Is this really a bad thing? Freedom of Speech Ques.

[Concurria]

Hello all. I'm starting this thread based off an event that happened with my nation, Concurria. (This is not in-character, hence why I'm posting here.) Apparently, making illegal racist speech lowers your Civil Rights rating. This is interesting to me. Obviously, you can certainly argue that a country that allows you to speak freely on all things allows more civil rights than one does not. But in the case of the above--outlawing bigoted speech--can we truly view that as a bad thing?

A central argument for uninhibited speech says all speech should be allowed. Why? Because people have Rights and Rights are good. True. But wait:

How does one have rights that enables them to chide away at the dignity of others? Doesn't that just go against the promotion of Human Rights, which by proxy argues that people are equal? (Or does it?) And, that by proxy, people are good enough to have rights ? (Or does it?)

I am confused on this issue. I have no problem with outlawing clearly defined bigoted speech. After all, who does it serve to allow anti-Name speech to be spoken? Individual people make individual mistakes. But I could never see how speaking terribly of an entire gender, race, etc. works towards the betterment of people.

What are your thoughts?

[SaintB]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

^This.

[Concurria]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

In the public or private?

[Treznor]

When you censor ideas you don't like, you can't bring them in the open to challenge them and demonstrate precisely why they're bad ideas. When people understand the reasons behind ideas, they're more likely to adopt them than if they're simply told "don't do this. 'Cause I said so."

[Ifreann]

Hello all. I'm starting this thread based off an event that happened with my nation, Concurria. (This is not in-character, hence why I'm posting here.) Apparently, making illegal racist speech lowers your Civil Rights rating. This is interesting to me. Obviously, you can certainly argue that a country that allows you to speak freely on all things allows more civil rights than one does not. But in the case of the above--outlawing bigoted speech--can we truly view that as a bad thing?

Yes. Bigoted ideas don't go away because you'll be sent to jail for talking about them. Hell, jailing people for bigoted speech will only make them martyrs to their cause and strengthen it.

A central argument for uninhibited speech says all speech should be allowed. Why? Because people have Rights and Rights are good. True. But wait:

How does one have rights that enables them to chide away at the dignity of others? Doesn't that just go against the promotion of Human Rights, which by proxy argues that people are equal? (Or does it?) And, that by proxy, people are good enough to have rights ? (Or does it?)

My saying that Group X are inferior to Group Y does not harm Group Y. My acting on that speech can, but not necessarily.

I am confused on this issue. I have no problem with outlawing clearly defined bigoted speech. After all, who does it serve to allow anti-Name speech to be spoken? Individual people make individual mistakes. But I could never see how speaking terribly of an entire gender, race, etc. works towards the betterment of people.

It certainly doesn't serve anyone. That's no reason to outlaw it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

In the public or private?

In both. But privately, I don't think there's much one can do. Publicly, now that's another matter.

[Concurria]

When you censor ideas you don't like, you can't bring them in the open to challenge them and demonstrate precisely why they're bad ideas. When people understand the reasons behind ideas, they're more likely to adopt them than if they're simply told "don't do this. 'Cause I said so."

Yes but it's lose-lose, regardless. When ideas are allowed to grow, and a following of people forms, you've allowed hate speech to not only exist but to become a valid ideology with a community of believers.

[Grays Harbor]

how is censorship a violation of human rights? it would depend on what is being censored. sensitive military or police records or plans being kept out of the media is not neccessarily a bad thing, but subjecting literature to political or cultural censorship is. I would think context is more important than a blanket statement that "censorship is human rights violations". That seems a tad simplistic.

[Soheran]

When you censor ideas you don't like, you can't bring them in the open to challenge them and demonstrate precisely why they're bad ideas.

Why not? When teaching people about the stupidity of, say, Nazi doctrine, do we have to haul in actual Neo-Nazis? Hardly.

When people understand the reasons behind ideas, they're more likely to adopt them than if they're simply told "don't do this. 'Cause I said so."

