One imagines that stochastic terrorism just happens, out of the blue, for no particular reason at all. What a mystery!

It would radically change the world because all it takes is a good orator appealing to a disfranchised people to get to power and commit atrocities.Take Hitler for example. — Wittgenstein

It takes more than oratory, not to discount the effectiveness of well written speech. In Hitler's case (and numerous others) more was required.

Hitler was backed up by the Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Detachment, which was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. The Storm Troupers and the Freikorps left over from WWI backed up Hitler's speeches with liberal doses of blunt violence.

The Germans were not disenfranchised. True, the were defeated in WWI, but they weren't occupied. True, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to cripple their future military intentions, but the allies were busy with their own problems and the Germans were initially discrete.

Hitler built upon and enflamed the already well-established German (and European) anti-semitism.

The Nazi military program was effective in bringing Germans relief from high-unemployment (owing to the world-wide depression).

The Nazi Party did not gain power by winning overwhelming majorities in the popular vote.

If hate speech is ever disallowed then those same people should also be disallowed a right to vote for the same reason.

Democratic institutes do not ban a certain group to vote but ban parties that may be racist/fascist which may threaten democracy itself and the well being of people if they are elected .I don't see how hate speech is linked with the right to vote. There is a fundamental freedom of choice but within the framework of mutual respect for others rights too. If your speech deprives other people from having a right to live a dignified life, and in some severe cases the right to life. Society will in retribution redefine certain rights to protect a more broad spectrum of human rights.

In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

II don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence. — Terrapin Station

I don't object to your free-speech absolutism, but at the same time I don't agree with your rejection of the the idea that speech can cause behavior (violent or beneficent). If speech had no effect on behavior then we really would be wasting our breath.

Speech can influence behavior. Speech (texts) can cause intellectual and emotional reactions. Speech can influence, direct, shape, alter, and cause behavior under certain circumstances. If we grant consent to the speaker to direct our behavior, then it will influence our behavior. Who does such a thing? All of us, at one time and many more.

WHY we grant consent to speakers to affect our behavior is another complicated question, but we do. IF we decide to go to a rally for Bernie Sanders, his speech will probably "cause" us to feel enthusiastic and excited; it might well result in us writing a check, and so on. The same people listening to a speech by Trump are likely to feel all sorts of unpleasant emotions. Why? Speech works (up to a point).

I felt really uncomfortable when I read Cormac McCarthy's The Road. Did McCarthy's words "make me feel" uncomfortable? Or feel a sense of relief at the end of the novel? In as much as I granted consent (suspension of disbelief), yes it did.

I have nothing but contempt for the limitations on free speech at universities spawned by students who demand safe zones, trigger warnings, protections from ideas they don't like, and so forth. The students who want these limitations don't seem to have any control over what they grant consent to.

Controlling one's reaction to what other people say is a necessary corollary of free speech. The students at some universities apparently are unable to control their reactions. Students aren't alone in this, of course. People choose to attend Trump rallies and consent to be influenced by his speech. At a different place and time on the political spectrum, many people chose to listen to Roosevelt's Fireside Chats on the radio and were reassured and comforted. Some people chose to listen to Roosevelt and were enraged -- also by consent.

Some people are walking around with "open-ended consent to be influenced by speech". They are primed and ready to react to whatever they hear. It's dangerous for and to an individual to grant such opened-ended consent, because other people will say upsetting words, and these words will result in their flipping out.

@Wittgenstein

I'm not against people being de-platformed for hate speech when the platform is owned by a private organization (or individual).

What I'm against is banning individuals from publicly speaking hatefully.

And I'd say that the right to vote is relevant because it's analogous.

What would happen if we stopped the worst sorts of people from voting for bigoted reasons? What would happen if we stopped people from voting against immigration for reasons like "I hate non-whites"? What would happen is that those people would just start pretending to be non-bigoted and they would become dangerous but hidden rather than dangerous but out in the open.

It's the same with hate speech. It's better to have the bigots out there in the open where their ideas can be challenged than to have them pretend to not be bigots until they get into a position of power and then, when they do, they can legislate against the rest of us.

