Why Offence Is A Valid Reason To Ban Speech!

[mystictiger]

I am of the firm belief that certain types of speech is so hateful that it should not be made. I take as my inspiration for this Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

While someone has the right to say something, equally the audience does not have to hear it. This can be on any ground, but the one that springs to mind most easily is that of racial or ethnic hatred.

There is necessarily a tension between those wishing to quitely enjoy their private lives (a right protected in all jurisdictions, for example: the US, the ECHR. Indeed, the US even prosecutes for hate speech where it causes an unpleasant working environment or harrasment.

It is illegal to deny the holocaust. Why? Because there is some speech that is simply too toxic, too demeaning to be tolerated.

Further, we routinely curtail the freedom of expression when it comes to the interests of the state (e.g. anti-espionage rules) or when the hate-speech is a lie (e.g. libel and slander).

[Will]

in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

I fail to see how any of that has anything to do with simply being offended.

[OldSchoolGamer]

The problem with this notion is that the people in power tend to develop increasingly elastic definitions of what is "offensive."

[Jude]

Only speech which does tangible damage to other people should be outlawed.  Hurting one's feelings is not tangible damage.  Yelling fire in a crowded theater is.

The moment you step away from that rule you start stifling freedom of expression, which is the fastest way to shut down communication of controversial ideas.  This not only stops important avenues of societal progress, but kills what productive uses communication actually has.  Pleasantries and coddling accomplish nothing.

Then there's the simple fact that most people are offended by anything that suggests, proves, or implies that they are wrong.  If you have any respect for truth, then there's no way you can tolerate offense being grounds for the banning of speech.

[mystictiger]

Only speech which does tangible damage to other people should be outlawed.  Hurting one's feelings is not tangible damage.  Yelling fire in a crowded theater is.

How does one measure tangible damage? Emotional trauma is a large part of why we criminalise certain things. Rape and indecent assault are very different from merely beating someone up. By the same token, if a slave were to live in prosperity and peace, what tangible damage is done to them? The most obvious examples are bullying and harrasment.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Then there's the simple fact that most people are offended by anything that suggests, proves, or implies that they are wrong.  If you have any respect for truth, then there's no way you can tolerate offense being grounds for the banning of speech.

Well, let's be fair: while I, too, support a vigorous and unrestrained marketplace of ideas, there are a few assclowns who do abuse it (Westboro Baptist Church, the guy who put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it "art," and so forth).  There are those who issue speech solely to offend, not for the higher purpose of expressing an idea that some or even most of the population finds offensive.

But at the end of the day, I am forced to conclude that even "Fuck you!" is protected speech.  However, the road does run both ways: the same freedom that lets people say such things also gives me the right to ignore them.

[Mathim]

It's tricky though, when we know that some speech is going to cause harm vicariously (i.e. the South Park guys being threatened with death and having their show censored to protect themselves.) Some people will bully their way into blocking the speech of others without going through legal or ethical channels. That makes me less inclined to support any form of censorship because it's proven that if one thing can be taken away, anything can.

[Noelle]

Well, let's be fair: while I, too, support a vigorous and unrestrained marketplace of ideas, there are a few assclowns who do abuse it (Westboro Baptist Church, the guy who put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it "art," and so forth).  There are those who issue speech solely to offend, not for the higher purpose of expressing an idea that some or even most of the population finds offensive.

This is pretty inaccurate. Andres Serrano and the Westboro Baptist Church are doing two ENTIRELY different things. Serrano made Piss Christ as a part of a modern art movement that goes for the abject. Part of the abject is to question your use of materials -- and why not include bodily fluids? It is to approach the grotesque head-on. He used them to make a statement regarding our own attitudes towards our own bodily fluids. He used urine because he liked its luminous quality underneath certain lighting. If you didn't know it was urine, you may even be more open to the idea that it's beautiful in a way. If he's removed his own internal offense at something as silly as urine, then it opens it up to be interpreted in a manner that is not so obvious as "he put Jesus in someone's pee". (I dunno why, but I just made myself laugh) Yes, there is a point to explaining this.

This is a very far cry from Westboro Baptist using protest possibly as a means to make a bunch of money and piss some people off, but this is also precisely why the freedom from offense is such a ridiculous thing. Things that get knee-jerk reactions aren't always what you think they are -- such as the example of art I've just given you. So in that case, how much offense is enough offense? How do we measure this? I'd prefer to discuss this more than anything. Not everything is what it seems.