Of course. The reasons for hateful ideologies should be explained. That does not amount to giving them a place in the public forum.

[Tubbsalot]

I'm going to chuck my lot in with the "Allowing ideas to circulate in mainstream discussion is the most efficient and effective method of decreasing bigoted views in the population at large" guys.

Also: Censorship is a "violation of human rights"? You didn't feel a little... silly, saying that? It's surely a limitation on civil rights, but a violation of inherent human rights?

Why not? When teaching people about the stupidity of, say, Nazi doctrine, do we have to haul in actual Neo-Nazis? Hardly.

But if we censor it we can't dissuade the neo-nazis themselves of their views.

[Ferrous Oxide]

If you have to ask, it's bad.

[Iron Chariots]

Even if you believe that censorship in those cases is a good thing, it's a violation of civil rights-- you just happen to believe that, in this case, a reduction of civil rights is justified for the greater good.

[SaintB]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

In the public or private?

Government's who protect the freedom of speech can't censor speech (many still do but that's aside the point) however free speech does not prevent people from barring things in their own private abodes. Etc. etc.

[Treznor]

When you censor ideas you don't like, you can't bring them in the open to challenge them and demonstrate precisely why they're bad ideas. When people understand the reasons behind ideas, they're more likely to adopt them than if they're simply told "don't do this. 'Cause I said so."

Yes but it's lose-lose, regardless. When ideas are allowed to grow, and a following of people forms, you've allowed hate speech to not only exist but to become a valid ideology with a community of believers.

This presumes you can use censorship to thoroughly obliterate an idea. We tried outlawing hate speech and other bad ideas, but they still persist. Lately, I've been observing a resurgence of racist talk masquerading itself as "equality" (in the form of "I think blacks/women/gays aren't being discriminated against, they're just inferior!"). Pushing bad ideas underground means you can't observe what they're saying and challenge them. To ban something is to make it fascinating, even irresistable to those who don't fully understand why it was banned. You can't fight that, except to bring it in the open and challenge it.

[Concurria]

I'm going to chuck my lot in with the "Allowing ideas to circulate in mainstream discussion is the most efficient and effective method of decreasing bigoted views in the population at large" guys.

Also: Censorship is a "violation of human rights"? You didn't feel a little... silly, saying that? It's surely a limitation on civil rights, but a violation of inherent human rights?

This makes little sense. I know about the evils of the original Nazi-party, as well as their anti-Jew campaign before I ever knew Neo-Nazis existed.

Even better example: I know that what's happening in Darfur is a terrible violation of humans rights. I know there are sympathizers. I don't even know who they are, however. I have never seen the other side of the issue. But I don't need too and neither do the thousands of others who don't know much, but know enough to say what's happening in Darfur is murder on a large scale.

[Concurria]

When you censor ideas you don't like, you can't bring them in the open to challenge them and demonstrate precisely why they're bad ideas. When people understand the reasons behind ideas, they're more likely to adopt them than if they're simply told "don't do this. 'Cause I said so."

Yes but it's lose-lose, regardless. When ideas are allowed to grow, and a following of people forms, you've allowed hate speech to not only exist but to become a valid ideology with a community of believers.

This presumes you can use censorship to thoroughly obliterate an idea. We tried outlawing hate speech and other bad ideas, but they still persist. Lately, I've been observing a resurgence of racist talk masquerading itself as "equality" (in the form of "I think blacks/women/gays aren't being discriminated against, they're just inferior!"). Pushing bad ideas underground means you can't observe what they're saying and challenge them. To ban something is to make it fascinating, even irresistable to those who don't fully understand why it was banned. You can't fight that, except to bring it in the open and challenge it.

Well with that logic, it's still a lose-lose. Or perhaps a matter of "Do you like chocolate or vanilla?"

I prefer my hate groups marginalized and without clout. Fiendish cults are much more easily relegated to the shadows of our mind then actual mainstream movements. I think this is a point that cannot be disputed. What can the underground do in the light of day? Very little.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Also: Censorship is a "violation of human rights"? You didn't feel a little... silly, saying that? It's surely a limitation on civil rights, but a violation of inherent human rights?