If these people want to openly reveal how monstrous they are: let them. Don't let them go into hiding and only reveal themselves after they have power.

It's your choice, your responsibility, to follow orders or not. There's no way I'd follow an order to kill anyone if I didn't think it was justified to kill them. And then that's on me, because it was my choice. — Terrapin Station

I agreed with this until I met enough humans. Do you really think most people have the clarity of thought (or ever actually pause to intentionally 'think') to live up to this standard? Doesn't history show a regular pattern of the masses being convinced to slaughter for their leaders? If I am killing for 'justice' and 'freedom' is it any different? How does one know if they are fighting 'for justice' vs 'for hitler'? I get this does not make your position wrong, but if the mass killings were unlikely (of course we cannot say for sure, but seems safe) to occur at the same level without hitler or stalin...then aren't they somewhat responsible? I do not believe in prison for the sake of punishment, but I do believe in separating the problematic people from society - in that sense Hitler and Stalin would go to jail - does it matter if I call it 'a crime'?

Don't you think there are some people (like us) that naturally WANT to NOT follow? Our independence of thought defines us. Not so with most people I know - they are defined by those around them and their 'achievements'.

The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. — Terrapin Station

I think we just need the Avengers :smile: Your statement sounds simple and obvious. But my life experience has not led me to believe it is remotely possible. People WANT to believe. Something. Anything. And when someone comes along making big promises...they can't wait to jump on board.

I have not read the whole thread yet, so feel free to point me back to reading if I missed something...but I am worried my post will get REALLY long (it is already quite long compared to your posts), and I know you hate that :grimace:

Hitler was backed up by the Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Detachment, which was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. The Storm Troupers and the Freikorps left over from WWI backed up Hitler's speeches with liberal doses of blunt violence.

I think they did play a significant role but to the extend of providing security and oppressing rival parties. That
did certainly help to provide a platform for the nazi party to convey ideas to the public but the message conveyed, particularly anti-semitism, military expansionism and fanatic patriotism were all the focal point of Nazi party winning public support. I did simplify Hitler's rise to power but in my opinion, oratory and the policies played the most significant role in the rise of Hitler to power.

The Germans were not disenfranchised. True, the were defeated in WWI, but they weren't occupied. True, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to cripple their future military intentions, but the allies were busy with their own problems and the Germans were initially discrete.

Sovereignty of a country is given prime importance when forming any foreign policy and having the ability to regulate the army according to the geo-political situation in neighboring countries is paramount to safeguarding it.
The germans as a nation lost the right to protect their homeland under the pretext of preventing future backlash from the defeated countries. They could not employ troops on certain areas and the military figures were fixed.
The economic aggression was terrible too, even those countries that won the war suffered. To make matters worse, Germany had to pay war indemnity and the depression era as you have mentioned made things unbearable for a country that had just lost a war.
The measures clearly violated their right to sustenance, right to having a shelter and the right to live a dignified life. It does not justify waging a war and all the other atrocities committed but the Germans were genuinely disenfranchised. Hitler exploited their feelings and added fuel to the fire by carefully executed hate speeches.

It is actually difficult to exactly pinpoint the driving force behind Hitler's rise but speaking on broad terms, it is likely the aftermath of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles if were honest. Hate speech always needs a context and an environment.

As if either there are correct ways to formulate the concepts, or as if social norms make something correct.

Speech can influence behavior. — Bitter Crank

Again, influence is different than causing something.

Maybe, maybe not, but your standard is as arbitrary as any so far.

It's the same with hate speech. It's better to have the bigots out there in the open where their ideas can be challenged than to have them pretend to not be bigots until they get into a position of power and then, when they do, they can legislate against the rest of us.

If these people want to openly reveal how monstrous they are: let them. Don't let them go into hiding and only reveal themselves after they have power.

I would agree with you in principle but disagree in practice. It is always better to have terrible ideas in the public domain as long as they can be refuted and be rejected by society. In most sensible countries, the hate speeches are deemed valid by a minority and they seldom rise to power anyways, even if they were wolf in sheep's clothing, they would be a minority. The problem arises when they begin to garner support ( they can harm society when in minority too (racist rampages for example ) ) and it is always too late to fight back when the words turn into deeds and those at the "wrong" end face a lot of harm.
I don't think it's easy to answer this question because of the numerous factors involved but we can weigh out the pros and cons.

