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

[Chumblywumbly]

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.

Would this not argument not fit with much speech that is distatsetful, but not necessarily 'hate speech'?

Almost any exclusive speech which divides a citizenry, in fact?

---

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.

I would be unhappy even with that, for I can imagine situations where I would support incitement to commit crimes (think of folks calling for the breach of drug laws, for illegal yet peaceful protests, etc.).

[Concurria]

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.

I knew that al-Quaida would be brought up. I don't see how it fits your argument. al-Quaida operates undergrounds. (Discreetly is perhaps a better word?) But al-Quaida's influence is very, very mainstream. It is a beast with long-reaching arms to be hyperbolic, but it's heart is well-hidden. That is not my definition of underground; I do not know what yours is.

[Soheran]

Would this not argument not fit with much speech that is distatsetful, but not necessarily 'hate speech'?

No. Why would it?

Almost any exclusive speech which divides a citizenry, in fact?

I fail to see how. My criterion was not "Does this promote national unity?" Plenty of controversial, divisive issues are not inherently exclusivist, and on neither side are consigned to advocacy on the basis of prejudice and group identification.

[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.

I knew that al-Quaida would be brought up. I don't see how it fits your argument. al-Quaida operates undergrounds. (Discreetly is perhaps a better word?) But al-Quaida's influence is very, very mainstream. It is a beast with long-reaching arms to be hyperbolic, but it's heart is well-hidden. That is not my definition of underground; I do not know what yours is.

Al-Qaida's influence started with a few folk who felt themselves oppressed, censored by the Soviets. They sought to overthrow the established order, and working in the dark managed to create enough support that they became impossible to uproot. They're an example of what happens when you drive an idea underground with the idea that censoring it will make it go away. They didn't go away, they grew in strength and purpose. That's how they're relevant to this discussion.

[Ledarre]

I think that once a government has the right to decide which speech is free and which speech is'nt, then the temptation to abuse that power would be overwhelming and speech would not be free anymore.

[Bluth Corporation]

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.

And they're perfectly entitled to hold those beliefs, so long as they don't harm or attempt harm or threaten harm to anyone.

[Soheran]

I think that once a government has the right to decide which speech is free and which speech is'nt, then the temptation to abuse that power would be overwhelming and speech would not be free anymore.

Plenty of liberal democracies restrict hate speech. I'm not aware of any looming totalitarianism in any of them... well, maybe Britain....

[Concurria]

Al-Qaida's influence started with a few folk who felt themselves oppressed, censored by the Soviets. They sought to overthrow the established order, and working in the dark managed to create enough support that they became impossible to uproot. They're an example of what happens when you drive an idea underground with the idea that censoring it will make it go away. They didn't go away, they grew in strength and purpose. That's how they're relevant to this discussion.

And I'm just curious of the problem if al-Quaida solved if they were allowed to be mainstream? Would our situation in the 21st century be better if al-Quaida was open and present from the very beginning? Would Soviet oppressors, more lenient on the activities in Afghanistan (and whatever areas they cover additionally) truly care about the cultural goings-on of a butch of bigoted middle Easterners?

Even if you can provide a satisfactory answer to the above, you're talking about a removed example. What about France? About Germany? About Japan? About America?; countries far more relevant to the issue at hand. (And if there was any confusion, I as the OP affirm that I am discussing industrialized national affairs). How does a country ruled by Soviet which later goes off to become an Islamic nation apply?

[Treznor]

Al-Qaida's influence started with a few folk who felt themselves oppressed, censored by the Soviets. They sought to overthrow the established order, and working in the dark managed to create enough support that they became impossible to uproot. They're an example of what happens when you drive an idea underground with the idea that censoring it will make it go away. They didn't go away, they grew in strength and purpose. That's how they're relevant to this discussion.

And I'm just curious of the problem if al-Quaida solved if they were allowed to be mainstream? Would our situation in the 21st century be better if al-Quaida was open and present from the very beginning? Would Soviet oppressors, more lenient on the activities in Afghanistan (and whatever areas they cover additionally) truly care about the cultural goings-on of a butch of bigoted middle Easterners?

Even if you can provide a satisfactory answer to the above, you're talking about a removed example. What about France? About Germany? About Japan? About America?; countries far more relevant to the issue at hand. (And if there was any confusion, I as the OP affirm that I am discussing industrialized national affairs). How does a country ruled by Soviet which later goes off to become an Islamic nation apply?

