4 ms·

If you believe in freedom of expression and of speech, it doesn't matter how much power Sam has, even if you disagree with what he says. I don't like or agree w

If you believe in freedom of expression and of speech, it doesn't matter how much power Sam has, even if you disagree with what he says. I don't like or agree with white supremacists, but I consider the ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights.

boppo1 5y ago
> ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights. Is there an argument from a landmark case or are you speaking gsnerally?
- ameminator 5y ago
  Here is the specific case I am referencing: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
  - boppo1 5y ago
    Neat, thanks
YZF 5y ago
In the US I think hate speech is protected under freedom of speech but I disagree with that. Hate speech leads to violence. This isn't about disagreeing with what Sam says. In a perfect world people decouple "speech" from their actions/beliefs but in the real world people act on what they believe and what they believe is influenced by "speech" (sometimes more so than by things like "facts", "reality", "science", "logic".) Now some of that is mostly harmless, like the flat earth. But if your speech results in harm then you should be held responsible and speech that we know results in harm should not be protected.
- ameminator 5y ago
  How exactly do you quantify this harm? Most of these re-definitions of "harmful" speech always seem unclear and difficult to define. Under the current legal framework (which you said you disagreed with) we already have standards and methods of quantifying that harm when speech directly incites violence. These same measures also explicitly define anything else as not harmful. The way I see it, the government has more of a duty to protect free speech than it does to prevent nebulous, poorly-defined and indirect harm. Outside of these moral implications (that no speech is fundamentally harmful, that we must have the freedom to have incorrect ideas), efforts to "prevent harmful speech" always seem to hurt society and individuals when put into practice. There is always the problem of who defines what harm is (usually it's the government) and such measures exist now explicitly to prevent the government from infringing on these rights.
  - YZF 5y ago
    Where I live this what we got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Also see the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... "Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]" There's plenty of laws where there is some ambiguity and the courts and juries need to interpret them. There are lots (most?) countries that do not have the same level of protection of free speech like the US has and it doesn't generally seem to "hurt society and individuals". If you compare the US to other modern democracies in the west it's not apparent that "free speech" with no limits is a win and there's no problem in those other countries in speaking out in general on any/many topics. You'll be stretched to find an example of hate laws abused as a way of restricting general freedoms.
    - ameminator 5y ago

boppo1 5y ago

> ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights. Is there an argument from a landmark case or are you speaking gsnerally?

ameminator 5y ago
Here is the specific case I am referencing: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
- boppo1 5y ago
  Neat, thanks

YZF 5y ago

In the US I think hate speech is protected under freedom of speech but I disagree with that. Hate speech leads to violence. This isn't about disagreeing with what Sam says. In a perfect world people decouple "speech" from their actions/beliefs but in the real world people act on what they believe and what they believe is influenced by "speech" (sometimes more so than by things like "facts", "reality", "science", "logic".) Now some of that is mostly harmless, like the flat earth. But if your speech results in harm then you should be held responsible and speech that we know results in harm should not be protected.

ameminator 5y ago
How exactly do you quantify this harm? Most of these re-definitions of "harmful" speech always seem unclear and difficult to define. Under the current legal framework (which you said you disagreed with) we already have standards and methods of quantifying that harm when speech directly incites violence. These same measures also explicitly define anything else as not harmful. The way I see it, the government has more of a duty to protect free speech than it does to prevent nebulous, poorly-defined and indirect harm. Outside of these moral implications (that no speech is fundamentally harmful, that we must have the freedom to have incorrect ideas), efforts to "prevent harmful speech" always seem to hurt society and individuals when put into practice. There is always the problem of who defines what harm is (usually it's the government) and such measures exist now explicitly to prevent the government from infringing on these rights.
- YZF 5y ago
  Where I live this what we got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Also see the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... "Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]" There's plenty of laws where there is some ambiguity and the courts and juries need to interpret them. There are lots (most?) countries that do not have the same level of protection of free speech like the US has and it doesn't generally seem to "hurt society and individuals". If you compare the US to other modern democracies in the west it's not apparent that "free speech" with no limits is a win and there's no problem in those other countries in speaking out in general on any/many topics. You'll be stretched to find an example of hate laws abused as a way of restricting general freedoms.
  - ameminator 5y ago