It already went too far. There is a reason why classical liberals don't believe in hate speech existing as a concept. Because when you define something as hate speech, the definition will inevitably be expanded and the law abused. So where there is a hate speech law, free speech will eventually cease to exist. Britain is just the most unfortunate example, just look at how many times activists shut down university presentations from people they don't like.
Sure wish there was an easy way to fix this stuff, but while Brexit keeps being a stalemate doesn't look like that's coming too soon.
It’s a slippery slope of hypocrisy and conflicting values. How many people cheered when someone punched a “neo Nazi?” I’m certainly not arguing that being any kind of Nazi or supremicist is “right-“ but I am saying that a criteria for free speech can’t be “unless it’s somehing I feel is wrong...” someone is wrong to everyone, and so by the logic- we either all agree not to speak, or we give the right to determine what is or isn’t “right” to someone who will inevitably abuse that power of censorship for self motivated ends to silence those they would rather not have speak at all. We must tread lightly to not take away peoples rights to opinions and expression- however there does need to be some common sense used as well. Rights come with responsibilities. One is responsible for their use of words as much as they are for their use of a car, a gun, a hammer, or any other tool....
... you are free to use these things in good faith for suitability of purpose, but you are not free of consequences for using a tool in a way which is blatantly irresponsible- which could or does cause a foreseeable harm to the life, liberty, property, or freedom of enjoyment and well being of others. You can say things people don’t like. You can criticize establishments, you can raise controversy. You ant should fire in a crowded theater. You can’t incite people to riot or lynch or harm. “Hate speech” is a label used in a way that it doesn’t quite work. You are free to hate. I have a right to say “I hate...” a job, a person, a company, a food. You can’t legislate away hate. Where the distinction becomes important is when a person speaks in such a manner that that speech isn’t potentially a catalyst- but is likely and foseeably a catalyst to incite incidents which would deprive others. That is the limit of freedom in a “free” society. Before they had guns- Nazis had only words...
... before they had mass genocides and cleansing and nuclear weapons, the soviet communists only had manifestos. Of course by the same token many “noble” movements had only words. That’s the balance point. We have to let people speak, we have to let them exchange ideas, we have to limit the power of an establishment over its people- but at the same time we must prevent or punish the irresponsible use of a right. There isn’t a simple answer- but universally we can hopefully agree that bigotry and racism and hate are not constructive to society. So long as we are careful and prudent in how broad a brush we use to label speech harmful, and have well established and just laws for dealing with transgressions- we can walk the balancing point. Keeping the hitlers of the world from rising again, but allowing the people thebright to expression and social change.
You keep hitlers from rising by keeping them out of power. Which a democracy can accomplish with virtually no effort, just by its design. What you don't do, is silence them, instead you let them speak and watch them bury themselves under their own hate that people will not follow. I'm fine with neo-nazis screaming their lungs out in their echochambers on social media, because they will never get anywhere. Free market of thought. People will follow those who they agree with. And the majority is centrist, centrist-left or centrist-right. You have no need or reason to censor anyone, society will decide for itself.
I applaud the faith you have in a system and your fellow man. That said- censorship... that’s a tough one. What do you call censorship? Is it when you can say whatever you like without consequences beyond social ramifications- or is it when you can say whatever you want but there may be legal consequences, or is it only censorship if you are completely denied the right to say it? For example: Is it censorship that I can’t make up whatever stories I like about a person and spread them in public legally?That’s censorship isn’t it? I’m being denied a voice. Is it censorship when I cry “he has a gun!!” At a mall? What if I’m sports star and before the big game is say: “If we win I want to see this town burn! I want you to see rioting and looting and opposing fans getting beat up!” What if the President says that they Are going to launch nuclear weapons against Russia? Those are all things that we should allow because people have freedom of speech right? Saying it doesn’t mean you’ll do it.
All the things you've mentioned are covered by being a responsible person. The social ramifications you mention are what most people care about when making a decision like that, as well as their own moral compass. And you mustn't forget that the legal system is there to monitor harm people can cause to one another. This is why you can sue someone for defamation, and why people can get in trouble for false fire alarms or something of that nature. If your action causes harm or massive disruption to people's lives, you should be persecuted, although not too harshly. But censoring political and other beliefs is unacceptable unless they conflict with the no harm principle. For instance, you can believe that being gay is immoral and you can say that. But if you harm a gay person because of your beliefs (or any person for that matter), you will inflict harm and suffer the consequences of breaking the related law.
And before anyone says, emotional harm and hurt feelings are not harm. The system doesn't care about your feelings, it cares about following the proper process and knowing the boundaries.
