4 ms·

I honestly hope one of these takes off. I don't want to ever go there, I don't take amusement in other people's suffering. But seeing so much outrage on reddi

by keedot 11y ago

I honestly hope one of these takes off. I don't want to ever go there, I don't take amusement in other people's suffering. But seeing so much outrage on reddit from assholes bitching that they can't be racist/bigoted/loathsome on a private forum screaming about freedom of speech which belies their own ignorance makes me long for the days of gopher. I find it repugnant, and I'm glad to live in a country where I'm free to say anything, but hate speech is prosecuted.

bruceb 11y ago
" I'm glad to live in a country where I'm free to say anything, but hate speech is prosecuted." hmm...
steveeq1 11y ago
English translation: "I believe in freedom of speech. . . except for things that I find offensive" There is no such thing as hate speech in a free speech environment. There is no guarantee you won't be offended.
- eevee 11y ago
  English translation: "I want to be as big a jerk as possible and blame it on everyone else when they don't like it."
- flashman 11y ago
  More like, "Nobody is going to stop you saying what you want... but they're going to hold you responsible for the consequences." That's all any of us wants.
  - steveeq1 11y ago
    And if the consequences are high enough, it's not really free speech.
- keedot 11y ago
  That isn't the argument. Racism, bigotry, exploitation, bullying are all examples of speech that has no place in an enlightened society in my view. Freedom of speech is limited in America too, the rest of us think that if you're going to have limitations, then set limitations which promotes human cooperation and understanding, and excludes speech which only serves to promote violence and the insularization of arbitrary groups.
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    It rather is the argument! The problem with your perspective is that it's completely undefined and the words you used are so pliable, they can be used to suppress more or less any kind of speech. For example, in the UK recently there was a notorious case where a Muslim teenager posted on Facebook that he hated the soldiers who went to Muslim countries and killed women and children, and he hoped those soldiers would go straight to hell. That is 100% pure political speech .... so what happened? Well, a woman who was the mother of a soldier saw the post and was of course terribly offended. She reported him to the police, on the grounds that nobody should be allowed to criticise her boy's choice of career. The police arrested him and he was tried in court. The plods said, "He didn't express himself very well and that's why he's now in a spot of bother". Sounds so pleasant, doesn't it, except he was found guilty and sentenced to community service. It would have been jail but he agreed to renounce his heresy in public. The moment you say "I support free speech but not if it upsets someone" you don't have free speech. The entire purpose of protecting free speech is to ensure ideas that some people might find ugly or insulting can still get heard and debated, and thus to keep flexibility in the political system. It must be possible to enrage other people with your speech. I'm not an absolutist, there can be some exceptions - for instance I don't consider publishing a list of people's passwords to be "free speech", but the definitions of what's not acceptable should be incredibly tightly defined. And no countries laws even try, really. Especially not in Europe.
    - keedot 11y ago
      I'm not concerned with upsetting someone. But there is a difference between being offensive (of which I have no qualms) and inciting hate. You and I just draw the line differently, am I'm okay with that.
duncan_bayne 11y ago
"I'm glad to live in a country where I'm free to say anything, but hate speech is prosecuted." I'm going to be optimistic for the future of humanity, and assume that was a (masterful) troll.
- saryant 11y ago
  Throwaway with a blatant canard. I'm calling false flag.
- DanBC 11y ago
  That's a very common sentiment in eg England. Americans tend not to realise that their free speech laws are sometimes seen as extreme in Europe. It's not surprising they used a throwaway, they already got downvoted. (It wasn't me.)
  - soneil 11y ago
    The Westboro Baptist Church make an easily graspable example of this. In the US the consensus (if any) seems to be "vile, but within their rights". But they're banned from entering the UK or Canada, because we draw that line differently.
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      More specifically, the government draws that line differently. And as civil liberties are basically never an election-defining issue, there is no pressure to change or improve things. Unfortunately this means the UK tends to be run for long periods by social conservatives, because that's the only way to get people who are also fiscal conservatives. I don't think you can draw deep conclusions about the value of free speech to people in Europe or the UK when it's so rarely debated. (British guy speaking here)
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      Well yes, where 'differently' means 'hypocritically'. For example, you prevent anti-jihad activists like Robert Spencer from entering the UK to speak, but you're perfectly prepared to allow pro-jihad activists to live in the UK and preach hatred of Jews, women, and non-Muslims in general. This is the problem with limits on freedom of speech - they allow people doing the limiting to ban speech they don't like, for no other reason that they don't like it.

