Free Speech and Hatred
Wizard
05 May 2009
Least Wanted list published
This article got me thinking. Is there a point at which the right to free speech should cease? Is there a moral line that can be crossed?
The typical example is that of racial/religious hatred. Some would argue that you have to let whoever say whatever, but does this extend to those who openly praise terrorists, martyrs and jihadists?
Why do some countries have anti-incitement laws if free speech is allowed? Isn't this contradictory?
I'd like to know if you think free speech should be free or whether there are lines.
This article got me thinking. Is there a point at which the right to free speech should cease? Is there a moral line that can be crossed?
The typical example is that of racial/religious hatred. Some would argue that you have to let whoever say whatever, but does this extend to those who openly praise terrorists, martyrs and jihadists?
Why do some countries have anti-incitement laws if free speech is allowed? Isn't this contradictory?
I'd like to know if you think free speech should be free or whether there are lines.
Ion Cannon!
05 May 2009
Free speech should be a priviledge, not a right. You shouldn't expect to be able to come to the UK utilise our social services and at the same time incite hate against the west or against specific groups. Someone who comes to live here for the sole purpose of voicing hate can frankly GTFO and stay out.
One interesting comment made was that of Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain.
"If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that's their business. We should not be in the business of policing people's minds."
The thing is the people being banned are NOT keeping their views to themselves. They are voicing them publically and often with the sole intent to promote those views in others. so he either misunderstood or actually agrees with the legislation.
One interesting comment made was that of Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain.
"If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that's their business. We should not be in the business of policing people's minds."
The thing is the people being banned are NOT keeping their views to themselves. They are voicing them publically and often with the sole intent to promote those views in others. so he either misunderstood or actually agrees with the legislation.
Wizard
05 May 2009
Ion Cannon!, on 5 May 2009, 14:02, said:
Free speech should be a priviledge, not a right. You shouldn't expect to be able to come to the UK utilise our social services and at the same time incite hate against the west or against specific groups.
I agree that it is fundamentally wrong to do the 2nd part of the above. But tell me who defines the priviledge criteria? Where is the line and what happens when that line is moved back to criticism of governments?
CommanderJB
05 May 2009
This is perhaps the most challenging question faced by a true democracy. The libertarian in me would like to say that any restriction of free speech is wrong, no matter what the circumstances; but at the same time it is rationally wrong to allow such irrational, appalling and frankly disgusting behaviour as that promoted by some of the groups outlined in the article in the opening post. While in an ideal world I would simply say give them the right to say what they like and allow people to decide for themselves that what they are saying is untrue, unjust, and blind, I'm sadly under no illusions that such a thing happens or ever will happen.
Instead, the most practical solution I can attempt is this; a massive public education campaign which promotes universal equality and the other goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is followed by a clear and simple popular referendum to determine a constitutional code (or in Britain, the closest equivalent) that clearly and simply defines what is unacceptable criticism and which areas it should apply to. The whole process must be completely transparent at all points and submissions should be required by law from all members of the population prior to its commencement as to the areas covered and questions asked. All community groups should be consulted.
Of course in the real world it'd end up being an ungodly mess and you'd never satisfy all the minorities and people would hate the government and you'd have to invade privacy to make sure people understand what it is they're doing and... well, you get the idea.
Instead, the most practical solution I can attempt is this; a massive public education campaign which promotes universal equality and the other goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is followed by a clear and simple popular referendum to determine a constitutional code (or in Britain, the closest equivalent) that clearly and simply defines what is unacceptable criticism and which areas it should apply to. The whole process must be completely transparent at all points and submissions should be required by law from all members of the population prior to its commencement as to the areas covered and questions asked. All community groups should be consulted.
Of course in the real world it'd end up being an ungodly mess and you'd never satisfy all the minorities and people would hate the government and you'd have to invade privacy to make sure people understand what it is they're doing and... well, you get the idea.
amazin
05 May 2009
im fine with how it is set up in the US
you are not allowed to say hateful remarks, such as racism
you cannot endanger people, such as screaming FIRE!
and you cannot threaten people
i think all of those are necessary and fair
you are not allowed to say hateful remarks, such as racism
you cannot endanger people, such as screaming FIRE!
and you cannot threaten people
i think all of those are necessary and fair
Overdose
05 May 2009
Free speech is not just a right, its a responsibility. Similar to driving, I should and I am responsible to my actions while on the wheel. Same for free speech, I am responsible for the things I say. This is the only conclusion I can reach on the subject.
Wizard
05 May 2009
Well I'd have to ask the question then, is it right to call it "free speech" if there are priviledges and responsibilities attached?
Overdose
05 May 2009
In this case we'd have to rename a lot of things. I assume so but might as well keep it.
Edited by Overdose, 05 May 2009 - 15:44.
Edited by Overdose, 05 May 2009 - 15:44.
BeefJeRKy
06 May 2009
Wizard, on 5 May 2009, 11:37, said:
Well I'd have to ask the question then, is it right to call it "free speech" if there are priviledges and responsibilities attached?
I would say indeed it can be called as such. Since when does freedom not have any checks and balances? Isn't that what is called anarchy? The problem with free speech is that people exploit it to incite hate in others. I think free speech is slightly flawed because people talk about other people without prior knowledge of that people's culture. The best example is the Middle East. People sporadically label both the Israelis and the Palestinians as evil. I wouldn't mind some more checks and balnces on my free speech. It would certainly help me think before I speak.
