No, you don’t have freedom of expression. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I do. I'm exercising it right now.

I meant the British in general. In one paragraph it states how a citizen has the right to free expression. But in the next paragraph it explains how in fact a citizen does not have a right to free expression.

I meant the British in general. — NOS4A2

Yeah, we do. We're exercising it right now.

On my view, nothing counts as morally (or legally) unacceptable thought, belief or speech. — Terrapin Station

I guarantee that that's not the case. You're arguing against what you hold to be unacceptable thought, belief, and statements all the time here.

:brow:

Speech acts are statements of thought/belief. Thought/belief have efficacy. They lead to patterns of thinking, habits, and acts.

Does anyone here deny this?

What we’re denying is that those thoughts and beliefs have efficacy beyond the person thinking or speaking them. Most have argued that, yes, words fly through the air and alter the matter in someone else’s brain. — NOS4A2

I'm inclined to think/believe that you're playing the devil's advocate here. I appreciate that. Knowing both sides of debates is pivotal for better understanding. This one(freedom of speech being used as a defense for saying anything one wants) needs to be discussed.

I'm not going to argue that words fly through the air and alter matter in another's brain. There are all sorts of problems with talking like that.

So then, do you agree that thought, belief, and speech has efficacy?

As I've said before, I'm not interested in the least bit in your opinion. I'm interested in the solidity of my opinion. I'm using you (or others in this discussion) to test it. — Isaac

I feel ya.

However, one must consider another's opinion in order to use it as a test or in a test. There are good critics around here.

Watch a video of any group singing and chanting in unison. These are evidence/result of common thinking.

Different groups find different things acceptable/unacceptable. Hate speech finds it's home in those filled with ill will and hatred. It also gives voice to many of those who've been harmed by another through no fault of their own.

Pick an enemy.

Constant belittling of another simply because they are a(n) 'A' is justified(or not) depending upon what exactly counts as being an A.

Judging an other's value(determining their worth) based upon one's political affiliation is not always a good measure of character(assuming, of course, that the party does not consist of unsavory characters). Despising someone else on the grounds that they are Democrat, Republican, Left, Right, or whatever political party they identify with shares common unreasonable ground with racism.

Being able to voice one's utmost displeasure does not require hate speech. Being able to face ones accusers does not require hate speech. Being able to effectively express - as best they can - their own emotional state of mind sometimes does. That's all they know.

What social conditioning factors are at play here?

Inculcation. Indoctrination. The pure adoption of one's first worldview.

Who here is denying the efficacy of thought/belief?

Where's the common sense?

I mean does anyone really think that situations like Nazi Germany somehow happened without being long since steeped in hate speech?

Is anyone denying that there are groups of people being trained at an early age to be one thing and one thing only, and that being that thing requires and/or includes causing deliberate and intentional harm to complete strangers.

If hate speech is accepted using freedom of speech, then you've licensed the groundwork(the means) for war and bloodshed.

Pick an enemy.

If hate speech is accepted using freedom of speech, then you've licensed the groundwork(the means) for war and bloodshed. — creativesoul

Yet wars don't rise from the existence of hate speech. Hate speech or it's variants can be used in propaganda, yet the idea that hate speech being a reason for wars is silly.

Just look how many places the US has bombed without any hate speech against the people of those countries.

Yet wars don't rise from the existence of hate speech. Hate speech or it's variants can be used in propaganda, yet the idea that hate speech being a reason for wars is silly. — ssu

Care to critic and/or argue against something I wrote?

Just an observation that conflicts don't emerge from the existence of hate speech.

Just like conflicts don't emerge from countries having armed forces.

Just look how many places the US has bombed without any hate speech against the people of those countries. — ssu

Irrelevant. So what? I'm not claiming that hate speech was a causal factor in every US bombing.

There are wars which were caused by hate speech.

Dr. Seuss and the characterization of the Japanese and/or Asian people. Look it up. That's hate speech. It's used to manufacture consent.

There are wars which were caused by hate speech. — creativesoul

Give an example.

Because what typically would be "hate speech" in this way would be just propaganda for the war, a tool used to sell the war.

Just an observation that conflicts don't emerge from the existence of hate speech.

Just like conflicts don't emerge from countries having armed forces. — ssu

Hate speech - all by itself - does not cause war.

It's takes more.

No argument here. Eliminating hate speech reduces the risks of war and bloodshed.

Because what typically would be "hate speech" in this way would be just propaganda for the war, a tool used to sell the war. — ssu

So...

Some hate speech is propaganda. Propaganda is used to manufacture consent for war. Some hate speech is used to manufacture consent for war.

Hate speech cultivates the conditions of/for war.

Hate speech cultivates the conditions of/for war. — creativesoul

Do you think the following example of hate speech cultivates the conditions for war between Britain and the US?

Too much guns, religion, celebrity, flag waving nationalism, egomaniac, warmongering, stupid constitutional rights obsession. The U.S. is like our deformed offspring. — S

If not, is there any circumstance in which you think it could? Or maybe you think it isn't hate speech at all?