[DarklingAlice]

While someone has the right to say something, equally the audience does not have to hear it. This can be on any ground, but the one that springs to mind most easily is that of racial or ethnic hatred.

There is necessarily a tension between those wishing to quitely enjoy their private lives (a right protected in all jurisdictions, for example: the US, the ECHR. Indeed, the US even prosecutes for hate speech where it causes an unpleasant working environment or harrasment.

You seem to be ignoring your own distinction. Yes, we have the right to enjoy our private lives. We have the right not to listen to anything anyone says, and we have the right to restrict their ability to say it on private property. This is one of the fundamental differences between private and public life. We do not have any right to restrict the rights of others in public, and we forfeit certain privacy rights by venturing into public. The government can restrict public expression based on its ability to cause harm. However, offense is not harm (unless you have persuasive evidence otherwise?).

Citing a bunch of law is neither evidence nor argument for anything save an action's illegality in a specific place under the auspices of a specific legal system. Provide an actual argument. For example we all agree that Holocaust denial is stupid and offensive, but is it: "too toxic, too demeaning to be tolerated"? Why? How? Apparently the American legal system doesn't think so. So instead of playing international he said/she said, why not give a demonstration? Where is the proof that people are irrevocably traumatized by holocaust deniers or racial slurs or the WBC? What clear and present harm provides the government the right to step in and make it illegal?

[RubySlippers]

In the case of sexual harassment its not a criminal offense in and of itself, its a civil one that can and does result in monatary damages. No one ever went to jail or prision just for sexual harassment or making a hostile work environment. Am I the only American here that thinks locking people up for denying the holocaust in public in certain ways, saying speech that may be offensive but does not directly lead to actual harm and in a non-economic way supporting certain abhorant parties offensive?

There are fine lines one person may sympathize with a genocidal government in writing or even terrorist elements but unless your recruiting for them or giving them actual aid you can track why toss these people into prison for months or years? I find letting these idiots speak and then either ignoring them or countering them with positive speech is better.

There is a reason most of these groups set-up sites in the US we offer them the rightful protection and only act if there is either clear threats or prove a threat in some way that must be dealt with. Like if a group promoted illegal activity like shooting "purple people" then it becomes a crime. You call "purple people" inferior and stupid and load the site with hate speech making fun of them its not a crime.

[mystictiger]

Citing a bunch of law is neither evidence nor argument for anything save an action's illegality in a specific place under the auspices of a specific legal system. Provide an actual argument.

You've missed the point. It shows that freedom of speech is already curtailed on grounds of hatred. It shows that various societies already impose restrictions and yet haven't stumbled into tyranny. I do not wish to nor do I need to show that there's actual harm in locking people up. Rather, I merely need to show that there are functioning democracies (ones that routinely score the same as or better on 'freedom indicies' such as freedom house or the Economist's Democracy index or Privacy Interational) than ones that have an 'absolute' right to freedom of expression. One of the premises of the argument in the WBC thread was that such restrictions are intolerable to a democratic system.

Citing a 'bunch of laws' shows the premise that absolute protection is vital to democracy to be false.

By the same token, the repetition of the 'Harm Principle' approach does not make it true. This is a doctrine that has been honoured more in the breach than in practice. It relies on a certain premise and prioritisation of personal liberty. It is not a universally accepted truth. Indeed, the practice of governments since Mill has shown that it is honoured more in the breach than in actual obedience to it. The 'Offence' priniciple is equally as valid: that societal standards are what an action should be judged by rather than by the perspective of the 'victim'.

Human rights in general are statements about how societies should be organised. It is not necessarily the case that any particular alignment or configuration is better or worse. Indeed, given that they are derived from a particular Judaeo-Christian background interpreted through masculine Western secular liberalism, it's entirely irrational to assume that they are simply Right.

One interesting theory to explain human rights (that didn't require natural law) was based on the premise of suffering; laws exist to limit suffering. Who suffers more? The one being harrassed or bullied by having their personhood put into doubt (until you've had eggs thrown at you simply because you've wanted to exercise your religious freedom, you've not experienced such behaviour and saying that people should have thicker skin are insulting) or the person who chooses to make a statement?

In the case of sexual harassment its not a criminal offense in and of itself, its a civil one that can and does result in monatary damages

It still amounts to a restriction on freedom of speech. A restriction does not have to take the form of going to prison.

Edit:

In summary: I favour, in certain circumstances, placing the rights of the community or polity over the rights of the individual. Gosh, that makes me a communist. Rather than frame the question: "What right do you have to shut people up", I would phrase the question as "What right do you have to offend someone?"

