4 ms·

What if you don't represent a populist movement and your views don't cater to the masses?

by rudiger 14y ago

tatsuke95 14y ago
That's a good question. Would you like it if people could anonymously publish and distribute hate speech? It's tricky. I'm making an assumption, but in most scenarios it's the powerful few controlling the masses, and doing so through controlling the flow information.
- geuis 14y ago
  There's nothing tricky about it. Hate speech is a vile thing, but you or I have as much right to say it as we say anything else. Freedom of speech should ensure that no one is silenced for their viewpoint. Whether we like what other people have to say depends, but they always have the right to say it.
  - kennywinker 14y ago
    Very american perspective. Here in Canada (and many other places in the world) we have laws against hate speech. The definition is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada). Words have an impact on the world. If you call for violence against a group of people, you can be held accountable for that in Canada. Nobody is saying you can't say "I hate <group of people>", but when you say "<group of people> should be killed" you've crossed a line and can be held legally accountable. It's a tricky issue, but personally I think our system is more in line with most people's natural sense of morality. If I call for violence, and violence happens, am I not at least partially culpable in that violence? Especially if I am a community leader, or other person of influence.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      You'll still get in trouble in the US if you're inciting specific crimes. But "all them ___ should be shot" is just a (bad) opinion. And you can impotently rant about those all you want.
      - kennywinker 14y ago
        I disagree that "all them ___ should be shot" is always impotent ranting. That's ignoring the influence people can have over other people.
        Jach 14y ago
        People who are so weak-minded should be shot.
        ori_b 14y ago
        Context does matter. However, I think that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to preventing people from doing things.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    >"There's nothing tricky about it. Hate speech is a vile thing, but you or I have as much right to say it as we say anything else." That's an opinion, and precisely why it's tricky. I understand "freedom of speech" is a fundamental representation of liberty, especially to Americans. There is also a school of thought that believes in looking at the normative angle of policy; when things can be determined, objectively, to be hateful or vile, why allow them? I'd rather live in a world that didn't allow hate speech than a world that does. Of course, how do you determine "hate speech" objectively, at the margin? That's the tricky part.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      >when things can be determined, objectively, to be hateful or vile, why allow them? And what is the objective criteria used to determine hatefulness and vileness? I am interested in how such a thing can be formulated in a definitively objective way. I think by "objective" you probably mean "almost universally agreed", not actually "objective", because I don't think that any truly objective measurements of hatefulness and vileness are known.
  - Joakal 14y ago
    There's no free speech in USA. Try threatening the president, even outside of USA. You'll be visited.
- Jach 14y ago
  It extends far beyond hate speech as well, if it was only hate speech on the table there might be a useful conversation. Religious people have had success with that same phrase against atheists to censor them. (There was a somewhat large "youtube scandal" a while ago.) But plenty of people just want to censor unpopular views regardless of whether the person with those views is emotional about them. Do you sense any hate in this? "It never occurred to either the enemies or the apologists for slavery, that if no one would employ the free laborer, his condition was infinitely worse than that of actual slavery--nor did it occur to them, that if his wages were less than the allowance of the slave, he was less free after emancipation than before." --George Fitzhugh Can one argue for the return of a more civilized form of slavery without being called evil, a racist, bigot, hate monger, etc.? It's because so many views that "don't represent a populist movement" and "don't cater to the masses" also don't fall straight into a single bucket ("hate speech", "encouraging violence", "ignorant flaming", "hard truth", "trolling", "devil's advocacy") that I like the American view expressed by geuis. If you're not being forced to listen (because while one may have the right to speak, one doesn't have the right to be heard), change the channel. Starting from this point lets us discuss the potential exceptions like whether we ought to allow television personalities to ask the public to kill someone, and if we do, if someone acts on it does the asker receive some amount of punishment? I think it's important in having a useful discussion to start from a solid position rather than starting from "it's tricky".

What if you don't represent a populist movement and your views don't cater to the masses?

by rudiger 14y ago

What if you don't represent a populist movement and your views don't cater to the masses?

That's a good question. Would you like it if people could anonymously publish and distribute hate speech? It's tricky. I'm making an assumption, but in most scenarios it's the powerful few controlling the masses, and doing so through controlling the flow information.

geuis 14y ago
There's nothing tricky about it. Hate speech is a vile thing, but you or I have as much right to say it as we say anything else. Freedom of speech should ensure that no one is silenced for their viewpoint. Whether we like what other people have to say depends, but they always have the right to say it.
- kennywinker 14y ago
  Very american perspective. Here in Canada (and many other places in the world) we have laws against hate speech. The definition is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada). Words have an impact on the world. If you call for violence against a group of people, you can be held accountable for that in Canada. Nobody is saying you can't say "I hate <group of people>", but when you say "<group of people> should be killed" you've crossed a line and can be held legally accountable. It's a tricky issue, but personally I think our system is more in line with most people's natural sense of morality. If I call for violence, and violence happens, am I not at least partially culpable in that violence? Especially if I am a community leader, or other person of influence.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    You'll still get in trouble in the US if you're inciting specific crimes. But "all them ___ should be shot" is just a (bad) opinion. And you can impotently rant about those all you want.
    - kennywinker 14y ago
      I disagree that "all them ___ should be shot" is always impotent ranting. That's ignoring the influence people can have over other people.
      - Jach 14y ago
        People who are so weak-minded should be shot.
      - ori_b 14y ago
        Context does matter. However, I think that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to preventing people from doing things.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >"There's nothing tricky about it. Hate speech is a vile thing, but you or I have as much right to say it as we say anything else." That's an opinion, and precisely why it's tricky. I understand "freedom of speech" is a fundamental representation of liberty, especially to Americans. There is also a school of thought that believes in looking at the normative angle of policy; when things can be determined, objectively, to be hateful or vile, why allow them? I'd rather live in a world that didn't allow hate speech than a world that does. Of course, how do you determine "hate speech" objectively, at the margin? That's the tricky part.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    >when things can be determined, objectively, to be hateful or vile, why allow them? And what is the objective criteria used to determine hatefulness and vileness? I am interested in how such a thing can be formulated in a definitively objective way. I think by "objective" you probably mean "almost universally agreed", not actually "objective", because I don't think that any truly objective measurements of hatefulness and vileness are known.
- Joakal 14y ago
  There's no free speech in USA. Try threatening the president, even outside of USA. You'll be visited.
Jach 14y ago
It extends far beyond hate speech as well, if it was only hate speech on the table there might be a useful conversation. Religious people have had success with that same phrase against atheists to censor them. (There was a somewhat large "youtube scandal" a while ago.) But plenty of people just want to censor unpopular views regardless of whether the person with those views is emotional about them. Do you sense any hate in this? "It never occurred to either the enemies or the apologists for slavery, that if no one would employ the free laborer, his condition was infinitely worse than that of actual slavery--nor did it occur to them, that if his wages were less than the allowance of the slave, he was less free after emancipation than before." --George Fitzhugh Can one argue for the return of a more civilized form of slavery without being called evil, a racist, bigot, hate monger, etc.? It's because so many views that "don't represent a populist movement" and "don't cater to the masses" also don't fall straight into a single bucket ("hate speech", "encouraging violence", "ignorant flaming", "hard truth", "trolling", "devil's advocacy") that I like the American view expressed by geuis. If you're not being forced to listen (because while one may have the right to speak, one doesn't have the right to be heard), change the channel. Starting from this point lets us discuss the potential exceptions like whether we ought to allow television personalities to ask the public to kill someone, and if we do, if someone acts on it does the asker receive some amount of punishment? I think it's important in having a useful discussion to start from a solid position rather than starting from "it's tricky".