No argument here. Eliminating hate speech reduces the risks of war and bloodshed. — creativesoul

It's the matter how you eliminate it. Sometimes being confrontational isn't the best way as likely the agitators look for that confrontation and need it. They need that tribalism.

The best thing might not be always direct confrontation of simply jailing the person for hate speech when a country is peaceful and isn't falling the cliff. Far better is to give a better reasonable answer that shows just how crazy in the end the person is. That typically doesn't happen just by attacking those people who might listen the person. The best way to do this is with good political leadership: to give those who could fall to the hate-speech rhetoric better things to believe in or to be critical about.

Think of it with the totally different example of people arguing that the World is flat. Should they be fined for spreading humbug? No. Should they be publicly ridiculed? Likely not either, because some people would feel bad for them. I would argue that the best way would be just to educate people in school and make children see with their own eyes that the planet is indeed round. And that's it. No need to be afraid of the people that believe the World is flat. They aren't a sign that our society is falling for stupidity and giving up on science. Some people just love whacky conspiracies. Fine, the society or the belief in science won't collapse because of them.

Hate speech cultivates the conditions of/for war. — creativesoul

Just as well equipped, effective armed forces give the ability for politicians to go to war in distant places.

Yet to think that well equipped effective armed forces should then be banned is the wrong way to think about it. Africa has had poorly equipped small armed forces for a long time and that hasn't prevented genocidal wars of happening.

Switzerland or Sweden have had an army for quite some time and both countries have been in peace for a very long time. None of their neighbors are belligerent towards them. Yet to simply do away with armed forces wouldn't be a smart thing to do.

Reasons for conflicts are different from things that can make wars more deadly.

I guarantee that that's not the case. You're arguing against what you hold to be unacceptable thought, belief, and statements all the time here. — creativesoul

I'm never arguing that it's morally problematic to have any thought/belief or to make any statement. Surely you're not using "unacceptable" in this context to refer to whether we personally accept something a la believing it or considering it to be true ourselves, are you?I

I argue against claims that I think are false here all the time. I don't feel that it's morally problematic to have a belief or to express a belief that I'd say is false (or even just not a good idea in the case of something noncognitive).

No need to call the cops. I'll hand myself in later today.

If hate speech is accepted using freedom of speech, then you've licensed the groundwork(the means) for war and bloodshed.

Pick an enemy. — creativesoul

The enemy I've picked is the idea that speech causes actions.

Yet wars don't rise from the existence of hate speech. Hate speech or it's variants can be used in propaganda, yet the idea that hate speech being a reason for wars is silly.

Just look how many places the US has bombed without any hate speech against the people of those countries. — ssu

Exceptions don't demonstrate that there isn't a link between hate speech and, ultimately, in some cases even war. The history of anti-Semitism in Germany, which obviously peaked in the Nazi era, and which included what would now be classed as hate speech, undoubtedly played a part in the events which lead to the Second World War.

The history of anti-Semitism in Germany, which obviously peaked in the Nazi era, and which included what would now be classed as hate speech, undoubtedly played a part in the events which lead to the Second World War. — S

Yet anti-semitism has been quite universal in Europe.

Russia has had it's pogroms and various countries have gone after the Jews in some way or another in history. Even in the Soviet Union to it's end being Jewish was considered as a separate 'nationality'. The cause for anti-Semitism to have such an awful result in Germany is due to, first and foremost, the hideous ideology of national socialism. And the rise of such minor extremist movement and Hitler is of course directly related to the defeat in WW1.

So then, do you agree that thought, belief, and speech has efficacy?

I do, but only on the person thinking, believing and speaking. I don’t believe they have any efficacy beyond that.

maybe you think it isn't hate speech at all? — jamalrob

Not according to the ECtHR...

"Freedom of expression…is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there would be no democratic society. This means, amongst other things, that every ‘formality’, ‘condition’, ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued"

A slap on the wrist perhaps?

Where's the common sense?

I mean does anyone really think that situations like Nazi Germany somehow happened without being long since steeped in hate speech?

Is anyone denying that there are groups of people being trained at an early age to be one thing and one thing only, and that being that thing requires and/or includes causing deliberate and intentional harm to complete strangers.

If hate speech is accepted using freedom of speech, then you've licensed the groundwork(the means) for war and bloodshed.

Pick an enemy.

They were long steeped in censorship. Weimar Germany has the most modern hate speech laws in history. Nazis were persecuted for their speech up until the Nazis seized power. Not only did they use their sense of martyrdom to propel their cause, they turned around and used that persecution as justification for their own persecutory actions.

Censorship licensed the groundwork for war, bloodshed and genocide.

The enemy I've picked is the idea that speech causes actions. — Terrapin Station

In the most reductivist of understandings. You are correct in that speech alone by itself lifts no stones - or, I know of no examples where it, alone, has. But in taking on speech as efficacious in causing agents to act, you're in water the depth of which I think you do not know, and your antagonists a long list, in which in no particular order, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,..., Quintillian, Cicero,.., through at least Heidegger, all with a host of others, never mind those from the world of literature.

Even philosophers that I'm a fan of are folks with whom I disagree at least 50% of the time.

Whatever the term is that's the starkest contrast to "fan" is how I feel about Heidegger.