What do you think of free speech?

I'm not sure I would summarize it quite as succinctly as you did. I would rather say that I think free speech should be construed in such a way where government may not constrain people in their speech as long as they are not causing active harm to people (as in specific cases of demonstrable harm, like harrassment, libel, or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information like tax or medical records or military plans). However, private persons and organizations should never be constrained from bringing social consequences to bear on harmful speakers. In my view, anything else is just trading emotional violence for physical violence. As a warrior, I believe that there is conflict, but I look forward to the overall reduction of conflict through the establishment of justice, affirmation, and community. Therefore, I think it's fundamentally unhealthy to protect and or tolerate hateful speakers to the extent we do.

No, I do not, and I think I see what your argument behind this is. My argument, as you apprehended correctly, is that I am very worried about how hate speech is not being correctly construed as harrassment so that it enjoys too much protection, and as emotional violence is left to go unchecked. Your argument seems to be that other people might feel the same way about pride parades. Which is to say, they may feel actively harmed by pride parades. I have watched social authoritarians cry crocodile tears over pride parades in my home town actually, whose view on having pride in Helena has been "I do not want my children subjected to that." The difference I think is pretty crucial is that hate speech does not advance community. It actively harms and splinters communities. It's socially dysfunctional on a massive scale. Pride parades, while individuals may feel disgusted or hurt by them, advance community. Pride parades, at their core, are people just trying to say "we're part of the community. We want to be treated as fully human and as full citizens too." (As a side note, I think that participants in pride parades should behave differently, and I am more than happy to explain why. Basically, I think that people should behave more like Harvey Milk did. He was dignified and dressed in his Sunday Best. He did not frontline sexuality. He frontlined citizenship. I'm still a radical queer. I don't believe in assimilation. I don't think that trans* people should not dress according to their identities. They definitely should. But we really do need to get away from gay leather culture contingents in the parade and having mostly naked people running around.)

I do not think it's fair to simply say that the argument is turning simply on whether people feel offended by the speech or not. That's not what makes hate speech wrong. While the component of harrassment is important to making it legally actionable, for me the ethical concern is actually what it does too entire classes of people, and they are who I am concerned with.

For example, I'm not concerned with rape as a violent crime. I'm concerned with rape as a form of gender terrorism. Everytime a woman is raped by a man, it hurts all women. Every time a Jew or an African American is harassed, it's a crime against all Jews and African Americans. It harms the community, it's fundamentally treasonous actually, and needs to be considered with the same moral gravity we view terrorists with.

Sometimes, people do have the luxury of walking away. Sometimes they do not. Children in public schools do not have that luxury. Neither, most of the time, do employees on the job. The inescapability of some of these situations, in my view, requires us to take a closer look at harrassment.

 

Well basically, people should be able to speak their minds if you ask me. I totally think that things the KKK and WBC say are horrible, that's more of a peace issue than free speech.

 

This is in response to the original post. I hate every single one of those organizations you just mentioned, to even credit them with the title organization pains me. Plain, short, simple, sweet, this is a democracy, not a monarchy, or a dictator ship. PEOPLE CAN, AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT. Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cock sucker, motherfucker amen.

 

The United States clings to the idea of "free speech" far too severely and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot differentiate free speech between a hate crime. A good example being the Westboro Baptist Church. These people are legally allowed to picket at soldiers funerals and shout hateful, disgusting words and hold incredibly offensive signs. This is not freedom of speech, its is simply a hate crime. Another example being signs reading "Death Penalty 4 Fags." Its abhorrent.

In Britain if you are being harassed with racist, degrading or hateful remarks you are told to call the police and the police will take action. A friend of mine was on the train heading back home from work and a group of men started to intimidate and harass him due to him being a Muslim (he's not even religious). He called the police and they were taken to the station the following stop; simple as that. There is no room for hate.

 

Harrassment is still a crime in the US. WBC has to keep a certain distance from the funerals it pickets (usually means it has to stay on public land) and if someone harrassed and intimidated a guy for being a Muslim here he could definitely call the police, though in some parts of the country they'd probably think his being harrassed and intimidated was a good thing.

 

I think this ties into someone yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre. What is the intent of the speeches by the KKK or Westboro? That's bullying (verbally) basically. I agree with everyone here in that I see it as hate speech. Bullying is not just physical. It's verbal as well. But I also agree with the fact that a myriad of people choose to conceal themselves behind the First Amendment in order to say whatever they desire.

The only counterargument I can see to this is that it would be too quixotic for a society and/or government to decide what is "verbal bullying" and what is not. How busy would a police force be giving tickets and wondering IF to give tickets to people who may/may not have said stuff considered "hate speech". Morality and law can't mingle for this reason, since it's tough to enforce it.

 

My favorite Blink-182 lyrics of all time!

 

I tend to hold that nearly all speech is offensive to someone and could be considered hate speech. Particularly in Europe, there have been a lot of laws during recent years over "hate speech," particularly when it comes to Islamic beliefs. Things as simple as well intentioned criticism can be a crime. I very much believe that we don't truly have free speech unless it includes hate speech.

A video on the subject that I enjoy:

[YOUTUBE]TuZhcUdEUPA[/YOUTUBE]