Can we trust each other individually and the society collectively to handle hate speech responsibly without any serious consequences ?

Νο, no. You must take advantage of your free speech rights and answer 'Fuck you, you dumbfuck'! — hairy belly

There are no free speech rights on the forum. As I said, rights apply to governments. In private communications such as the forum, dems whats in charge can restrict what we say as much as they want, which is as it should be. The rest of us get to choose whether or not we participate.

Also, keep in mind, @StreetlightX is The Man.

when we restrict hate speech and give government the power to do so, we may end up restricting legitimate speech. That's clearly a slippery slope argument. — Wittgenstein

If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences. Because of that, I don't think you should do X. How is that a slippery slope argument? If you go walking during a thunderstorm in a field on high ground carrying a long steel pole, you are likely to get hit by lightening and killed. I recommend you not do it. Although, I guess if you are walking on high ground and it's raining, there may actually be a slippery slope.

Taking us back to 1790s and using an example from over 200 years ago and applying it to 2019 won't strengthen your case. Constitution doesn't really help since the judges can interpret it differently. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution. — Wittgenstein

I think it's a very good and relevant example. John Adams, one of the authors of the American Declaration of Independence and considered a hero of liberty and freedom signed it into law. There is only one thing that can really help ensure free speech rights, and that's the rule of law. In the US, that means the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; tradition and common law; and the courts. Of course it's imperfect and fallible, but it's all we've got.

That's how it works in the US. Other countries enforce the rule of law with other documents and institutions. I won't criticize any other country because their protections are imperfect, just as I don't expect perfection from our own protections.

It is the collective consciousness of society that prevents those in charge from committing immoral acts. That's precisely why dictators try to brainwash people because a piece of paper cannot prevent violation of human rights, it's the people who prevent and raise a voice. — Wittgenstein

As I indicated, I disagree. It's the rule of law that matters.

It is actually difficult to exactly pinpoint the driving force behind Hitler's rise but speaking on broad terms, it is likely the aftermath of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles if were honest. Hate speech always needs a context and an environment. — Wittgenstein

This is true; zeitgeists are notoriously difficult to nail down, but none the less they are a real factor. Hitler wasn't just "whistling Dixie". A lot of his speech was directed toward solving German problems in a not altogether novel way.

Germany did have a problem feeding itself. It imported a lot of feed and fodder, as well as meat and fruits and vegetables. Contrary to the upper-midwestern reputation of German-American farmers, the methods of farming in the old country wasn't all that efficient. Parts of Germany (under the control of the Junkers) did much better. The population had grown quite a bit, and heavy wet soils just aren't that good.

Other European countries had similar problems. Denmark's large pork and dairy production depended on imported feed and folder. The UK wasn't self-sufficient in food. Ditto for the Scandinavians. France had a much better farming-food-population situation. The USSR had large, fertile wheat growing areas. Eastern Europe also was self-sufficient in food (my guess).

Then too Germany didn't have that magic black stuff, petroleum, to which a lot of modern industrial activity had shifted. They had coal, of course, with which their chemists worked wonders, and some iron ore. Besides all that, they imported as much high quality metallurgical ores as they could financially manage, up until the late 1930s.

If one loathed Jews, then Germany and Europe had a "Jewish problem".

A student of history would note that United States, among others, improved our economic prospects with a "take it easy, but take it" approach. The sniveling 13 states that began our country's existence had big plans well beyond the eastern seaboard. True, we bought the Louisiana territory, but the rest -- a lot -- we just snatched from Mexico. Same approach with Florida, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, etc. We exterminated most of the Indians, at times one by one, at other times en masse. And, famously, we built a lot of our wealth on slave labor. Hitler was quite familiar with our methods.

