Freedom of Speech

[HIMDogson]

Both statements can be disproven with actual examples (since you've framed them in absolute terms), the American colonial revolution being the primary example. But I won't say any more about that here since it's getting off-topic.

American Revolution was when the colonists didn't have representation.

So, how would, out of curiosity, you guys feel about this: a law that says people who say things can be held accountable for violent actions committed as a result of what they say, with a judge to determine if it was reasonable to assume that violence is the logical conclusion of their words.

 

[Tek]

So, how would, out of curiosity, you guys feel about this: a law that says people who say things can be held accountable for violent actions committed as a result of what they say, with a judge to determine if it was reasonable to assume that violence is the logical conclusion of their words.

Something along those lines seems appropriate and doesn't limit the content one's speech.

Separately, I think the discussion about when and whether a person can be held accountable for another person's actions is useful.

 

[HIMDogson]

Something along those lines seems appropriate and doesn't limit the content one's speech.

Separately, I think the discussion about when and whether a person can be held accountable for another person's actions is useful.

Much as I am loathe to leave subjective stuff like this up to judges, I think that there really can't be a clear line of what one should be convicted for or not. Sometimes there needs to be ambiguity. So for example if someone said "we should curtail immigration due to its economic pressures" and anti-immigrant riots followed they can't be responsible whereas if they said something more racist culpability is more reasonable. Specific criterion for stuff like this is hard, though.

 

[Tek]

So for example if someone said "we should curtail immigration due to its economic pressures" and anti-immigrant riots followed they can't be responsible whereas if they said something more racist culpability is more reasonable.

We may be wandering off-topic again, but I can't... I won't....

The argument you're making is "That guy said something racist, so now it's his fault if I violently attack people!"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't even express my opinion about that statement politely or constructively.

 

[HIMDogson]

We may be wandering off-topic again, but I can't... I won't....

The argument you're making is "That guy said something racist, so now it's his fault if I violently attack people!"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't even express my opinion about that statement politely or constructively.

No, if they said something racist and in a way that implied violence was the solution. Like "Mexicans are all drug dealers, and we may need to take drastic action to protect ourselves". The people committing the violence would still be punished, and much more harshly.

 

[twocows]

American Revolution was when the colonists didn't have representation.

So, how would, out of curiosity, you guys feel about this: a law that says people who say things can be held accountable for violent actions committed as a result of what they say, with a judge to determine if it was reasonable to assume that violence is the logical conclusion of their words.

You can broaden (and possibly narrow) that to just "imminent lawless action" and you'd have something I both agree with and that is already considered part of US law. Incitement to imminent lawless action is already considered a crime and not protected by the First Amendment; there's even a legal standard to determine what speech falls under this and what doesn't. I wouldn't want to expand the scope of that any, if that's what you're asking. I think it's fine as is.

Right, answers for twocows in bold.

This is very difficult to read. Also, I can't quote any of it due to the way quotes work.

 

[Kanzler]

We may be wandering off-topic again, but I can't... I won't....

The argument you're making is "That guy said something racist, so now it's his fault if I violently attack people!"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't even express my opinion about that statement politely or constructively.

I think it would be both people's faults, to the extent that the first guy was inciting of violence or criminal acts, and that the second guy actually carried out some violence or criminal act. I think there is definitely a place to criminalize people who incite crime, though.

 

[HIMDogson]

You can broaden (and possibly narrow) that to just "imminent lawless action" and you'd have something I both agree with and that is already considered part of US law. Incitement to imminent lawless action is already considered a crime and not protected by the First Amendment; there's even a legal standard to determine what speech falls under this and what doesn't. I wouldn't want to expand the scope of that any, if that's what you're asking. I think it's fine as is.


This is very difficult to read. Also, I can't quote any of it due to the way quotes work.

Tldr: the system isn't open for abuse as long as hate speech is clearly defined, which is why I'm not in favor of hate speech laws until such a thing has been defined. If leftists break the law they should be punished like anyone else. The example in the blog you mentioned I have no problem with; saying that it's justified to attack people at rallies is clear incitement to violence. I also think we should actively crack down upon Antifa due to their blatant disregard for rule of law. Finally, yes, the majority can and has been wrong, but what other way should we make laws besides majority rules?

 

[twocows]

Tldr: the system isn't open for abuse as long as hate speech is clearly defined, which is why I'm not in favor of hate speech laws until such a thing has been defined.

Then how would you define it? It sounds more like you're talking about incitement based on the things you've said, although your definition of incitement seems a bit broad.

