5 ms·

Back in 2007 Christopher Hitchens argued that Canada's hate speech laws are not only immoral but self-contradictory. The motion: "Be it resolved: Freedom of spe

by chroma 7y ago

Back in 2007 Christopher Hitchens argued that Canada's hate speech laws are not only immoral but self-contradictory. The motion: "Be it resolved: Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate." Hitchens was fully in favor of that statement.[1] His argument has three parts. First, freedom of speech isn't about the rights of the speaker. It's about the rights of people who want to listen to that person's ideas. Every time you silence someone, you are infringing upon the rights of that audience. The audience might not agree. Maybe they want to understand the speaker's ideas so they can refute them. But if you prevent the audience from hearing those views, they can't refute them, and the bad views continue to spread. Second, censoring requires delegating a censor. But if you follow the first argument, you'll see that a censor decides for you what you are allowed to read or hear. I'm an adult and can decide that for myself, thank you very much. Third, if you are going to censor hate speech, then you must censor every major religious text. The bible and the quran contain passages encouraging hatred of homosexuals, subjugation of women, and taking of slaves. By our standards, they are utter abominations and any impartial application of a hate speech law would see these books banned. The oration by Hitchens is his best. He starts off by yelling "Fire!" to the audience, and explains just why the analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theater is a terrible one. (Mainly that it was coined in a SCOTUS ruling that jailed socialists in WWI for distributing pamphlets against US involvement in the war.) 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

jhanschoo 7y ago
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'll just refute the points you have summarized here since I have no interest in listening to the entire speech to just extract the argumentative points he makes. The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. The final argument, similarly, does not pass for general spaces. Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. Neither would want a terrible passage displayed out in the open for their children to see. Some may even have an interest in restricting it, so as to prevent a critic appropriating their text to portray them in a bad light. Academics do not think that immoral should be read by children without proper direction.
- chroma 7y ago
  > Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube's policies. It would be nice if private companies erred on the side of free expression, but having the government force them to do so is a cure that is worse than the disease. > The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. You misunderstand me. I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. Nobody is saying that you have a right to force people to listen your message or read it. That wouldn't generalize. > Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Copyright laws are about implementations, not concepts. The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. Copyright laws have fair use exemptions to make sure they aren't used to inhibit people from spreading ideas. That's why I can use a clip of Pat Robertson in a video criticizing his policies. > Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. The cure is worse than the disease! People don't agree on this at all. If anything, it's the "legalize everything" tribe that has been gaining traction. So too it is for free speech. In fact in the US, censorship is forbidden for pretty much everything except leaking classified materials. The concept is called prior restraint.[1] > Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. This is not true. I personally know at least a dozen children who have the bible read to them uncensored by their parents. (In one case the father is a pastor.) They all believe that homosexuality is a sin and that women should be subservient to their husbands. They got these ideas from the bible, not from some modern day charlatan. It's worse for the quran, which encourages people to become Hafiz (one who has memorized the quran).[2] Parents and schools encourage children to totally memorize the quran as it's easier to do when you're younger. Over 100,000 children a year memorize it. This includes the verses about valuing the word of a woman at half that of a man, verses ordering the smiting of the necks of disbelievers (if you wonder why so jihadists behead so often, it's because of that), and verses encouraging marital rape. If one really believes these books are dictated by the creator of the cosmos, then every word of them is sacred and should be spread as far and as wide as possible. That is what these people do. That is where people like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri get their philosophies. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)
latch 7y ago
I'll take a look at the video but.. I see problems with #1. First, I don't believe that having hate speech in the open is better because it can then be refuted. I think that's just BS..bigots aren't fueled by rational discussion, they're fueled by hate and ignorance. Second, part of the problem here is that these platforms are a) open and b) can push this content, including to minors. I'd probably be willing to have Youtube and twitter thave _no_ censorship but in exchange the platforms should be be dumb directories and/or not publicly accessible. Third, hate speech can lead to violence. I feel that this point needs to be balanced against someone's right to listen (is that really a right?). I agree that in this case, it's probably more harassment than full on hate speech. But once you start spewing hate at large groups of people, more harm is done than good: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
- chroma 7y ago
  > Second, part of the problem here is that these platforms are a) open and b) can push this content, including to minors. I'd probably be willing to have Youtube and twitter thave _no_ censorship but in exchange the platforms should be be dumb directories and/or not publicly accessible. I'm talking about the Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube censorship. Companies can refuse to host whatever they want. > Third, hate speech can lead to violence. I feel that this point needs to be balanced against someone's right to listen (is that really a right?). OK, so do you ban the bible or not? Religious texts are the biggest source of hatred of homosexuals, racism, misogyny, and antisemitism. If we don't ban them, then clearly the hate speech laws will only be used to silence unpopular views instead of harmful ones. I strongly encourage you to listen to Hitchens's arguments, because he addresses every point you've brought up except for corporate censorship.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > I strongly encourage you to listen to Hitchens's arguments I strongly encourage you to watch this explanation of the problems with Hitchens's free speech argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDhutW_us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDhutW_us
threatofrain 7y ago
But the censorship which you see now is not the censorship simply of a whimsical censor king. It is the censorship of actors responding to perceived public pressure. This is a decentralised force of censorship bubbling up to central authorities of the land, who feel they must respond because the public still has enough power. Now in China one might argue differently, that a censor king could routinely ignore the views of the public. But what's happening in the west are democracies opting into censorship. A lot of people like censorship, they just don't like the word.
- chroma 7y ago
  I'm talking about the Canadian hate speech laws, not censorship on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. I'd like it if companies would take down less stuff. Put up warnings and stop recommending certain content, sure. But don't make it inaccessible to people who want to see it. That said, they're private companies so they can be as censorious as they like. I definitely wouldn't want to get the government involved and force them to keep content up. That's a recipe for disaster.
apta 7y ago
> and the quran contain passages encouraging hatred of homosexuals I challenge you to provide the passage you claim.

