5 ms·

Any sane person would support free speech principles. Harm from restrictions of free speech far outweighs harm from hate speech, etc.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
I wonder if the victims of hate speech would agree with that.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  There are no victims of hate speech. There are victims of hate crimes, like murders, rapes and beatings. Speech doesn't cause physical harm, violent actions do. Thus, violent actions must be stopped, not words. Oh, and if you will claim that speech insites actions, i ask you one thing: who determines what hate is? In Russia, talking about corruption and opposing Putin is extremism and hate speech.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    If a mobs screams racist obscenities at someone is that a hate crime?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      Screaming anything is not a crime.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        Well, that's not true. Death threats are. And my point was that, even though it may not be a crime, there's still someone who would be a victim.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        > Well, that's not true. If you want to argue that some spoken words can be prosecuted in some jurisdictions, chose another opponent. I state my personal opinion that anything spoken should be protected under free speech rights, and even the death threats. Yes, because words do not kill. Killing requires action, and actions must be stopped, not screaming.
        SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        You didn't say "shouldn't be a crime" you said "is not a crime". And I'm not saying that words directly kill. I'm saying words have their own power that can absolutely hurt. Speaking words is an action and it can cause harm.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Politicians can declare anything a crime, and same act can be legal and criminal in places spaced 2 meters apart, that's why there is no point arguing about that. Regarding speech "crimes", see my earlier comment about Putin's Russia. Thus, sane people MUST fight against criminalising any kind of speech, because speech is not a crime. Just like sane people fought against slavery, segregation and Holocaust, all of which were legal.
        SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        Are you of the belief that words can never hurt? It wouldn't bother you to have a crowd of protestors making untrue accusations about you loudly and vocally, where your family and employers could hear, ruining your reputations and relationships?
nobody9999 5y ago
>Any sane person would support free speech principles. Harm from restrictions of free speech far outweighs harm from hate speech, etc. A reasonable position. And one I, for the most part, support. However, the other side of that coin is that private actors (i.e., not the government, at least in the US) have free speech rights too. And that includes the right not to allow or support speech on their private property. As such, if you attempt to force private actors to host/support speech they do no wish to host/support, then you are violating the principles you espouse.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

I wonder if the victims of hate speech would agree with that.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
There are no victims of hate speech. There are victims of hate crimes, like murders, rapes and beatings. Speech doesn't cause physical harm, violent actions do. Thus, violent actions must be stopped, not words. Oh, and if you will claim that speech insites actions, i ask you one thing: who determines what hate is? In Russia, talking about corruption and opposing Putin is extremism and hate speech.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  If a mobs screams racist obscenities at someone is that a hate crime?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Screaming anything is not a crime.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      Well, that's not true. Death threats are. And my point was that, even though it may not be a crime, there's still someone who would be a victim.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        > Well, that's not true. If you want to argue that some spoken words can be prosecuted in some jurisdictions, chose another opponent. I state my personal opinion that anything spoken should be protected under free speech rights, and even the death threats. Yes, because words do not kill. Killing requires action, and actions must be stopped, not screaming.
        SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        You didn't say "shouldn't be a crime" you said "is not a crime". And I'm not saying that words directly kill. I'm saying words have their own power that can absolutely hurt. Speaking words is an action and it can cause harm.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Politicians can declare anything a crime, and same act can be legal and criminal in places spaced 2 meters apart, that's why there is no point arguing about that. Regarding speech "crimes", see my earlier comment about Putin's Russia. Thus, sane people MUST fight against criminalising any kind of speech, because speech is not a crime. Just like sane people fought against slavery, segregation and Holocaust, all of which were legal.
        SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        Are you of the belief that words can never hurt? It wouldn't bother you to have a crowd of protestors making untrue accusations about you loudly and vocally, where your family and employers could hear, ruining your reputations and relationships?

nobody9999 5y ago

>Any sane person would support free speech principles. Harm from restrictions of free speech far outweighs harm from hate speech, etc. A reasonable position. And one I, for the most part, support. However, the other side of that coin is that private actors (i.e., not the government, at least in the US) have free speech rights too. And that includes the right not to allow or support speech on their private property. As such, if you attempt to force private actors to host/support speech they do no wish to host/support, then you are violating the principles you espouse.