The problem with this, the only problem I see, is that we would have to get into a debate on what's a inherent human right. And then, what's a right. It could be never ending.

[Soheran]

To protect hate speech is to make tolerance contradict itself. It does not extend but only impairs people's freedom to live their lives in peace, as they see fit. It does not extend but only impairs the capacity of the public forum to truly seek truth and justice, for by its very nature hate speech does not attempt to convince people of its legitimacy on universalist rational grounds, but assembles one part of the public against another, on the basis of prejudice and privileged group identification.

In a society that is supposed to be bent on securing freedom and equality, it is speech bent on depriving some people of freedom and enshrining inequality. A liberal principle stretched so far as to protect hate speech destroys its own foundation.

[Soheran]

But if we censor it we can't dissuade the neo-nazis themselves of their views.

Why not?

[Ifreann]

Yes but it's lose-lose, regardless. When ideas are allowed to grow, and a following of people forms, you've allowed hate speech to not only exist but to become a valid ideology with a community of believers.

This presumes you can use censorship to thoroughly obliterate an idea. We tried outlawing hate speech and other bad ideas, but they still persist. Lately, I've been observing a resurgence of racist talk masquerading itself as "equality" (in the form of "I think blacks/women/gays aren't being discriminated against, they're just inferior!"). Pushing bad ideas underground means you can't observe what they're saying and challenge them. To ban something is to make it fascinating, even irresistable to those who don't fully understand why it was banned. You can't fight that, except to bring it in the open and challenge it.

Well with that logic, it's still a lose-lose. Or perhaps a matter of "Do you like chocolate or vanilla?"

I prefer my hate groups marginalized and without clout. Fiendish cults are much more easily relegated to the shadows of our mind then actual mainstream movements. I think this is a point that cannot be disputed. What can the underground do in the light of day? Very little.

And when your hate groups are confined to the fringes of society do you have a plan for monitoring them out there? You can't investigate hate groups when you can't find them. The light of day can't reach underground.

[Concurria]

This presumes you can use censorship to thoroughly obliterate an idea. We tried outlawing hate speech and other bad ideas, but they still persist. Lately, I've been observing a resurgence of racist talk masquerading itself as "equality" (in the form of "I think blacks/women/gays aren't being discriminated against, they're just inferior!"). Pushing bad ideas underground means you can't observe what they're saying and challenge them. To ban something is to make it fascinating, even irresistable to those who don't fully understand why it was banned. You can't fight that, except to bring it in the open and challenge it.

I don't believe that statement either. I have confidence in U.S. intelligence as well as the intelligence of most well-organized nations. An attack, which would eventually be 9-11, (which for an American citizen came completely out of left field), was warned of a short while before it occurred (in spite of no movement by the then administration to do much about it). If we could monitor coming-foreign attacks, I don't see how monitoring domestic hate groups would be any harder.

[Chumblywumbly]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

I don't see how it is, both the UNHRC and the ECHR make provision for limitation of free speech.

[Treznor]

Well with that logic, it's still a lose-lose. Or perhaps a matter of "Do you like chocolate or vanilla?"

I prefer my hate groups marginalized and without clout. Fiendish cults are much more easily relegated to the shadows of our mind then actual mainstream movements. I think this is a point that cannot be disputed. What can the underground do in the light of day? Very little.

Perhaps you've heard of "grass-roots movements"? Underground resistence organizations? Maybe a small group known as "al-Qaida"? Pushing someone underground can give them a great deal of power, and if they can't make direct attacks they can be damnably effective at stirring up trouble, even topping the status quo simply by undermining the foundations of society.

You don't let rot fester. You dig it out and cut it away. Bad ideas work the same way.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

I don't see how it is, both the UNHRC and the ECHR make provision for limitation of free speech.

The absolute only reason why free speech should be limited is if it has the capacity to incite people to commit crimes or to violate other rights.