The example in the blog you mentioned I have no problem with; saying that it's justified to attack people at rallies is clear incitement to violence.

Saying that you don't have any problem with people committing violence isn't incitement; you're not actively encouraging people to commit crimes. It might be stupid and deeply concerning depending on the context, but it's not incitement. Incitement would be if I started telling people they should commit violence and break the law, not just justifying that behavior after the fact. If that was incitement, criminal defense attorneys would have a much more difficult job, as part of their job frequently entails convincing others that some violent crime was justified.

I also think we should actively crack down upon Antifa due to their blatant disregard for rule of law.

Right, we should do this because they are breaking the law and being actively violent, not because of their rhetoric. I might strongly disagree with what they have to say, but as long as they're not committing violence or inciting people to violence, I think they should have the right to say what they want.

Finally, yes, the majority can and has been wrong, but what other way should we make laws besides majority rules?

The US system is designed to some extent to protect minority groups from having their rights taken away purely on the basis of majority rule and I think it does this pretty well most of the time. Personally, my ideal kind of system would be a representative technocracy, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[HIMDogson]

Then how would you define it? It sounds more like you're talking about incitement based on the things you've said, although your definition of incitement seems a bit broad.

Saying that you don't have any problem with people committing violence isn't incitement; you're not actively encouraging people to commit crimes. It might be stupid and deeply concerning depending on the context, but it's not incitement. Incitement would be if I started telling people they should commit violence and break the law, not just justifying that behavior after the fact. If that was incitement, criminal defense attorneys would have a much more difficult job, as part of their job frequently entails convincing others that some violent crime was justified.

Right, we should do this because they are breaking the law and being actively violent, not because of their rhetoric. I might strongly disagree with what they have to say, but as long as they're not committing violence or inciting people to violence, I think they should have the right to say what they want.

The US system is designed to some extent to protect minority groups from having their rights taken away purely on the basis of majority rule and I think it does this pretty well most of the time. Personally, my ideal kind of system would be a representative technocracy, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

I have no idea as of yet what specific parameters should be set down for what hate speech is. All I can really say is that it by definition varies by context; saying 'black people are rapists' is very different in America than it is in Japan, for example, because of the history behind the sentiment and the violence it is likely to lead to in the US that chances are it won't in Japan. That's why this should be left up to judges. And I think cases of hate speech that don't lead to violence aren't worth pursuing unless a country's law enforcement is perfectly equipped to handle every single case. I also don't support any of the hate speech laws currently at play in most European countries(a specification born out of ignorance of the nuances of hate speech laws in, say, Finland).

There's a difference between arguing if one should commit violence in a general instance, like, say, a political rally, vs if one should have committed violence in a specific case. I retread the post, and her exact words were "self defense"- basically any person who isn't Gandhi thinks that you SHOULD defend yourself. She isn't saying that it's okay to do it, she's saying you should do it. I would charge her as accessory to any violence that takes place at rallies she mentions, and then a trial can determine if she actually incited violence taking place.

I agree with the third statement, I was simply rejecting the idea that I, or the majority of leftists(which I wouldn't entirely call myself based on being a monarchist) support violent criminals like Antifa.

A Technocracy is a system of elites controlling a government on basis of their skill. Furthermore, it is frequently authoritarian. Why would this system protect free speech?

 

[Esper]

A trouble with having blanket free speech is when you don't have a good system in place to debunk lies. Journalists and media and such should do that, but depending on the strength and integrity of your media outlets it varies how well you'll fare under a system of absolute free speech. (Everyone today shouts "fake news" and "alternative facts" and there are no neutral parties accepted by the majority of people to arbitrate what is true and what isn't.)

I'm not saying this is necessarily a reason to restrict free speech, nor do I have a perfect solution, but I think it's worth mentioning since this is the environment some of us in certain countries seem to be in and I don't think it is healthy for a democracy.

You can broaden (and possibly narrow) that to just "imminent lawless action" and you'd have something I both agree with and that is already considered part of US law. Incitement to imminent lawless action is already considered a crime and not protected by the First Amendment; there's even a legal standard to determine what speech falls under this and what doesn't. I wouldn't want to expand the scope of that any, if that's what you're asking. I think it's fine as is.

What about "dog whistle" speech which is designed to sound reasonable (or at least within the scope of what is protected by free speech laws) on the surface, but which is meant to send a different message to people whom the speaker knows will interpret it in a different way, possibly with the message to do something harmful or violent or illegal?