They're an example of censorship gone awry. Do you think Germany's censorship of Nazis has made that problem go away? Has China's Great Firewall been successful at blocking porn or dissident material? How about the US' Prohibition era? The modern drug problem? Talking about your favorite drug in public is a good way to earn a visit to a police interrogation room if the wrong person overhears you, but that's hardly solved the problem, has it?

We didn't start addressing equality issues until we started really talking about them. Racism, gender equality, the whole nine yards. Much of that censorship was social rather than legal, but it was still forbidden to talk about racial equality or women's rights. Do you think Susan B. Anthony stayed out of jail when she campaigned for the right of women to vote? These were all good ideas that were censored because they challenged the status quo, and those enforcing the status quo didn't want to discuss them.

Good ideas or bad, censorship results in backlash. If you want a good idea delayed, censor it. If you want a bad idea to survive, censor it. The only way to lose is to try to prohibit people from talking about it.

[Concurria]

And I'm just curious of the problem if al-Quaida solved if they were allowed to be mainstream? Would our situation in the 21st century be better if al-Quaida was open and present from the very beginning? Would Soviet oppressors, more lenient on the activities in Afghanistan (and whatever areas they cover additionally) truly care about the cultural goings-on of a butch of bigoted middle Easterners?

Even if you can provide a satisfactory answer to the above, you're talking about a removed example. What about France? About Germany? About Japan? About America?; countries far more relevant to the issue at hand. (And if there was any confusion, I as the OP affirm that I am discussing industrialized national affairs). How does a country ruled by Soviet which later goes off to become an Islamic nation apply?

They're an example of censorship gone awry. Do you think Germany's censorship of Nazis has made that problem go away? Has China's Great Firewall been successful at blocking porn or dissident material? How about the US' Prohibition era? The modern drug problem? Talking about your favorite drug in public is a good way to earn a visit to a police interrogation room if the wrong person overhears you, but that's hardly solved the problem, has it?

We didn't start addressing equality issues until we started really talking about them. Racism, gender equality, the whole nine yards. Much of that censorship was social rather than legal, but it was still forbidden to talk about racial equality or women's rights. Do you think Susan B. Anthony stayed out of jail when she campaigned for the right of women to vote? These were all good ideas that were censored because they challenged the status quo, and those enforcing the status quo didn't want to discuss them.

Good ideas or bad, censorship results in backlash. If you want a good idea delayed, censor it. If you want a bad idea to survive, censor it. The only way to lose is to try to prohibit people from talking about it.

Once again, I don't understand how referencing two former Totalitarian countries supports your arguments. Furthermore, prohibition is not censorship.

As to your final point: It makes no sense. How do good ideas come forward, then? Even better question: What happens when bad ideas win out?

You are the one freely talking about an ideal situation where bad ideas do not exist. I did not discuss nor promote that idea. I believe we shouldn't allows certain bigoted statements to reach a public forum. I never hoped to rid them completely. There is no direct solution to doing that.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I think that once a government has the right to decide which speech is free and which speech is'nt, then the temptation to abuse that power would be overwhelming and speech would not be free anymore.

Plenty of liberal democracies restrict hate speech. I'm not aware of any looming totalitarianism in any of them... well, maybe Britain....

lolwut?

[Treznor]

Once again, I don't understand how referencing two former Totalitarian countries supports your arguments. Furthermore, prohibition is not censorship.

Regarding Totalitarian countries, they're rife with examples of censorship, and how it fails. That's how they support my arguments.

But Germany isn't totalitarian any longer, and it practices censorship. I still hear, from time to time, neo-Nazi protestors marching in their streets demanding a return to national socialism and ethnic cleansing. The government cracks down on them again, they go underground and resurge. Likewise, censorship was rampant in the US with regard to equality. Nowadays the focus has shifted on "politically correct" speech which, as a liberal, I abhor. You simply don't make these problems go away by making it difficult for people to talk about them. You just force them to hide so you can't track how the idea is taking hold.

As to your final point: It makes no sense. How do good ideas come forward, then? Even better question: What happens when bad ideas win out?

