Of course there are, as there are restrictions. Just like everywhere. — hairy belly
"Rights apply to governments". Nonsense. Rights apply to whomever states decide they apply. — hairy belly
This is a public forum. The communication here is public, not private. — hairy belly
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. — hairy belly
I was talking about the government - to go through every context, each one needs to be dealt with individually. The government needs to protect free speech and that may include regulating businesses like Google and Facebook. The responsibilities and powers of privately owned venues like this forum are negotiated but ultimately decided by the owner, that is fine. I would look at the ramifications rather than just the action alone though. Some businesses are too influential and powerful to allow to censor their users for political gain. — Judaka
The choice of words here is really important. There are muslims who regard mockery of their religion to fall in category of hate speech and most of them allow criticism in an academic way, but many westerners regard mockery as also a part of criticism and in broader context, freedom of expression. Would you allow ISIS narrative in your country under the banner of free speech ?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.
I think we are on the same page, as you wouldn't mind banning racist speech or those which instigate violence.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.
I never characterized disclosure of classified information as hate speech as you can see "There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm " . I used the phrase, another form of free speech. What l meant by harm wasn't equivalent to the harm done by hate speeches. If a document reveals certain military operations conducted by a country in which war crimes were committed. It harms the person in authority and it is well deserved a lot of the time. It may also damage the legitimacy of moral high ground of certain powerful people, again it is well placed. The benefit is always greater but in a different context. Hate speech does not carry any benefit and is harmful most of the time. I do understand your points but l don't agree with you on most of them.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.
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.
That's why it is important to discuss hate speech. In the present day and age, we can see the rise of right wing political parties in many European countries and USA obviously. I don't think that would be a cause of restrictions placed on hate speeches. I am not saying that right wing politics is primarily linked to hate speeches but they do overlap. This may have been caused by a certain phobia of other cultures and also the negative interactions and the lack of integration from the minority or immigrants but in my opinion human race as a whole will one day cherish freedom of expression and the barriers which cause misunderstandings will be removed. Hate speech originates from a desire to suppress others and freedom of expression desires to liberate the human mind. If hate is lessened and tolerance builds in an ideal society, we may not need to ban hate speech as it would be rare.The West will support free speech, the danger are "caveats" like hate speech which are misused. A dismantlement of free speech would certainly come under the guise of something like this and really, that's already happening. Most western countries do allow things like Islam to be criticised and etc but it's not hard to see that this is coming under threat, a problem, a concern, which wasn't there before.
I never characterized disclosure of classified information as hate speech as you can see — Wittgenstein
Is it possible for the government to censor hate speech and protect all other forms of free speech. Yes, it is. — Wittgenstein
That's why its important to know who you are voting for and to always know when the government is crossing the line. The public decides what is hate speech and the government implements restriction on it. — Wittgenstein
There are many western countries that do not allow hate speech and still manage to be safe havens for advocates of free speech. — Wittgenstein
No. The administrators and moderators have total control over what is written here. There is no countervailing force except for their commitment to good philosophy, fairness, and open discussion and their desire to have a successful and active forum. As I said, that is as it should be. — T Clark
Decide that rights apply to you all you want. That doesn't mean anything without a force of some kind to back you up. That force may be legal, moral, practical, political.... — T Clark
As I said, this forum is owned and controlled by private parties who are in complete control of it. It's public only in that they allow access to it. Just because I invite you onto my property, that doesn't mean you have any rights of access. I can tell you to leave, ban you, vote you off the island, any time I want. — T Clark
Again, you are mixing up what is a right and what is allowed. As for my precious Constitution, and constitutions in general, no, it does not primarily act to apply restrictions. The US Constitution does two primary things 1) it sets the rules and procedures for government and political action and 2) it provides protections against government action. 2) is primarily accomplished in what is known as "The Bill of Rights," the first 10 amendments ratified along with the original Constitution, as well as additional amendments added later. The Bill of Rights was specifically added to prevent the types of government intrusion which took place before the Revolution. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without it. — T Clark
True, but one bird of influence in the hand is worth two birds of causation in the bush. — Bitter Crank
As I said previously, I won't criticize other countries that find their own ways of protecting speech.
You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) byIs it possible for the government to censor hate speech and protect all other forms of free speech. Yes, it is.
— Wittgenstein
No it isn't.
There are muslims who regard mockery of their religion to fall in category of hate speech and most of them allow criticism in an academic way, but many westerners regard mockery as also a part of criticism and in broader context, freedom of expression. — Wittgenstein
There is nothing to recommend hate speech; it should not be permitted — Pattern-chaser
You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) by
specifying it is impossible to ban hate speech and
enforce other forms of free speech. — Wittgenstein
You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) by
specifying it is impossible to ban hate speech and
enforce other forms of free speech. — Wittgenstein
I think that a discussion where the term "hate speech" is banned and you have to actually say precisely what you want to ban would play out in an entirely different way. — Judaka
This content is for members only.
Because hate speech has consequences, as everything does. But in the case of hate speech, all of the consequences are negative and undesirable. It should not be permitted because it has no positive benefits or attributes. It does only harm. — Pattern-chaser
Consequences such as? — Terrapin Station
Violence, for one example. Maybe the most significant example. — Pattern-chaser
It does cause violence, albeit indirectly — Pattern-chaser
Depends. For example, on the philosophy forum, which is a privately owned forum, no. If a neo-nazi is in his own home, he can say whatever he wants, as long as it's not commands to hurt anyone.Should all forms of hate speech be allowed, including the racist ones. — Wittgenstein
Again, it depends on the nature of the speech and where the speech is. Is the speaker commanding or hinting to anyone they should harm anyone? If it's not commands to hurt anyone and it's it's a private platform, then it's all up to the owner.Should hate speech which instigates violence be allowed ? — Wittgenstein
Some feelings are okay to hurt.If we ban a certain type of offensive speeches and usually the arguments are oriented around feelings being hurt. We may also argue against criticizing a religion or an ideology. — Wittgenstein
Depends. For example, on the philosophy forum, which is a privately owned forum, no. If a neo-nazi is in his own home, he can say whatever he wants, as long as it's not commands to hurt anyone. — Purple Pond
I think agree, although there's a huge cost (literally) letting neo-nazis marching down streets and shouting hatred. Tax-payers are left with the bill for all the police protection. Why should tax payers have to pay for all the security needed to protect the neo-nazis, especially when they entice people to attack them? If they want extra protection from the police, more than ordinary citizens, perhaps they should pay for some of it. I'm also not so happy about them disrupting the peace. — Purple Pond
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.