[Jude]

I guess you don't look at the news very much, because Europe doesn't seem to be in very good shape these days.  Rioting in France and Greece, rampant European Muslim discrimination, libel/slander issues that have affected the entire world in the UK -- Europeans are hardly as free as Americans are.

Are the free speech laws connected to all of their problems?  Not directly, no, it's really more of Europe's attitude of putting society at large over the individual's aspirations in damn near every situation.  The bottom line is, you've failed to present any evidence whatsoever that offense tangibly permanently harms people.  Being offended by a neutral expression of opinion is not the same thing as harassment -- which is repeated, targeted, and systematic -- yet you seem to be conflating the two for the purposes of forming your argument.

The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are so thin-skinned and weak that they expect to be protected from offense.  Get over it, man up, use whatever sort of mantra you like, but if you want the right to be able to express your opinions, whatever they are, you have to give people leeway to do the same.  Setting up a system of oversensitive speech policing is a great way to halt the progress of new ideas -- another area Europe is lacking in.

And most importantly of all, you've failed to answer a very basic question Mystic:  why?  Why does this need to be done?  Are people so fragile that they can't stand to have their delicate sensibilities offended by someone else's conflicting point of view?  If so, that paints a very sad picture of humanity.

[Noelle]

Citing a 'bunch of laws' shows the premise that absolute protection is vital to democracy to be false.

And equally, citing offense as being a valid reason to continue to 'curtail' those laws that you, yourself have already said have been affected without providing any tangible, objective evidence as to why, how much offense is 'enough', how we measure it, and by whose majority we rule is shows that your point is far too weak as it is to be worth cutting into possibly the most important freedom we possess. It's okay to rule in offense when you think it's justified, but I have yet to see you address what happens when the majority becomes offended about homosexuality or abortions or health care because they feel it is threatening their way of life? That it's threatening to indoctrinate their children? So let's talk about that.

What right do I have to offend someone? Then what right does anyone have to open their mouth at all? You know what I'm offended by? Being told that I need to be protected from things I might not like. Let's ban that. Am I offended enough or is my offense not good enough in comparison? Are there better and worse kinds? I'm also offended companies who make things pink and label it as 'for women', because it's sexist and degrading to think that suddenly I'll think it's okay to buy something because it's pink. I think that's pretty noble, can we ban that too?

[Jude]

Excellent point, if we banned according to the majority opinion in America it would essentially be the same thing as torching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  If public opinion is any yardstick, it would be illegal to be homosexual, have an abortion, or be an atheist in an eyeblink.

[Trieste]

Or for people with dark skin to go to school with people who have light skin.

Or for women to own property.

Hm, what else...

[mystictiger]

I guess you don't look at the news very much, because Europe doesn't seem to be in very good shape these days.  Rioting in France and Greece, rampant European Muslim discrimination, libel/slander issues that have affected the entire world in the UK -- Europeans are hardly as free as Americans are.

Then please explain why EU countries score equal to or better than the US on every single objective and non-anecdotal system of freedom? I pointed you towards Freedom House, Privacy International and so on. I could get Amnesty International reports if you'd like as well?

Are the free speech laws connected to all of their problems?  Not directly, no, it's really more of Europe's attitude of putting society at large over the individual's aspirations in damn near every situation. 

Ah yes, that monolithic and culturally homogenous polity of Europe.

The bottom line is, you've failed to present any evidence whatsoever that offense tangibly permanently harms people.  Being offended by a neutral expression of opinion is not the same thing as harassment -- which is repeated, targeted, and systematic -- yet you seem to be conflating the two for the purposes of forming your argument.

No. I'm all about preventing hararassment and hate speech. You have chosen to define 'offence' as "I don't like the colour of his shirt". Finding neutral and unbiased expression offensive is a very different kettle of fish to this. Maybe it's a question of definitional ambiguity, but I think 'offensive' suggests something far stronger than merely dislike or disagreement. 

The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are so thin-skinned and weak that they expect to be protected from offense. 

I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are free to bully, assault, and harass. No. Wait. It wouldn't be a society at all, but rather a group of individuals who have no care for other people.

Get over it, man up, use whatever sort of mantra you like, but if you want the right to be able to express your opinions, whatever they are, you have to give people leeway to do the same.

Would I be right in assuming that you're white, male, middle class, heterosexual, and not visibly different from the rest of your community? Or maybe you're just made of sterner stuff than the people who kill themselves due to bullying on grounds of their skin colour, their religion, or their sexual orientation.