Because people will talk about them anyway, in private. Among friends. They use unofficial lines of communication and hide their true intentions from public light. Eventually, when those ideas (good or bad) gain enough momentum it becomes harder to stop them because you don't know what you're fighting against.

When an idea is held up for public consumption, people talk about it. They mull the idea over and nitpick at it, forcing those ideas to evolve as errors are pointed out. Bad ideas don't tend to stick around very long when we're allowed to pick them apart, which is why the neoconservative movement keeps having to move underground. Good ideas become better ideas as their flaws are identified and addressed. You can't make an idea better by hiding it.

You are the one freely talking about an ideal situation where bad ideas do not exist. I did not discuss nor promote that idea. I believe we shouldn't allows certain bigoted statements to reach a public forum. I never hoped to rid them completely. There is no direct solution to doing that.

Then what's the point of censorship, if not to remove what you're trying to censor? Just to make it unacceptable? To make it actionable? You create martyrs either way, and that gives the ideas a kind of romantic appeal for various anti-authoritarians. There is no idea so bad that it should be censored. There is no idea so good that it shouldn't be challenged. The process of challenging ideas is the best way to keep bad ideas from taking root in people's minds, while simultaneously promoting good ideas. You can't challenge something while simultaneously censoring it.

[Tybra]

Censorship is a natural part of mankind, even in this era of freedom, or rather because of this era of freedom we tend to censor things. Though not always in words or expressions but also in the mind. Tolerance towards religion, race and gender prevents our minds from speaking out in words because the pressure of the masses. Sexuality is still quite the taboo when talked about in public.

The ideas of freedom of speech and other human rights have been indoctrinated into our minds. Are they right or are they wrong and merely the product of western imperialism?

Human rights and freedoms are merely the ideas hold on to by the victors of previous wars.

[New Limacon]

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

I'd agree with this. There's a difference between allowing hate speech in the privacy of someone's home, or even in the privacy of a Klan meeting, and giving the Klan a show on public access cable, or letting Neo-Nazis hold a parade.

[Bluth Corporation]

letting Neo-Nazis hold a parade.

If it's held on public streets and parks, then either all political views get to hold events there or none do.

[Soheran]

If it's held on public streets and parks, then either all political views get to hold events there or none do.

Why?

[JuNii]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

however...

I will not help you escape the consequences of what you say.

[Conserative Morality]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

however...

I will not help you escape the consequences of what you say.

Even should there be an angry mob? And what the person said relatively mild?

[Bluth Corporation]

Because it's not the government's place to hold certain ideas in a privileged position over others.

[Conserative Morality]

Because it's not the government's place to hold certain ideas in a privileged position over others.

For once, we agree.

...

I feel dirty.

[New Limacon]

Because it's not the government's place to hold certain ideas in a privileged position over others.

Doesn't it, though? Aren't laws just the government saying "we think acting this way is better than the alternatives. And by the way, if you don't, we'll fine you?"

[JuNii]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

however...

I will not help you escape the consequences of what you say.

Even should there be an angry mob? And what the person said relatively mild?

"Mild" is perspective baised judgement.

a drawing of the prophet Muhammad is "mild" to me, but will cause an angry mob to rise up.

[Bluth Corporation]

Because it's not the government's place to hold certain ideas in a privileged position over others.

Doesn't it, though? Aren't laws just the government saying "we think acting this way is better than the alternatives. And by the way, if you don't, we'll fine you?"

You said "acting", I said "ideas."

[New Limacon]

You said "acting", I said "ideas."

I don't see how they can be separated. If I believe terrorism is the way to go, and I really believe that, I'm not just some armchair radical, I will act on it, or encourage others to. Especially nowadays, when speech doesn't just mean talking or writing as it did in 1791, giving me a public forum could be dangerous.
In general, more speech is better than none, I agree, but it is not completely innocuous, either. If it were, we wouldn't want to protect it.

[Triniteras]

I recognize the value of forums. See, what we have to do is put them in jail and then they can discuss their views from jail.

I think that once a government has the right to decide which speech is free and which speech is'nt, then the temptation to abuse that power would be overwhelming and speech would not be free anymore.

If the government ends up censoring more and more, it is because it wanted to do so to begin with. They aren't stupid, they already know strategically everything they would censor, and when to do it, should the opportunities arise.