First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Hate speech & Free Speech !
15835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 7/4/17 , edited 7/6/17
2101 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/6/17
Hate speech is free speech and should protected as such if only on the grounds that not doing so puts to much power in the hands of those that define what hate speech is.

The only limitation to "free speech" should be in libel and information. Really, libel falls under the information category, for the most part. In general we have a right to accurate information, given a whole bunch of asterisks about whose saying, where, etc (think your friend v. trusted news v. the Onion)
3871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/5/17


i have no idea what is hate speech by today's standard ? If developer can sue gamers for giving their game negative reviews i don't know what they will do next.



25612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Beyond The Wall
Online
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/6/17
>Germany

Not even shocked anymore.
1081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/5/17

serifsansserif wrote:

hate speech is free speech, so long as it stays speech.

I think that facebook (not so much google as it's a search engine and should populate results based on what the terms put in are), and other social media/"news" platforms should be fined for fake news, but not under the guise of "hate speech".

The news should always be trustworthy and unbiased, and unfortunately, lately, the news has been neither.

Misinformation charges, maybe slander or libel or misrepresentation charges instead.


I think that's a great idea.
1081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/6/17
Also, Germany is not the United States, and Germany doesn't have carte blanche free speech.

Understandable, considering the country where harmless 'speech' lead to mass genocide when words finally were put into action... might actually opt to avoid straying down that path once again in the future.
15167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101
Offline
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/6/17

dragontackle wrote:

>Germany

Not even shocked anymore.


You shouldn't be. Germany blacklists members of religious cults that it deems a threat to the constitution so that they can show the world they're better than they were 70 years ago when they achieved infamy for their repressive policies towards minority religious groups. And so they can prevent it from happening again, because repressing religions they find suspicious will keep those religions from taking power and repressing religions they find suspicious. I'm sure the Germans think that what they're restricting is actually dangerous, but the Nazis thought that too.

Also Germany is supposed to be part of Austria, but that's another story.


21stCenturyGemini wrote:

Also, Germany is not the United States, and Germany doesn't have carte blanche free speech.

Understandable, considering the country where harmless 'speech' lead to mass genocide when words finally were put into action... might actually opt to avoid straying down that path once again in the future.


See above.
15444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/17 , edited 7/6/17
that's even care for this.
67495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

Free speech has always had limits the thing is most laws people try to put forth these days go past the limits of what is acceptable.


I'm glad you see that there are abuses in power, but I take issue with your use of the term "acceptable." Who decides what is acceptable? Where is the line drawn? According to what standard?

Free speech hasn't always had "acceptable" limits. That is a shitty excuse for pissing on peoples rights. As has been said elsewhere in the post - so long as speech (or expression) stays speech or expression, it does not matter how ugly, vile, incorrect, foolish, perverted, or hate-filled it is.

The only limits on free speech (in places which it was specifically protected) have historically been those which result in PHYSICAL or financial damage. Shouting "fire" to cause a stampede in a crowded theater being one example, lying about a person to prevent them from getting a position or deal (slander and libel), and threats to a persons life (when it was not obviously an exaggeration) are about the only things that have been historically banned in the US. For example, porn has been judged as free speech in the US, but not child porn - based on the argument that a child is not competent to give consent, and is therefore being taken advantage of. The content is irrelevant, only the tangible impact to people should be considered in limiting any speech. And if you think about it, that isn't really a ban on speech, but a ban on harming others.

The ENTIRE POINT of having Freedom of Speech written into the US constitution is to ensure that people do have the right to speak out against the status quo and social norms, to be ugly, to vent querulous and perverse thoughts, and to force difficult discussions. No one has ever tried to silence those who were "acceptable." Free speech exists for the sole purpose of protecting the UN-acceptable.

To ban ANY speech - no matter how offensive, contradictory, inflammatory or perverse means that SOMEONE has decided for EVERYONE what may and may not be said, and therefore there is no such thing as the right to free speech anymore. There is no such thing as an "acceptable" limit because any limit negates the whole purpose.

Any country which claims to be "free" yet places limits on speech is lying.

750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17
You know, I have mixed feelings on the whole "Free Speech vs Hate Speech" thing. On one hand, free speech is important and the government should not be allowed to dictate what someone can or cannot say or write. On the other hand, I feel that many people need to learn that just because you technically can say hurtful/hateful things doesn't mean that you should say hurtful/hateful things. For example, I have negative feelings towards Christianity (and most religions in general) and think that most people believe in their religions due to generational brainwashing (via being forced to go to church/wherever as children and later doing the same thing to their own children), but that doesn't mean I should go to the nearest church and let them know just what I think about their 'religion'. Sure, I technically have the right to do so, but doing so would only bring conflict and create a toxic atmosphere. The reason why people such as myself are against hate speech (aka racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.) is because it creates a toxic atmosphere and conflict (as well as the fact that those who use hateful words are bad people. If you want to be a good person, DON"T BE MEAN OR HATEFUL!!!!!)
1081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17

LadyPsychic wrote:

