Lots of places already exclude hate speech from free speech, for an example I am familiar with (because I live there), Australia has a right to freedom of expression and opinion but does not protect speech that incites discrimination, among other things. As far as I’m concerned that is still a right to free speech, not the least because hate speech inherently limits the voice of its victims.
Yes. There is no contradiction. Freedom or speech is the freedom to discuss or criticise as part of a discussion, in particular the freedom to criticize those in power without the fear of repercussion. Discuss sensitive topics to all your hearts desire. Hate speech does not intend to discuss anything. Hate speech is there to target, to threaten, to belittle, to dehumanise, to attack. Hate speech is violence.
Edit; As usual with this topic “free speech absolutists” emerge, often accompanied by elaborate use of language and a thesaurus. And as usual they are not really into the entire “free speech” as in “freedom of discussion”, but rather “freedom of consequences” for themselves. Well boo hoo, ain’t that a pearl clutching shame of a slippery slope to the strawman of “who are the real Nazis” when not supporting your freedom of unadulterated hatred to run free into the world.
It’s essentially a practical application of the paradox of tolerance. And like with that one, the paradox goes away when the offending party breaks the social contract.
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise." - Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
Everyone seems to forget the second paragraph of the quote.
Also a contract by definition cannot be valid and signed under duress thus the social contract is an invalid assertion. At the end of the day only thing that actually matters is Darwinian evaluation.
Everyone seems to forget the second paragraph of the quote.
No. The “as long as” does the necessary lifting there. Far-right rhetoric is a denial of reality and of any argument with a complete lack of shame or self-reflection, therefor this second part doesn’t apply.
There was a time when we thought rational argumentation and logic were good enough to convince, but that has been dead for a few decades, and the US just paid that price.
signed under duress
I didn’t ask to be born the point is if you don’t sign the contract you’re not protected by it and you get no benefit, that’s not duress. If you sign it but break it, you pay. No one is forcing you to sign, but if you don’t, you can fuck off.
Well how do u define hate speach? Is misgendering someone hate speach or free speach? Is burning a flag hate speach or free speach? Is calling for the death of elon musk hate speach or free speach?
Its impossible to define hate and free speach in a way everyone agrees with ans thus impossible to have both symultaniously for everyone.
The fediverse is beautiful cos u can choose an instance that defines both in a manner u choose fit or even spin up ur own server and do it however u want.
Misgendering on purpose, hate speech. “On purpose” might be a fuzzy term, but patterns of behaviour will usually make it obvious. Burning a flag, free speech. Calling for death of Elon Musk, hate speech. Calling him out on his bullshit, free speech.
Not actually that hard.
Misgendering on purpose, hate speech.
So ur definition of hate speach can include something that is purly a subjective experience of being offended? The subjective is by definition whatever one claims it to be. Thus i could claim that subjectively u speaking at all is hate speach? Ohh and dont try claiming its not subjective cos i dont give a fuck if u misgender me (my existance is a counter example of any possible proof).
And here we are disagreeing about what is free/hate speach thus both symultaniously is impossible.
I would be careful with phrases like, “there is no contradiction.” There is a comprehensible tension between free speech as the ability for anyone to say what they wish, and a prohibition on hate speech as a prohibition on saying specific things. Denying that risks damaging one’s credibility because it can appear that we are merely refusing to acknowledge that tension.
I argue it’s better to admit these tensions. And that’s not an admission that the arguments for prohibition of hate speech are weak, but it is an admission that as real people in the real world, we can never have the comfort of a tension-free, contradiction-free theory for anything of significance.
That’s free speech with an asterisk. It also means you have this big gray area and someone policing and deciding what is and isn’t hate speech, so you won’t ever see completely free speech thoughts from everyone.
You can’t have your cake, and eat it too. Having rules against what can be said or talked about means you’re in a bubble, for better or worse.
Oh no, policing. Like in everything else in a functioning society because people do things they are not supposed to. You’re free to drive wherever but you’re but free to ram your car into pedestrians. Oh my god the oppression.
Yes but one is words, and the other has a guaranteed tangible impact? I don’t think thats a viable analogy
No, because free speech includes all speech. Even the speech we disagree with.
We don’t technically have free speech in the US either. You can’t make death threats or shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.
Thats because once discussion on something concludes, you generally make it law.
“Murder is bad” is very much agreed on to be a good thing. To me it is only logical for the next step to be “verbally encouraging or excusing murder is bad”, which might not need to be law, but it should at least not be state backed.
There is a difference between being allowed to say whatever you think, and having the state guarantee that whatever you have to say is actually heard.
Not being heard or listened to, is not a violation of free speech. Being removed or “silenced” online or even physically in public, is not a violation of your free speech.
Free speech is to be free to say whatever you like, but it does not protect you from what other citizens do in response.
If you insult someone, and they punch you in the face in response, your free speech was not violated.
“Hate speech” is a category of “opinion” that is obviously harmful that anyone thinking straight should immediately dismiss it. The problems have started because thanks to the internet, those “opinions” can now reach all the people who aren’t thinking straight.
For those who do identify hate speech easily, to protect those who don’t, by at least not propagating it (social media, government) is the bare minimum of what they can do.
Taking away the megaphone if someone is using it to encourage murder is not a violation of free speech. And it’s necessary.
With a megaphone, you don’t need to be right. You just need to be heard by enough people that the tiny percentage that will believe whatever you say, is a large enough group to be dangerous.
Yes, free speech doesn’t mean necessarily free speech absolutism
I like to remind *free speech absolutists" that child porn is technically a type of speech.
It’s inherently exploitative due to the age difference. Free speech doesn’t cover violating someone else’s rights like that.
No. Free speech includes all speech, even the unsavory kind. You can have it as an ideal and aim for it, but unless you allow for every spammer and scam artist, it’s not free speech.