So Hitler's speeches were preparatory to war as a tool of economic salvation. He may not have said so at the beginning -- that would have been highly impolitic -- but he and the Nazis worked patiently at revving up the war economy, getting people to focus on Jews as THE designated problem (if they didn't already think so), and so on. Various institutions like the Gestapo made sure that the German people fell into line, and stayed in line.

So, the point to all this is, Hitler wasn't just about hate. Hate was a tool. His grand design was intended to solve the German natural resource problem--Lebensraum, and more. Great Britain solved their resource problem with empire; the Americans did the same thing on the North American land mass. France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Italy, the Turks, the Austrian-Hungarians, Japan, Russia -- all had accumulated colonies or used territorial expansion, much to their economic advantage. Hitler intended to unify Europe, whether Europe wanted to be unified or not, and whether the Europeans wanted the Germans to be in charge of the unification or not.

So, here we are now. Europe is unified (sort of) and the Germans are the keystone in the structure.

True, but one bird of influence in the hand is worth two birds of causation in the bush.

. Great Britain solved their resource problem with empire; the Americans did the same thing on the North American land mass. France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Italy, the Turks, the Austrian-Hungarians, Japan, Russia -- all had accumulated colonies or used territorial expansion, much to their economic advantage

Before the first world war, the German colonial empire ( 1884-1914 ) was the third largest empire at that time, it was short lived but if the first world war wouldn't have happened, Germany was self sufficient with regards to their resources. There is evidence of industrial development in German colonies during that period, hence it would be outrageous to suppose that the Germans were desperate to solve their resource problem at that time.Hitler did mention in his Mein kampf various measures that could resolve the economic problems faced by germans and he avidly disregarded population growth control as a tool for solving resource problem.
He explicitly suggested that growth of population is dire for overcoming other European countries. It's true that most countries or empires did solve their resources problem by colonizing areas filled with natural resources.
Since all the "good" land was taken by European countries, Hitler suggested invading them was the only option left.
The population around 1933 was 67 million and roughly 9 percent of population was killed during the second world war. I think the economic problems could have been solved by other means and the fact that Hitler was ready for another War, despite being a soilder in WW1 and knowing that it would be a global disaster. He was simply magnifying the problems and delivering false promises and building false hope. He was filled with vengeance and the crowd identified with him as they couldn't see the man he truly was behind all the rhetoric.

So, the point to all this is, Hitler wasn't just about hate. Hate was a tool. His grand design was intended to solve the German natural resource problem--Lebensraum, and more.

I agree with you on this point. Hate speech can never stand on it's own and it is always used as a tool. I would like to shift this discussion a little. In recent times, people have raised concerns over forcing religion down a childs throat and many count it as brainwashing. Also the topic of religious education being taught at school. After all, it is a conversation revolving around influence of speech on the mind and body.Can we trust the public with hate speech. By trust, l mean believing that the public is capable of dealing with hate speech without enforcing it and carrying out terrible deeds and if not, can they give up their desire to be living in a peaceful and a tolerable place?

If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences. Because of that, I don't think you should do X. How is that a slippery slope argument?

To me, it was more like if you do X, Y can be triggered too. We can separate free speech and hate speech and a lot of
countries have a general understanding of the differences and the public too.There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm, or even no harm in most cases.The speech act in which classified information is unveiled before the public's eye which can be potentially harmful for those in power.Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are great examples and heroes.

There is only one thing that can really help ensure free speech rights, and that's the rule of law. In the US, that means the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; tradition and common law; and the courts. Of course it's imperfect and fallible, but it's all we've got.

The case of Julian Assange is a clear example of violation of human rights and limiting freedom of expression. He is resisting his extradition to the USA, simply because he does not trust the system to protect him as the elite want him behind bars and to silent him.I am sure that you are opposed to political victimization of Julian Assange and most liberal Americans are too. I understand the power of the law but the citizens can always elect leaders that can separate hate speech and other forms of speech and if we go down that road, we may end up being afraid of making politically sensitive laws, lest something that is good is also thrown under the bus and even if it does happen, the people can always raise their voice.l dont think prohibiting hate speech will stop hate speech, it will discourage it.

I won't criticize any other country because their protections are imperfect, just as I don't expect perfection from our own protections.