You know, I have mixed feelings on the whole "Free Speech vs Hate Speech" thing. On one hand, free speech is important and the government should not be allowed to dictate what someone can or cannot say or write. On the other hand, I feel that many people need to learn that just because you technically can say hurtful/hateful things doesn't mean that you should say hurtful/hateful things. For example, I have negative feelings towards Christianity (and most religions in general) and think that most people believe in their religions due to generational brainwashing (via being forced to go to church/wherever as children and later doing the same thing to their own children), but that doesn't mean I should go to the nearest church and let them know just what I think about their 'religion'. Sure, I technically have the right to do so, but doing so would only bring conflict and create a toxic atmosphere. The reason why people such as myself are against hate speech (aka racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.) is because it creates a toxic atmosphere and conflict (as well as the fact that those who use hateful words are bad people. If you want to be a good person, DON"T BE MEAN OR HATEFUL!!!!!)


That's why the concept of the Golden Rule predates the concept of Free Speech by thousands of years.

'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you'.

It seems so simple. And yet so difficult for people to follow... Especially on the internet where hating people who look, think, vote, or live different from you has become a pastime.

17165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17
From reading the article, I don't think the topic is free speech per say, or is intended to be. Rather criminal activity that is going on unregulated. And because it goes on unregulated, in Germany, it comes into conflict with the countries laws. It also states Germany has very tough laws on hate speech, that also covers defamation, and ect.

Basically, Germany is saying follow our laws, or the the new one called "NetzDG", or get fined. And it creates this situation where Facebook now has to play Police on Fake news. Which makes them act as sensors to the internet. Which creates a problem because information must now be deleted because it may or may not come into conflict with German law. So now legal content is subject to be deleted as well.

This is quite a complex matter to say the least.

750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17
For the left, political violence qualifies as free speech, whereas for the right, free speech qualifies as political violence. Very Orwellian times.
runec 
41030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17

dark_paradox_21 wrote:
Free speech hasn't always had "acceptable" limits. That is a shitty excuse for pissing on peoples rights. As has been said elsewhere in the post - so long as speech (or expression) stays speech or expression, it does not matter how ugly, vile, incorrect, foolish, perverted, or hate-filled it is.


Actually, it has. The carte blanche sort of free speech you are advocating is largely a product of 20th century America and even then it has a whole host of limitations. Some of which you touched on.



dark_paradox_21 wrote:To ban ANY speech - no matter how offensive, contradictory, inflammatory or perverse means that SOMEONE has decided for EVERYONE what may and may not be said, and therefore there is no such thing as the right to free speech anymore. There is no such thing as an "acceptable" limit because any limit negates the whole purpose.


The type of free for all free speech you are advocating has never existed at any point in American history. The ink wasn't even dry on the First Amendment before the exceptions started. Nevermind how many times throughout history the US decided it was convenient to put it on the back burner for a bit because they needed to shut someone up or imprison them somewhere. Or that it originally only applied to Congress and thus the federal government. State governments could still lock you up for whatever the fark they wanted speech wise.



15167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101
Offline
Posted 7/6/17 , edited 7/6/17

LadyPsychic wrote:

You know, I have mixed feelings on the whole "Free Speech vs Hate Speech" thing. On one hand, free speech is important and the government should not be allowed to dictate what someone can or cannot say or write. On the other hand, I feel that many people need to learn that just because you technically can say hurtful/hateful things doesn't mean that you should say hurtful/hateful things. For example, I have negative feelings towards Christianity (and most religions in general) and think that most people believe in their religions due to generational brainwashing (via being forced to go to church/wherever as children and later doing the same thing to their own children), but that doesn't mean I should go to the nearest church and let them know just what I think about their 'religion'. Sure, I technically have the right to do so, but doing so would only bring conflict and create a toxic atmosphere. The reason why people such as myself are against hate speech (aka racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.) is because it creates a toxic atmosphere and conflict (as well as the fact that those who use hateful words are bad people. If you want to be a good person, DON"T BE MEAN OR HATEFUL!!!!!)


Why aren't you against hateful speech when you are the one saying it though? Don't kid yourself, you expressed hateful views about most religious people in your post - even if you aren't going into their houses of worship and saying it to their faces, some of the people who you're talking with in this thread are probably religious and they're being subjected to your prejudiced bile. You're creating a toxic atmosphere if you express that viewpoint anywhere.

I also think it's pretty hateful of you to assert that using hateful words is what makes someone a "bad person." It's hateful to all the people throughout history (including racial minorities, women, and homosexuals) who had to argue against social prejudice even if the very act of them making that argument was hurtful to those who disagreed. And it's hateful to me, because I have said mean things in the past but I don't think that makes me a bad person. Hell, I think it's mean for me to call you a hypocrite, but you are, so I probably ought to let you know.

Perhaps keeping your mouth shut unless you're absolutely sure what you have to say won't hurt anyone's feelings isn't such a good idea after all. Either it gets applied to protect some people's feelings but not others, hurting the others' feelings by leaving them out, or it gets applied universally and then nobody is allowed to say anything.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.