by chroma 7y ago

jhanschoo 7y ago

Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'll just refute the points you have summarized here since I have no interest in listening to the entire speech to just extract the argumentative points he makes. The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. The final argument, similarly, does not pass for general spaces. Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. Neither would want a terrible passage displayed out in the open for their children to see. Some may even have an interest in restricting it, so as to prevent a critic appropriating their text to portray them in a bad light. Academics do not think that immoral should be read by children without proper direction.

chroma 7y ago
> Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube's policies. It would be nice if private companies erred on the side of free expression, but having the government force them to do so is a cure that is worse than the disease. > The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. You misunderstand me. I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. Nobody is saying that you have a right to force people to listen your message or read it. That wouldn't generalize. > Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Copyright laws are about implementations, not concepts. The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. Copyright laws have fair use exemptions to make sure they aren't used to inhibit people from spreading ideas. That's why I can use a clip of Pat Robertson in a video criticizing his policies. > Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. The cure is worse than the disease! People don't agree on this at all. If anything, it's the "legalize everything" tribe that has been gaining traction. So too it is for free speech. In fact in the US, censorship is forbidden for pretty much everything except leaking classified materials. The concept is called prior restraint.[1] > Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. This is not true. I personally know at least a dozen children who have the bible read to them uncensored by their parents. (In one case the father is a pastor.) They all believe that homosexuality is a sin and that women should be subservient to their husbands. They got these ideas from the bible, not from some modern day charlatan. It's worse for the quran, which encourages people to become Hafiz (one who has memorized the quran).[2] Parents and schools encourage children to totally memorize the quran as it's easier to do when you're younger. Over 100,000 children a year memorize it. This includes the verses about valuing the word of a woman at half that of a man, verses ordering the smiting of the necks of disbelievers (if you wonder why so jihadists behead so often, it's because of that), and verses encouraging marital rape. If one really believes these books are dictated by the creator of the cosmos, then every word of them is sacred and should be spread as far and as wide as possible. That is what these people do. That is where people like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri get their philosophies. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)

latch 7y ago

I'll take a look at the video but.. I see problems with #1. First, I don't believe that having hate speech in the open is better because it can then be refuted. I think that's just BS..bigots aren't fueled by rational discussion, they're fueled by hate and ignorance. Second, part of the problem here is that these platforms are a) open and b) can push this content, including to minors. I'd probably be willing to have Youtube and twitter thave _no_ censorship but in exchange the platforms should be be dumb directories and/or not publicly accessible. Third, hate speech can lead to violence. I feel that this point needs to be balanced against someone's right to listen (is that really a right?). I agree that in this case, it's probably more harassment than full on hate speech. But once you start spewing hate at large groups of people, more harm is done than good: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

chroma 7y ago
> Second, part of the problem here is that these platforms are a) open and b) can push this content, including to minors. I'd probably be willing to have Youtube and twitter thave _no_ censorship but in exchange the platforms should be be dumb directories and/or not publicly accessible. I'm talking about the Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube censorship. Companies can refuse to host whatever they want. > Third, hate speech can lead to violence. I feel that this point needs to be balanced against someone's right to listen (is that really a right?). OK, so do you ban the bible or not? Religious texts are the biggest source of hatred of homosexuals, racism, misogyny, and antisemitism. If we don't ban them, then clearly the hate speech laws will only be used to silence unpopular views instead of harmful ones. I strongly encourage you to listen to Hitchens's arguments, because he addresses every point you've brought up except for corporate censorship.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > I strongly encourage you to listen to Hitchens's arguments I strongly encourage you to watch this explanation of the problems with Hitchens's free speech argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDhutW_us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDhutW_us

threatofrain 7y ago

But the censorship which you see now is not the censorship simply of a whimsical censor king. It is the censorship of actors responding to perceived public pressure. This is a decentralised force of censorship bubbling up to central authorities of the land, who feel they must respond because the public still has enough power. Now in China one might argue differently, that a censor king could routinely ignore the views of the public. But what's happening in the west are democracies opting into censorship. A lot of people like censorship, they just don't like the word.

chroma 7y ago
I'm talking about the Canadian hate speech laws, not censorship on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. I'd like it if companies would take down less stuff. Put up warnings and stop recommending certain content, sure. But don't make it inaccessible to people who want to see it. That said, they're private companies so they can be as censorious as they like. I definitely wouldn't want to get the government involved and force them to keep content up. That's a recipe for disaster.

apta 7y ago

> and the quran contain passages encouraging hatred of homosexuals I challenge you to provide the passage you claim.