Should 'hate/free' speech be allowed?

There is a very big difference between freedom of speech and freedom to promote or incite hatred.

Many people seem to be under the illusion that you cannot speak freely in the UK (most specifically England and Wales) because we have laws that prohibit incitement to hatred, and that's really not true. I have never once felt that I cannot speak out in a sensible and reasonable way on any issue in fear of being prosecuted.

In the UK it's perfectly acceptable for a religious preacher to publicly state that homosexuality is a sin (some even take to the streets and attend Pride parades to do so), but it's not okay to for him/her say that "God hates fags" or suggest that gay people should die or be murdered, and it's not okay to picket funerals with offensive placards either. Very clearly, a line has been crossed when you start using the language of hate and death - it's not just offensive; it's extremely provocative and dangerous. It's on this basis that members of the Westboro Baptist Church have been banned from entering the country.

The laws preventing incitement to hatred were first introduced by a Conservative government and extended by a Labour government. There is a cross party consensus in the UK that hate speech is not acceptable in a modern, civilised society and I agree. It's not about curtailing free speech.

The poll asked for my opinion on hate speech, rather than freedom of speech, so I voted in favour of a ban.

 

Hate speech has to do with inciting violence against a group. It does not have to do with pointing out, say, statistics about a group. I generally fall on the side of freedom whenever possible, but speech that outright promotes actions that blatantly causes physical harm to another group I do not believe meets free speech criteria because that's tantamount to promoting things like assault.

The issue of discrimination is a massive can of worms I don't really want to delve into because it's incredibly complex.

 

The problems begin when someone decides that simply having a differing opinion on something, or using the wrong word for something, or not falling in line with an ideology, equals to inciting hatred.

 

As long as people aren't going after my life or anything, I don't mind hate speech. Actually, I enjoy it quite a lot. I despise political corectness and all that sillyness.

P.S. Banning hate speech includes setting some rules about what is and what isn't a hate speech. But people view this, usually, in diffrent ways. So I can't see it happening~

 

Yes it does, but all of these points were discussed and debated at length before the law was passed in the UK. In practice it works well and has widespread public support, and it means unsavoury characters cannot make vile and dangerous comments with impunity, hiding behind the banner of freedom of speech.

It's really not the thin end of the wedge as some people claim.

 

I agree with what you say, except for part about saying "God hates fags." because that doesn't really threaten violence. People are allowed to say "God says this" or "God feels like that" no matter what it is, because God is an idea and not a person proven to have any opinions, or even proven to exist. Also, you can't threaten somebody by saying "God will smite you." because again, there is no proof he really exists, so anybody can believe anything about him. I get how that might offend you, but legally there shouldn't be anything done about it. After all, nobody's fighting for the freedom to say "Puppies are cute!" or "Chocolate's delicious!"- People are fighting for their freedom to say the OFFENSIVE, because if we weren't allowed to say the offensive, there wouldn't be any point to having debates or discussions- Nobody would be allowed to have differing views.

Maybe that's true for Britain, but sadly people in the US have a strong sense of nationalism that often overrides the willingness to listen to or even tolerate different opinions, which is why laws would have to be much more specific over here.

 

Putin banned speeches HE considered harmful - no LGBT propoganda allowed.

In a perfect world free speech isn't banned because the majority are not hateful and will teach the kids not to be hateful, thus the hateful speeches wont get much value of it.

 

This sums my thoughts up pretty well. Unless something is meant to make somebody feel at risk, I don't think it should be banned. If somebody says something that pisses me off, I'll just use my free speech to criticize them.

 

Exactly.

I don't know what people are so scared of. The laws work perfectly in E&W so why wouldn't it work in the US?

 

I voted yes for very similar reasons to what Patrick wrote about. This is very similar to the US gun debate in the sense that the republicans fear that any sort of restriction on purchasing weapons would lead to a domino effect that would eventually lead to banning guns entirely. This in my eyee is a mistaken view of the world as creating boundaries does not equate taking away freedom, any law restricts freedom and American people have boundaries that they can't cross and they are still free such as not bring allowed to murder or steal. Why are these laws any different from hate speech laws, why don't people fear that laws that prevent stealing will become laws that restrict freedom of using public facilities which is an extension of not stealing?

Religion is at its core about creating boundaries as is any other belief that instructs people on how ro behave or act. Yet freedom of religion is seen as a core part of freedom of expression, because ultimately freedom is relative and people are never truly free as they abide by social rules and norms that severely restricts a person's life. Furthermore identity is created by building up boundaries within ourself, by taking on stable perceptions and limiting a person's point of view. So is that person really free to act as they want if they don't have the ability to change their perceptions without hurting their inner sense of self. Of course they are because creating boundaries is a natural and needed part of life and reasonably constructed boundaries don't equate lack of freedom. The problem comes when living day to day life is disrupted by laws and hatred speech should not be considered a day to day activity that needs to be protected as it comes at the cost of others with no real redeeming factor to it.

 

^^ I think the two posters above me should look at my response to Patrick. Again, I agree partially, but there are just some things in Patrick's statements that I wish you'd look over again.

 

If a person shouts out such a statement to a crowd of people, their actions are morally rsprehensible and definitely problematic. Ask yourself something, what do they gain by saying that "god hates..." how is society a better place by allowing people to share their views in such a way. You are underestimating how dangerous words can be in context of religious authority, a preacher who shouts out such statements hurts people indirectly, instilling religious based laws that exclude and hurts others. Why is stealing wrong? Why is murder wrong? Why are any crimes wrong? Because they are actions that hurt others for your own gain. Inciting others to hate is the same as people gain stability through the exclusion of others and the preacher gives people what they want and gains power through that act. Dictators often rely on this technique to keep them in power, they give their target audiance people to exclude and hate, people of a certain race, sexuality, political affliation or any other form of classification and make them others and people take on those views because it gives them stability and they respond in a positive way.

