"Free Speech" vs "Hate Speech"|

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
ninj

ninj

Well-Known Member
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
I created a thread about pornography that included free speech. Too big a topic for one thread though, so here's the other one.
I had a disastrous conversation with someone about free speech - a profoundly complex issue. Charlie Hebdoe vis a vis KKK.
Weigh in if you dare. It's very divisive and I'm sorry, but I'm trying to find a way through this issue that resonates with me.
 
I know I said that this was a conversation I'd like to avoid, but I'm truly interested in your opinions.
What are the limits of free speech? How does it differ from hate speech?
 
Last edited:
Okay, so my first thought is that truly free speech would include hate speech. No idea why I had that thought......

If we want to live in a civilized society though, we need to be mindful of how our speech and behaviours affect others.

This is a good topic. I look forward to seeing what others say.
 
"Okay, so my first thought is that truly free speech would include hate speech. No idea why I had that thought......"
Exactly my dilemna.
 
I agree, if we allowed free speech regarding everything hate speech would be legal. I'm alright with the limitations that we do place on it though. We even do allow some pretty hateful things to be said against others - it's only when it becomes harassment, uttering threats or inciting others to act violently where that's not allowed.
 
ChemGal said:
I agree, if we allowed free speech regarding everything hate speech would be legal. I'm alright with the limitations that we do place on it though. We even do allow some pretty hateful things to be said against others - it's only when it becomes harassment, uttering threats or inciting others to act violently where that's not allowed.
Click to expand...

That works for me.
 
Truly free speech should have no boundaries. However, there are social reasons for setting boundaries. Making direct threats against someone, for instance, should not be protected speech. Ever. Hate speech is the same. We can allow it up to a point for reasons others have already raised, but when it escalates into threats, that's where the boundary needs to be.

"<identifiable group x> are evil and going to Hell," is hate speech that I'd say is allowable, though I'd hope there would be vociferous objections to it.

"<identifiable group x> are evil and we should go deal with them," is hate speech that should trigger a police investigation at bare minimum. It's the kind of thing that ends with a Tree of Life level event.
 
This is a growing dilemma in the US, because Canada has limits greater than theirs. The problem is when people cry about “free speech rights” when they actually have an agenda. Why are all the strongest free speech advocates out in force these days, also the transphobes, lgbt bashers, white nationalists, extreme misogynists, anti-feminists, and antisemites? I think it’s because they are using, or abusing, free speech with the goal of oppressing minority rights. And that’s what fascism actually aims to do.

However, when certain professors and public figures are criticized by journalists for having ideas that brush with fascistic ones - certain professorsand public figures launch lawsuits seeking to limit the free press’ critique. Also, when certain powerful public figures don’t like to be critiqued by journalists they call it “fake news” and an “enemy of the people”, and create their own “alternative” media arm to serve them. It doesn’t take much for me to realize that this, and the free speech movement, are not merely a coincidence - then put the whole picture together, and recognize that at this time we are living in, certain factions pushing certain agendas should maybe not be given unlimited platforms, and at very least, what they are saying needs to be vigorously opposed.
 
ninjafaery said:
There's also an approach to hate speech known as Counter speech. This website outlines it Counterspeech | Dangerous Speech Project so much better than I can.

A good example is:

How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes
Click to expand...
He has been brought up in another thread. He had a rare opportunity though. I read about counter protestors at a far right rally who set up a booth and were encouraging “let’s talk about it” but nobody on the far right side stopped to talk. If white nationalists at a rally cannot already see the diverse mix of people across from them opposing them as human too, then they aren’t ready to receive somebody like Mr.Davis anyway.
 
I agree that the short-term,facile "Let's talk about it" approach isn't the way to go. That gentleman actually took the time to form a relationship....counting on --hoping that there would be humanity in those people. In very many cases, he was right.
 
Last edited:
We all have "rare opportunities" every day. Every little bit helps. Imagine how things would change if each of us had even half the courage and commitment of Mr. Davis.

Calling it a rare opportunity diminishes and suggests change can't happen.
 
Seems to be a problem with labels in my opinion. Why do we have to believe that "hate speech" should even be included under the guise of freedom, just by adding the word "speech" after it? Isn't it just a hate filled event taking place? Hate is hate and it's intention is to take away some basic human rights of others by putting them down. Do we use the adjective "love speech" to differentiate our intention when talking to others? Somehow we just seem to know when a conversation/action becomes harmful, why do we doubt it by qualifying it under the guise of a label that is intentionally hurtful? Put it all together, "free hate speech" and it suddenly becomes ridiculous to accommodate it.
 
Waterfall said:
Seems to be a problem with labels in my opinion. Why do we have to believe that "hate speech" should even be included under the guise of freedom, just by adding the word "speech" after it? Isn't it just a hate filled event taking place? Hate is hate and it's intention is to take away some basic human rights of others by putting them down. Do we use the adjective "love speech" to differentiate our intention when talking to others? Somehow we just seem to know when a conversation/action becomes harmful, why do we doubt it by qualifying it under the guise of a label that is intentionally hurtful? Put it all together, "free hate speech" and it suddenly becomes ridiculous to accommodate it.
Click to expand...
How do we have laws against it if we don't label it? I don't think we can have a law that would actually be useful about 'hate' in general.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Rare opportunity? He's a black musician, playing music that all people like. He used that to attempt mutuality. You can't completely hate someone if you have something in common.
Click to expand...
How many of us are in his shoes to have had that chance meeting with a kkk member in a bar, as a musician whose music they like? I also have never met a white supremacist group member, that I know of. But even in the counter speech suggestions...I don’t see where it says that when people begin thinking “hmm, well maybe it’s ok to say racist things because I mean it or start considering racist pseudoscience or racist public commentators because its becoming more common”... I don’t see anywhere where it’s ok to let that grow and thrive. You shut it down. Immediately. Rather than legitimizing or validating that opinion in public discourse.

Megyn Kelly was fired for questioning on a talk show, whether black face was ok for Halloween because she remembers it being innocent when she was a kid. She was fired. Because it wasn’t innocent, she was ignorant. True black face is not harmless, is not meant as flattery, is not innocent...it’s ignorant. She, being an educated middle aged American working in the entertainment industry, if she didn’t already know that - and if she didn’t know it wasn’t ok to use her privilege to make that bad argument - she should be fired anyway.

I don’t think we can truly stop all bigotry. I do think we can insist that people do not let their racism, sexism and homophobia, etc. interfere with minorities’ basic rights and simple enjoyment of life and that includes not having to put up with public hate speech.
 
Last edited:
i’m glad we have no Westbrook Baptists in Canada doing their thing, because they are not allowed to...for example. Even if there were any people in Canada who could be persuaded to join them in what they do, they can’t do it here. Good. They recognize they shouldn’t hurt anybody with their beliefs and those views are their problem to deal with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top