by keedot 11y ago

bruceb 11y ago

" I'm glad to live in a country where I'm free to say anything, but hate speech is prosecuted." hmm...

steveeq1 11y ago

English translation: "I believe in freedom of speech. . . except for things that I find offensive" There is no such thing as hate speech in a free speech environment. There is no guarantee you won't be offended.

eevee 11y ago
English translation: "I want to be as big a jerk as possible and blame it on everyone else when they don't like it."
flashman 11y ago
More like, "Nobody is going to stop you saying what you want... but they're going to hold you responsible for the consequences." That's all any of us wants.
- steveeq1 11y ago
  And if the consequences are high enough, it's not really free speech.
keedot 11y ago
That isn't the argument. Racism, bigotry, exploitation, bullying are all examples of speech that has no place in an enlightened society in my view. Freedom of speech is limited in America too, the rest of us think that if you're going to have limitations, then set limitations which promotes human cooperation and understanding, and excludes speech which only serves to promote violence and the insularization of arbitrary groups.
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  It rather is the argument! The problem with your perspective is that it's completely undefined and the words you used are so pliable, they can be used to suppress more or less any kind of speech. For example, in the UK recently there was a notorious case where a Muslim teenager posted on Facebook that he hated the soldiers who went to Muslim countries and killed women and children, and he hoped those soldiers would go straight to hell. That is 100% pure political speech .... so what happened? Well, a woman who was the mother of a soldier saw the post and was of course terribly offended. She reported him to the police, on the grounds that nobody should be allowed to criticise her boy's choice of career. The police arrested him and he was tried in court. The plods said, "He didn't express himself very well and that's why he's now in a spot of bother". Sounds so pleasant, doesn't it, except he was found guilty and sentenced to community service. It would have been jail but he agreed to renounce his heresy in public. The moment you say "I support free speech but not if it upsets someone" you don't have free speech. The entire purpose of protecting free speech is to ensure ideas that some people might find ugly or insulting can still get heard and debated, and thus to keep flexibility in the political system. It must be possible to enrage other people with your speech. I'm not an absolutist, there can be some exceptions - for instance I don't consider publishing a list of people's passwords to be "free speech", but the definitions of what's not acceptable should be incredibly tightly defined. And no countries laws even try, really. Especially not in Europe.
  - keedot 11y ago
    I'm not concerned with upsetting someone. But there is a difference between being offensive (of which I have no qualms) and inciting hate. You and I just draw the line differently, am I'm okay with that.

duncan_bayne 11y ago

"I'm glad to live in a country where I'm free to say anything, but hate speech is prosecuted." I'm going to be optimistic for the future of humanity, and assume that was a (masterful) troll.

saryant 11y ago
Throwaway with a blatant canard. I'm calling false flag.
DanBC 11y ago
That's a very common sentiment in eg England. Americans tend not to realise that their free speech laws are sometimes seen as extreme in Europe. It's not surprising they used a throwaway, they already got downvoted. (It wasn't me.)
- soneil 11y ago
  The Westboro Baptist Church make an easily graspable example of this. In the US the consensus (if any) seems to be "vile, but within their rights". But they're banned from entering the UK or Canada, because we draw that line differently.
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    More specifically, the government draws that line differently. And as civil liberties are basically never an election-defining issue, there is no pressure to change or improve things. Unfortunately this means the UK tends to be run for long periods by social conservatives, because that's the only way to get people who are also fiscal conservatives. I don't think you can draw deep conclusions about the value of free speech to people in Europe or the UK when it's so rarely debated. (British guy speaking here)
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    Well yes, where 'differently' means 'hypocritically'. For example, you prevent anti-jihad activists like Robert Spencer from entering the UK to speak, but you're perfectly prepared to allow pro-jihad activists to live in the UK and preach hatred of Jews, women, and non-Muslims in general. This is the problem with limits on freedom of speech - they allow people doing the limiting to ban speech they don't like, for no other reason that they don't like it.