 

What I personally fear is the large amount of morally corrupt people who want to ban all dissent and the chance that some of them manage to use these laws to their advantage.

But that's.. Exactly what it equates to. One can argue that it's sometimes necessary. I don't think it is in this case.

This, pretty much. If it's not clear harassment or abuse of someone, then I don't think it should be illegal.

 

Banning hate speech is not the same thing as banning speech, dictators rely on hate speech to come into power and to stay there, by not putting limitations on speech you are giving those people the tools needed to come into power. Hate speech laws work in the opposite way to what you believe as they are designed to restrict people from doing exactly what you fear will be done. They limit the power of neo nazi types of parties and reduce the risk of a society falling into extremity.

No one is truly free and believing that you are free, ignores the fact that there are a large amount of laws both social and institutional that limit your actions. You can't walk into another person's house and take what you want etc. Yet despite these laws you still feel free, why? What makes one law just and another a law designed to limit freedom. Perception, nothing more, for most of the world limiting a person's ability to buy guns is a just law and as such it does not limit a person's freedom. In the same way, hate speech is perceived by many as something that is truly hurtful and as such laws surrounding it are accepted. Words can be truly hurtful, can do more harm than physical damage and hate speech laws recognize that and try to limit the damage that they can cause. Where the line is drawn? This is decided through consensus as most things in a democracy are decided.

 

Sorry, but the only thing that voices an opinion like "God hates fags." does is hurt people's feelings, and sure, people do things based on their feelings, but in the preacher's mind he is only informing people of what he believes to be true- actually, that IS what he's doing. It's just a matter of whether you agree with it or not. People are responsible for their actions, and the preacher saying that isn't responsible for what they do as long as he is not directly inciting violence, and he's not. In order for him to directly incite violence, he would have to say something like "Go kill gay people." which, in this instance, he has not done. He could even say gay people SHOULD be killed, and still he isn't directly encouraging his followers to do it. Only when he starts to directly encourage violence should it be a crime- otherwise, we'll end up banning any speech deemed "offensive". After all, if we replaced gays with women who have had abortions, a lot of people in this community would feel differently and would like the freedom to be able to say those women should be killed- I wouldn't, but I'm sure that even those like me who wouldn't could understand how anti-abortion people should have the right to say that. After all, in their minds, they're talking about murderers! You can disagree with them, and punish them if they directly incite violence, but you can't punish them for sharing their opinion on what punishments should be given to what groups of people- that is an issue everyone should be able to speak about. Now, there are of course places where things of political or social nature are not to be discussed, like schools and inside the houses of people who don't want to hear it, but when you're out and about, I think everyone has the right to talk about anything they want to, even if most people would disagree with them.

 

Eh. One can also argue neo nazis benefit from having their speech banned as it will create anger towards the status quo, radicalize some further, more of them will go under the radar, and then there's the whole Streisand Effect of trying to simply brush it under the rug.

I don't. But I feel comfortable that police won't be storming down my door because someone on the internet decided I was a bigot (and no, I was not actually a bigot, but that doesn't stop an angry self-righteous mob from labeling you one).

And in the cases where someone is being specifically targeted I do support punishing it, but not as "bad speech", more as "harassment", "abuse" etc.

 

I understand and accept your views. Truthfully I'm on the edge with regards to the "god hates... " statement, if I had to decide I would probably take a similar stance as you just to be safe eventhough I understand how damaging such a statement can be. In the end, any sort of restrictions of speech should be considered carefully from all angles. There has to be a wide consensus that something said is unlawful and truly hurtful to others and borderline cases should usually be dismissed. However, I do believe that people who incite hate should feel as if they are doing something immoral and wrong and that hate speech laws might help people understand that better. In general, in my eyes, such laws should only be applicable to speeches towards a large audiance of people in public because of the very real damage such speeches can cause.

 

I get what you're saying, but with that last part, I have to say that I'd rather the laws only apply to, again, those directly inciting violence, and if it's in a public place or not doesn't matter. For examples, Charles Manson told his followers to kill Sharon Tate- there's no borderline for what he did, though I doubt he told them to do it and public, and it definitely wasn't a large audience. But yeah, I get what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that it doesn't have to be public nor to a huge audience to be breaking the law.

 

Unfortunatey, I guess that's one of the weaknesses of the democratic system. You depend on public consensus and if the population radicalizes the system can fall. As I mentioned it depends on perception. Hate speech laws cannot work if they are viewed as unjust laws and I agree that they shouldn't be forcibly enacted on a population that don't agree with them. The laws themselves are not inherently hurtful and there is a reason why most well organized online forums have hate speech rules because ultimately, it creates a much more positive and supportive environment. However, if those laws are too strict or if there is corruption, suddenly things fall apart. The problem is that people simply don't trust the government and often for good reason and as such people fear laws that on the surface are positive but they heavily depend on the sense of judgment of a group of people that might not be fit to make such a decision. With this in mind, I guess I can understand why most here feel uncomfortable with the idea of enacting such laws...

 

In Canada hate speech is illegal. It's never made me feel I couldn't say my views, and it means people like Anne Coulter can't come here to our schools and spout their nonsense

Hate speech is different than debate or protesting, discussion etc