I agree with this statement 100 percent. I would go on and say that the enforcement against hate speech will also be imperfect and such legal works are always adopted to minimize certain deeds as they can never totally wipe them out.

It takes more than oratory, not to discount the effectiveness of well written speech. In Hitler's case (and numerous others) more was required.

Hitler was backed up by the Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Detachment, which was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. The Storm Troupers and the Freikorps left over from WWI backed up Hitler's speeches with liberal doses of blunt violence.

The Germans were not disenfranchised. True, the were defeated in WWI, but they weren't occupied. True, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to cripple their future military intentions, but the allies were busy with their own problems and the Germans were initially discrete.

Hitler built upon and enflamed the already well-established German (and European) anti-semitism.

The Nazi military program was effective in bringing Germans relief from high-unemployment (owing to the world-wide depression).

The Nazi Party did not gain power by winning overwhelming majorities in the popular vote. — Bitter Crank

Do you know the story of the german policemen being sent to the east to shoot jewish men, women and children? Not SS men, not even battle hardened soldiers. Ordinary policemen from german cities. They were given the option not to partake, without repercussions. Yet perfectly ordinary people shot jewish children, in the belief that they were "doing their duty". All it took to get these ordinary people to do that was words.

Controlling one's reaction to what other people say is a necessary corollary of free speech. The students at some universities apparently are unable to control their reactions. Students aren't alone in this, of course. People choose to attend Trump rallies and consent to be influenced by his speech. At a different place and time on the political spectrum, many people chose to listen to Roosevelt's Fireside Chats on the radio and were reassured and comforted. Some people chose to listen to Roosevelt and were enraged -- also by consent.

Some people are walking around with "open-ended consent to be influenced by speech". They are primed and ready to react to whatever they hear. It's dangerous for and to an individual to grant such opened-ended consent, because other people will say upsetting words, and these words will result in their flipping out. — Bitter Crank

It seems like you're saying that you have total control over your reaction to speech. That'd be a truely marvelous ability. Ordinary humans have to make do with subconscious reactions to all kinds of things. There is plenty of research on this, too.

It's the same with hate speech. It's better to have the bigots out there in the open where their ideas can be challenged than to have them pretend to not be bigots until they get into a position of power and then, when they do, they can legislate against the rest of us.

If these people want to openly reveal how monstrous they are: let them. Don't let them go into hiding and only reveal themselves after they have power. — luckswallowsall

The thing is that simply challenging ideas doesn't always work. The current Trump presidency is a great example. You can challenge what Trump says all you want, but all he has to do is to constantly repeat it and a significant fraction of the people will believe him.

If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences. Because of that, I don't think you should do X. How is that a slippery slope argument? If you go walking during a thunderstorm in a field on high ground carrying a long steel pole, you are likely to get hit by lightening and killed. I recommend you not do it. Although, I guess if you are walking on high ground and it's raining, there may actually be a slippery slope. — T Clark

Further restrictions are not a consequence of previous restriction in the sense that a lighning strike is a consequence of carrying a large pole during a thunderstorm.

So, the point to all this is, Hitler wasn't just about hate. Hate was a tool. His grand design was intended to solve the German natural resource problem--Lebensraum, and more. — Bitter Crank

This is false. Hitler's goal was to destroy the cultural influence of jews on european culture and restore a "natural order" where the germans would, as the worlds most powerful people, come out on top and get what they deserve. Hate of everything jewish was central to Hitlers ideology, it was not about the economy.

When I look at the West today, it seems to me that free speech shouldn't be taken for granted at all. Criticising religions like Islam is already hard in many Western countries and that's just one example.

Do not incite violence, don't compare a race of people to rodents and other extremes seem like easy bans. Why allow such rhetoric when it has no merit at all. It isn't that kind of stuff that I want to protect. Will people be allowed to criticise religions freely, will they be able to express their thoughts on gender honestly, will people be free to challenge the government on immigration policies. Some Western countries already consider some of those things to be hate speech.