 

[TakeoTheSavage]

I .think hate speech should be allowed because no one can define hate speech. there's no law against it at the moment
2. libel shouldn't be allowed as it breaks the law of Defamation.its already illegal here anyway.
3.be allowed to criticise whatever person bran or entity you want.
4. ACTUAL REAL THREATS should not be allowed the internet is filled with trolls and empty threats so...yeah. you can't Imprison a 12-year-old who says kys because you think cod sucks.
basically, the way the laws are in the u.s are fine.

 

[twocows]

What about "dog whistle" speech which is designed to sound reasonable (or at least within the scope of what is protected by free speech laws) on the surface, but which is meant to send a different message to people whom the speaker knows will interpret it in a different way, possibly with the message to do something harmful or violent or illegal?

If the second meaning was incitement and you can prove it was intended, then I see no reason the person shouldn't be liable for incitement. Otherwise, if the speech can be interpreted in two ways and we aren't sure which was intended, then I think we should err on the side of the legally permissible meaning.

I have no idea as of yet what specific parameters should be set down for what hate speech is. All I can really say is that it by definition varies by context; saying 'black people are rapists' is very different in America than it is in Japan, for example, because of the history behind the sentiment and the violence it is likely to lead to in the US that chances are it won't in Japan. That's why this should be left up to judges. And I think cases of hate speech that don't lead to violence aren't worth pursuing unless a country's law enforcement is perfectly equipped to handle every single case. I also don't support any of the hate speech laws currently at play in most European countries(a specification born out of ignorance of the nuances of hate speech laws in, say, Finland).

Without knowing what you think hate speech should be defined as, I can't really argue either way. All I can say is that traditionally, hate speech has been used as an excuse to ban types of speech people just find distasteful and I don't think that's a valid justification for banning speech.

A Technocracy is a system of elites controlling a government on basis of their skill.

Right; the idea is that the engineers would argue about engineering problems, the computer scientists would argue about computer science problems, the farmers would argue about farming problems, etc. People with an actual background in a field of study would make decisions pertaining to their field of study.

Furthermore, it is frequently authoritarian.

There really haven't been many cases where this form of government or something like it has been tried and I don't think there's any reason why it would have to be authoritarian.

Why would this system protect free speech?

I think that ideally, philosophers and ethicists would be the ones discussing these kinds of issues and I believe that a majority of such people would ultimately come to the conclusion that free speech is good for society.

 

[Leafsfan]

Freedom of speech should (and does in Canada) cover anything that is said that stays behind a certain "boundary". That boundary is when what a person says imposes a possible physical danger on another person. For example (and these are not in any way my views): if a person says "I don't like black people", that is an opinion they have and it is their right to have that opinion. If the person says "I hate black people and we should attack all of them", that turns into hate speech ad is no longer covered under free speech as you are imposing a possible danger on the black community.

As for issues with bigender/nongender/whatever they want to be called, I think these issues are complete nonsense. The same thing applies ad above, if a person from that group is put in possible physical danger as a result of someones words, those words would constitute a hate crime. For the people who attempt to say not calling them by their preferred pronoun is a hate crime, not only is that completely ridiculous, buy my free speech doesn't not stop at a person's feelings.

 

[MarinaSpeaks]

Mmm I hope I answer this question right and can offer some kind of useful input somehow. Freedom of speech, the way I understand it, is the legal right to say whatever you want without government coming along and arresting you for it. This doesn't mean there aren't social repercussions though, so if you say something horrible, there will still be consequences as a result, and this is VERY necessary and important! I'll explain why below...

On the internet there are many people who use their platform to spew racist, sexist, homophobic etc, hate speech, and nothing happens, and poorly moderated websites like Youtube are the perfect example of the sort of environment that freedom of speech can foster when the social repercussions part I mentioned earlier isn't being reinforced. You just get the worst, most awful people externalizing their hateful bigoted opinions, and some people will tell us we're being too sensitive and that we should just ignore their behavior, but isn't ignoring it not attempting to fix the problem, but simply accepting it?

In the case of a website like Youtube, if it's pure hate speech, then umm, yeeaahh. I would probably try to censor some things. I do give credit to Youtube though for apparently making an effort to do something about it, which of course many on the 'right' are preeeeeeetty angry about because they feel they are being unfairly censored. XD I also believe private business have every right to enforce their own rules however the heck they see fit for the sake of the success of their own business. Of course, I'm referring to censorship when I say that.