By the same token, if I get assaulted in the street, should I just suck it up and stop being such a wuss and a wimp for having the snot kicked out of me? If I were to be knifed again, should I just learn to run faster? Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

Setting up a system of oversensitive speech policing is a great way to halt the progress of new ideas -- another area Europe is lacking in.

Halting the progress of new ideas?! I could refer to you the number of nobel laureates (3 Americans, 4 Europeans, 2 Japanese, 1 Chinese, and 1 Peruvian), the Booker prize winner (British), the Palm D'Or at the Cannes film festival (In the last 10 years, 7 European, 2 American, 1 Thai), campaign financing reform, non-use of force to solve problems, non-use of unlawful rendition, non-use of torture, and so on, or the introduction of socialised health-care. Would you please narrow down to what area that Europe is lacking new ideas in?

And most importantly of all, you've failed to answer a very basic question Mystic:  why?  Why does this need to be done?  Are people so fragile that they can't stand to have their delicate sensibilities offended by someone else's conflicting point of view?  If so, that paints a very sad picture of humanity.

Bullying, harassment, division, and so on.

Excellent point, if we banned according to the majority opinion in America it would essentially be the same thing as torching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  If public opinion is any yardstick, it would be illegal to be homosexual, have an abortion, or be an atheist in an eyeblink.

Ah. Right. Of course. So we should trust in the judgment of long dead slave owning white males to decide how to run a society today? And of course, people are wrong if the disagree with what this document say. In find it endlessly amusing that the authors didn't think the include protection of freedom of speech in the document, but rather had to amend it.

It's okay to rule in offense when you think it's justified, but I have yet to see you address what happens when the majority becomes offended about homosexuality or abortions or health care because they feel it is threatening their way of life? That it's threatening to indoctrinate their children? So let's talk about that

There is a clear and obvious line between calling someone a "Dirty, stinking, Christ-killing Kike" and saying "I don't believe in health care reform". The purpose of restricting words is to prevent threatening, abusive, or insulting behaviour, to prevent harasment, alarm or distress from words chosen to hurt and injure.

Or for people with dark skin to go to school with people who have light skin.

Or for women to own property.

Hm, what else...

And these victories were clearly won by calling people 'faggot' and 'nigger' and 'whore'.

[Trieste]

Oh, were you only talking about what's offensive by today's standards? Because a whole lot more was considered crude, offensive, and unfit for public hearing in the past.

It's nonsense, trying to protect someone's tender ears from 'offense' and, essentially, poor taste. It's complete garbage. Looking at the court's history of determining what pornography or obscenity is, could you imagine them trying to define the much subtler concept of offensive in legal terms? It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. It's so objective as to be stifling if put into legislation.

[Noelle]

You've still failed to answer my basic questions to you about three times now.

And equally, citing offense as being a valid reason to continue to 'curtail' those laws that you, yourself have already said have been affected without providing any tangible, objective evidence as to why, how much offense is 'enough', how we measure it, and by whose majority we rule shows that your point is far too weak as it is to be worth cutting into possibly the most important freedom we possess.

There is a clear and obvious line between calling someone a "Dirty, stinking, Christ-killing Kike" and saying "I don't believe in health care reform". The purpose of restricting words is to prevent threatening, abusive, or insulting behaviour, to prevent harasment, alarm or distress from words chosen to hurt and injure.

All of this is well and nice, but it's all sadly very vague. How much insulting behavior is too insulting? Can I impose my demands on other people who call my mom a whore? Can I demand that people only tell me things I want to hear? What happens if I'm distressed by gays? Please, do draw some lines for us here that are actually based on something rather than some undefined, amorphous idea that fluctuates so greatly between people and has yet to be really pinned down in this debate. You seem reluctant to admit that not just anyone who's butthurt can restrict speech, but yet you still insist on having "something" in place to censor ideas you've deemed unfit. Do elaborate.


Edit: Also thought I should address this briefly:

I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are free to bully, assault, and harass. No. Wait. It wouldn't be a society at all, but rather a group of individuals who have no care for other people.

America has laws that protect against bullying and harassment as it is. The fact that we allow people to say things in a public forum that are unpopular with the majority does not mean we have instantly downgraded into this scenario you're speaking of. In fact, it's been allowed for years, and it's STILL unpopular and there have been very, very few groups to try and attempt what the WBC does. It's for that very reason that we don't even need to make it illegal -- it's not a threat. In fact, they're the minority of even the minority. A rare exception to the typical case. They're not even a group we take seriously to begin with. Hitting the big, red, 'hush' button on this is reactionary, at best.