There are many controversial topics where people escalate as a weapon. Outrage culture, I suppose. If what is necessary to win that battle is to call something hate speech, there won't be a moment's hesitation. If that's a path to controlling what people are allowed to say - and what they have to say. Then this will be done, is being done and as I said earlier, this is not a trivial concern. The very term "hate speech" implies that it's something that should be banned and if it was that simple then of course, there's no reason for debate. The problem is when things which aren't hateful or said with ill-intent are deemed hate speech because it's a convenient way to silence people.

To me, it was more like if you do X, Y can be triggered too. We can separate free speech and hate speech and a lot of countries have a general understanding of the differences and the public too. — Wittgenstein

This comment was in response to your invocation of the "slippery slope" defense. It was my intent to show that it didn't apply to my original comment. Also - how is "if you do X, Y can be triggered too" different from "If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences."

There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm, — Wittgenstein

I think you've understood our point, we don't claim there is no harm from what you call "hate speech," only that there is more harm, much more harm, from restricting it.

I agree with this statement 100 percent. I would go on and say that the enforcement against hate speech will also be imperfect and such legal works are always adopted to minimize certain deeds as they can never totally wipe them out. — Wittgenstein

Again, I think you've missed the point - restrictions against what you call "hate speech," perfect or imperfect, cause severe damage to the exercise of "unalienable rights." Imperfect would be better than perfect. Non-existent would be much better.

As for Julian Assange, I'm generally sympathetic to the things he's done. I don't think he should be prosecuted. But I don't think it's

a clear example of violation of human rights — Wittgenstein

Further restrictions are not a consequence of previous restriction in the sense that a lighning strike is a consequence of carrying a large pole during a thunderstorm. — Echarmion

Of course they are. Further restrictions are a direct, I say inevitable, consequence of allowing government intrusion. And it's not "further restrictions," it's restrictions that damage fundamental rights.

When I look at the West today, it seems to me that free speech shouldn't be taken for granted at all. Criticising religions like Islam is already hard in many Western countries and that's just one example. — Judaka

I have no problem with making it hard to criticize religions like Islam. It's just that I don't want it to be the government that does it. I also want the government to protect the safety of people who say unpopular things. I don't think there's anything wrong with making it hard on people who criticize religions by legal social control means, e.g. public criticism, restrictions on speech by private parties, and other similar acts. Some of that might be harsh and unfair, but it's not inappropriate to have to face the consequences for the things you do or say.

Would it be wrong for an employer to fire an employee who is a member of the Nazi Party... I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it would be legal.

There are no free speech rights on the forum. — T Clark

Of course there are, as there are restrictions. Just like everywhere.

As I said, rights apply to governments. — T Clark

"Rights apply to governments". Nonsense. Rights apply to whomever states decide they apply.

In private communications such as the forum — T Clark

This is a public forum. The communication here is public, not private.

dems whats in charge can restrict what we say as much as they want, which is as it should be. The rest of us get to choose whether or not we participate. — T Clark

Your speech is already restricted and these restrictions are already misapplied. What you fear so much is already happening. Your precious constitution does that, that's generally what constitutions do. :scream:

sup

Yes hate speech should be allowed, namely, because all speech should be allowed. 1 act of Censorship is far worse than any combination of words ever spoken or written.

@NOS4A2 . i have seen u in the white privilege post and it seems that u dislike white supremacy , i would like to ask u question , what would u do and how would u feel if there is a racial hate speech directed towards a racial minority group , would u then allow that to happen ? if so , why? if not why?

yes, I would allow it to happen because I believe in free speech and carry that principle to its absolute conclusion.

In my view, the best course of action is to engage in debate and prove their arguments absurd.

if you have allow this hate speech to carry out and another group that opposes the speech carries out a counter protest or other ways to go against the speech, 80%-90% of time it will lead to a violent clash between 2 groups which is then called riot, im pretty sure that we have all witness this and a great example of the situation i am talking about is the incident in Charlottesville with the unit the right rally

i personally think that some form of hate speech should not be allowed such as a hate speech that intends on provoking harm to a certain group

Violence may follow speech, sure, but that isn’t to say the speech was the cause of the violence anymore that it is the cause of non-violence if people act otherwise.