Vitklim- most laws wouldn’t exist if we could count on people to all share common values and be responsible. Why would we have to make laws against stealing or killing, wearing seat belts, driving with your headlights on, not carrying gasoline on an airplane- etc. if we could just count on people to use common sense and follow procedures? And you speak of law as though it exists independent of freedom. The logic is all over the place again. You say that you agree with legal consequences for slander, but that emotional distress or hurt feelings aren’t harm- yet- if my image is damaged by words that’s slander and it is illegal? If the system doesn’t care about your feelings- why are emotions factored in to both the type of crime and severity of punishment in many cases? Why is there a distinction between malicious and non malicious actions? Why is there tort? Why can you sue for pain and suffering? You have things very mixed up. The system does care about your feelings- you literally...
... can sue for pain and suffering. And your logic is circular. You say that people should follow procedure and law-but we can change law. You say that censorship is bad, but it’s ok to prosecute people for irresponsible speech which causes harm... which is censorship. My original point was that as a society we have to decide what we consider to be harmful or have great danger of causing harm. To my examples- a celebrity who says they “want to see rioting...” has not actually told anyone to riot and is just speaking an opinion. However in certain contexts such as when emotions are high- that could cause rioting, death, loss of life. Similarly, words and sentiments of hatred or division against groups of people can lead to violence against those groups. The Communists started with speeches about the upper class and proceeded to murdering anyone they labeled as such. By the time such people are in power it is too late because they aren’t going to respect a democratic process.
So no, you shouldn’t censor a person for political beliefs or for opinions on what they think is right or wrong even if you are morally opposed to it. But there is a line where they begin to cross over to a point where their words can become dangerous, can be reasonably expected or assumed to cause emotional harm and damage a persons reputation- and as you’ve already said- in case of public speech which damages a persons reputation such as slanderous comments- that IS something the law cares about.
If my logic is circular, then yours is incoherent. Or you just can't bring yourself to understand what I'm trying to say. The law doesn't care about feelings. It cares about harm, about intention and about evidence. Slandering someone will cause harm to their social life, this is why there is a law against that. But by the same token, slandering someone and being able to prove it can be contested in court between both people, since evidence can prove that there was no slander and only truth. And the definition of harm for the law includes physical harm and undeserving harm to social life. Emotional harm is not in that. Which is why false fire alarms and defamation count, and offending someone doesn't. Social harm vs emotional harm. The former is in the law, the second one should never be.
And to your retort about changing the laws. Yes that is possible, but it takes a lot of effort, and there is such a thing as a constitution if you forgot.
Simply offending someone isn’t what I am taking about. People can be dicks and we can’t legislate that. When a person crosses a line where their words are a larger harm or danger to an individual or society than simply emotional hurt- that is where laws like shouting “fire” in a theater protect. The fact you shout that doesn’t mean there WILL be harm or a riot- but the fact it is reasonable to foresee it could, and the desire to avoid that, coupled with a complete lack of any justifiable reason to do so other than you felt like it- makes it reasonable to ban it. Likewise- saying that you oppose US trade deals with Italy or have some offense to Italian conduct or policy is not the same as screamin about how “all Wh#ps are lying bastards that deserve to be hung...” the FCC doesn’t allow the borascast of certain swears or sexual words- where is the damage there? If you forget- the constitution lays down broad feeedoms which individual laws clarify. Freedoms such as...
... a freedom of enjoyment and certain securities which are weighed against other rights and against the rights of others where they conflict. Try to exercise your constitutional right to bear arms when meeting the president in public, or try to exercise your constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness by shitting on a bus. The people around yous rights will superceed yours by law- interpretations of law deemed constitutional by higher courts.
The Daily Mail reported this originally, so take it with a grain of salt. Also, if you read the last part of their article, it seems like she had multiple accounts and was engaging in a pattern of targeted harassment towards this individual. Sooo, the bottom line is maybe watch out for sensationalist media just out looking to start fights. Here is their link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html
No problem, guys! I am finding out more and more that when a headline seems totally insane, you'll find a whole other (reasonable) side of the story if you dig a little.
Lol. That’s the truth. Media doesn’t provide news it sells stories. I like comparing headlines from papers I know to be biased to certain companies or agendas, the way they will contextualize the same story through subtle steering with language is infuriating but also morbidly fascinating.
And let me just contextualize for you that this is an in-war of feminist movements. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) and intersectional feminists hate each other about as much as people who get in their way. TERFs believe that being transgender is impossible and you can't change your biological sex, and intersectional ones are the ones who believe that you are who you identify as. Both of them are goddamn repulsive, but the intersectional types are the ones who have infested universities, HR, legal system and are the majority of activists. So now they are using the laws they themselves established to persecute their ideological opponents. Culture war is raging on and the flames are getting brighter.
Sure wish there was an easy way to fix this stuff, but while Brexit keeps being a stalemate doesn't look like that's coming too soon.
And to your retort about changing the laws. Yes that is possible, but it takes a lot of effort, and there is such a thing as a constitution if you forgot.
I really appreciate it!