[DarklingAlice]

You've missed the point. It shows that freedom of speech is already curtailed on grounds of hatred. It shows that various societies already impose restrictions and yet haven't stumbled into tyranny. I do not wish to nor do I need to show that there's actual harm in locking people up. Rather, I merely need to show that there are functioning democracies (ones that routinely score the same as or better on 'freedom indicies' such as freedom house or the Economist's Democracy index or Privacy Interational) than ones that have an 'absolute' right to freedom of expression. One of the premises of the argument in the WBC thread was that such restrictions are intolerable to a democratic system.

Citing a 'bunch of laws' shows the premise that absolute protection is vital to democracy to be false.

Which is not what you set out to show. I really must have misunderstood. For some strange reason I thought you were claiming to show Why Offence Is A Valid Reason To Ban Speech! You have consistently failed to provide a reason to ban free speech or any kind of rational rubric by which to define what is offensive or measure and punish offense. Further, it now seems that you are trying to drag a Europe vs. America sentiment, ad hominem arguments, and the ceaseless repetition of your (apparently baseless) opinion into what should be a very basic expression of why you believe something.

In short, you purport to be willing to provide a demonstration and argument, and then seem impotent to do so.

[Jude]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are ways in which European countries tend to be "more free" than America -- especially on issues of economic rights.  The problem is, you haven't proven that, you simply gave Wikipedia links to each of the groups you claim looks at Europe favorably and expected me to do your research for you.  Even if it shows that 3 organizations agree that Europe is fairly free, it's not the same as using scientific statistics to do so because I'm willing to bet none of those organizations are peer reviewed.  I'd be curious to see what their operationalized definition of freedom is -- especially when the issue we're talking about here is a great example of how Europe is less free.  To head a potential discussion off at the pass, I do not think Europe is any better or worse than America overall, there are ways that Europe is better, but this isn't one of them.

In your rebuttal you bring up things that are already illegal even in America as if I condone them (such as harassment -- which I already I specifically do not condone).  I do condone hate speech, and I hear hate speech applied to groups that I belong to all the time.  Does it irritate me?  Yes.  Does it offend me?  Sure.  Do I think I have the right to then tell the speaker of those words, "Say it again and I'm going to report you and have you locked up in jail or seek financial compensation"?  No.  No way.  That is ridiculously immature, childish, and petty, to want to harm someone that way simply for speaking their mind.

[Noelle]

I'll also point out that the Freedom in the World report scored the US equally with other European countries -- And I'm not entirely sure what your relevancy of posting Privacy International...They score based on the level of personal privacy invasions, and the US was just above the UK. The UK is notorious for not only their extensive use of CCTV, but also their free speech restrictions (as was already pointed out earlier). The US, by contrast, has loads of privacy infringements and plenty more options for free speech and we're still ranked on an equal level of "freedom" as every other country.

As for the Democracy Index, it also shows several European countries falling behind the US, as well, including the good ol' UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you wanted these statistics to say, but I don't know if it was quite the message you were intending.

[mystictiger]

It's nonsense, trying to protect someone's tender ears from 'offense' and, essentially, poor taste. It's complete garbage. Looking at the court's history of determining what pornography or obscenity is, could you imagine them trying to define the much subtler concept of offensive in legal terms? It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. It's so objective as to be stifling if put into legislation.

Yes. Here at Part 3A or 4A, or Section 18, or maybe here at section 9. But then in this country we make our important decisions through the legislature rather than let the courts decide them.

All of this is well and nice, but it's all sadly very vague. How much insulting behavior is too insulting? Can I impose my demands on other people who call my mom a whore? Can I demand that people only tell me things I want to hear? What happens if I'm distressed by gays?

Are you driven by this hatred to take someone to court? Then sure. If you want to sue them because of it, then go for it. Controls on freedom of speech are not necessarily or exclusively driven by a state saying NO. In fact, you make the point eloquently that your freedom of speech is already curtailed when you say "America has laws that protect against bullying and harassment as it is".

For some strange reason I thought you were claiming to show Why Offence Is A Valid Reason To Ban Speech!

What was it you said when claiming that all moral philosophers have dismissed emotionivism (apart from the emotivists that is)? Exageration for effect? Deliberately catchy title? I don't recall, but something to that end.

Further, it now seems that you are trying to drag a Europe vs. America sentiment...

The difference between various EU differences illustrates that there are different ways of organising a state, and that the conviction that you all have that individual freedom of speech is so important is not an absolute or a given.

