to have a little background in that.
Kalium 10y ago
> It should not mean the right to say absolutely anything to anybody. Having laws on racism and hate speech (for example) provide well-meaning guidance on acceptable behaviour within civilised society and help reduce discrimination, bias etc. Sure! Let's start by defining "racism and hate speech" in ways that both prohibit them and do not allow the laws to be used to silence people for having different opinions. There shouldn't be any trouble distinguishing "free speech" from "hate speech" because it's always clear and obvious to every single person! /s In practice, the distinction tends to be almost entirely in the eye of the beholder. Which means whoever can convince the government that something is hateful has a big stick to wave at whoever disagrees with them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by retube 10y ago

talmand 10y ago

The problem as I see it; define "hate speech".

retube 10y ago
Sure but the definition of anything is subject to interpretation/context/intent etc. If you dealt only in absolutes it would be impossible to have any laws at all. Even defining something like "murder" has plenty of room for grey areas. But still I hope we agree that having a "no murder" law is probably desirable in society.
- talmand 10y ago
  Ok, no definition then. That's fine. The point I'm making is that once you've opened the door to banning speech on completely subjective topics that a subset of the group gets to decide, then things will go bad. But murder is a hugely different subject than something so abstract as "hate speech". I can define murder, I ask one to define hate speech. There is definite evidence of harm when it comes to murder, a person has been deprived of life by another. I fail to see how "hate speech" itself deprives anyone of anything nor causes real harm. Of course, incitement to violence due to speech is a potential problem, but that's already covered by existing laws.
  - retube 10y ago
    Dude - abuse based on ethnicity, religion, disability etc can have a devastating impact on people, particularly the young. It can lead to social division, discrimination & violence. So absolutely it can a negative impact, not just on one persons' mental state, but wider society. It might not be as bad as murder, but still have horrendous consequences. You say you can define "murder" - but that's my whole point: I can also define, and enshrine in law, something called "hate speech". Both definitions will be subject to interpretation, intent, mitigating circumstances etc, and it will be for the court and jury to thrash out whether an incident should be classed as "murder" or "hate speech". Of course some incidences may be clear cut. Lots won't be.
    - talmand 10y ago
      Ok, then I'll ask again, please define "hate speech". To add to this based on your response, please define "hate speech" in the same easily understood definition of "murder". I'm not saying that hate speech does not have a negative impact on people, of course it does. It's why people discuss trying to outlaw it in the first place. I'm simply saying that it's such a subjective topic that there is no way to accurately to define it, therefore the attempt to solve the problem will only make the problem worse. Never mind the fact that people with nefarious intentions will seize on the highly subjective language of the law to make use of it for themselves.

orthoganol 10y ago

You're not thinking of free speech in its standard Western form. Enlightenment era ideals about the power of individuals to self-govern with reason, to dispose of laws that don't treat people like they are fully self-sufficient. Any offensive speech laws that purport to 'protect others' is infantilizing to one side and cynical about the other. Just saying, laws make assumptions about people. Protecting freedom of speech is really about protecting our inherent individualism. Minor concessions are a slippery slope. If you want to curb it, you're also likely saying you don't share the same classical enlightenment ideology of self-sufficiency.

retube 10y ago
But you can make the argument that any law is "infantilising" the individual. Are you saying we shouldn't have any laws at all?
- orthoganol 10y ago
  Sorry, you don't think there are laws that regulate how rational self-sufficient actors interact with one another in a society? I invite you read any work by an enlightenment era thinker, maybe start with Voltaire or Rousseau, if you have interest in learning where Western freedom of speech ideals come from. If you're going to be arguing about the meaning of free speech you ought to have a little background in that.

Kalium 10y ago

> It should not mean the right to say absolutely anything to anybody. Having laws on racism and hate speech (for example) provide well-meaning guidance on acceptable behaviour within civilised society and help reduce discrimination, bias etc. Sure! Let's start by defining "racism and hate speech" in ways that both prohibit them and do not allow the laws to be used to silence people for having different opinions. There shouldn't be any trouble distinguishing "free speech" from "hate speech" because it's always clear and obvious to every single person! /s In practice, the distinction tends to be almost entirely in the eye of the beholder. Which means whoever can convince the government that something is hateful has a big stick to wave at whoever disagrees with them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]