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
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.If hate speech is ever disallowed then those same people should also be disallowed a right to vote for the same reason.
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
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
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 they did play a significant role but to the extend of providing security and oppressing rival parties. ThatHitler 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.
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 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.
Speech can influence behavior. — Bitter Crank
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.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.
Νο, no. You must take advantage of your free speech rights and answer 'Fuck you, you dumbfuck'! — hairy belly
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
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
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
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
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.. 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
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?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.
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 ofIf 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?
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.
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.I won't criticize any other country because their protections are imperfect, just as I don't expect perfection from our own protections.
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
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'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
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
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
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
There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm, — Wittgenstein
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
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
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
Of course there are, as there are restrictions. Just like everywhere.There are no free speech rights on the forum. — T Clark
As I said, rights apply to governments. — T Clark
In private communications such as the forum — T Clark
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.