...ad hominem arguments,

Where?

...and the ceaseless repetition of your (apparently baseless) opinion into what should be a very basic expression of why you believe something.

You mean beyond this?

One interesting theory to explain human rights (that didn't require natural law) was based on the premise of suffering; laws exist to limit suffering. Who suffers more? The one being harrassed or bullied by having their personhood put into doubt (until you've had eggs thrown at you simply because you've wanted to exercise your religious freedom, you've not experienced such behaviour and saying that people should have thicker skin are insulting) or the person who chooses to make a statement?

or

In summary: I favour, in certain circumstances, placing the rights of the community or polity over the rights of the individual. Gosh, that makes me a communist. Rather than frame the question: "What right do you have to shut people up", I would phrase the question as "What right do you have to offend someone?"

or

While someone has the right to say something, equally the audience does not have to hear it. This can be on any ground, but the one that springs to mind most easily is that of racial or ethnic hatred.

I have, by reference to various indicators attempted to show that restrictions on the freedom of speech do not limit or inhibit the full and fair exercise of democracy, or make a country less free.

I have shown examples of direct suffering, pain, and injury caused by the unrestrained use of free speech - both the audience and the maker. I would urge you to look at the kind of draconian restrictions imposed in the former Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito (any racial or ethnic slur was met with severe punishment), and then you see what happened under Slobo and his crowd - who used divisive ethnic language to divide and conquer. Is giving up the right to insult someone worth decades of peace? I think so. Is the right to be able to make racist comments worth bloodshed? I don't think so.

I will gladly admit to being wrong if you can show me one example where calling someone a 'kike' or 'dyke' or 'Paki' achieved something for the good. If you can point me in the direction of one case where repeatedly insulting someone by virtue of their ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or choice of religion had a positive outcome, then I will admit defeat and go and rethink my beliefs.

[Jude]

I will gladly admit to being wrong if you can show me one example where calling someone a 'kike' or 'dyke' or 'Paki' achieved something for the good. If you can point me in the direction of one case where repeatedly insulting someone by virtue of their ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or choice of religion had a positive outcome, then I will admit defeat and go and rethink my beliefs.

Humor.

[Noelle]

Are you driven by this hatred to take someone to court? Then sure. If you want to sue them because of it, then go for it. Controls on freedom of speech are not necessarily or exclusively driven by a state saying NO. In fact, you make the point eloquently that your freedom of speech is already curtailed when you say "America has laws that protect against bullying and harassment as it is".

So let's just get this straight, shall we?

You're okay with anyone, for any reason, at any time, dictating ANYTHING you say because they might find it offensive, just because they're driven enough and not because it's actually done them any damage? I have to laugh, that's absolutely absurd and a huge waste of our government's resources. It goes against your very point by saying that there's no offense greater than any other. Calling my mom a whore is now as equal as protesting a funeral. I find that quite funny :D

I have shown examples of direct suffering, pain, and injury caused by the unrestrained use of free speech - both the audience and the maker. I would urge you to look at the kind of draconian restrictions imposed in the former Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito (any racial or ethnic slur was met with severe punishment), and then you see what happened under Slobo and his crowd - who used divisive ethnic language to divide and conquer. Is giving up the right to insult someone worth decades of peace? I think so. Is the right to be able to make racist comments worth bloodshed? I don't think so.

I'm waiting for the US to slide into the same situation. Should be happening any day now, right? We've had the freedom to offend each other for a long time now...I mean, according to your statistics, the UK is faring worse on several fronts, but somehow they've avoided a total 1984 situatoin, haven't they? Guess there's no doomsday coming after all...

I will gladly admit to being wrong if you can show me one example where calling someone a 'kike' or 'dyke' or 'Paki' achieved something for the good. If you can point me in the direction of one case where repeatedly insulting someone by virtue of their ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or choice of religion had a positive outcome, then I will admit defeat and go and rethink my beliefs.

Well, what the hell, I'll bite. How about we outlaw the words 'dumb' and 'lame' and 'stupid'. How about 'pointless' and 'worthless', too? Why put restrictions on this, I mean, there are loads of words out there that are used to hurt others. I could tell Bruce Willis that his daughter has a potato-shaped head -- Wellp, there goes my use of the word potato!

Waiiit, a minute, this is sounding vaguely familiar...

[Paradox]

The initial post in this thread offends me. Maybe Trieste should ban it.

[mystictiger]

Sorry, Noelle & Jude. I didn't see your posts:

I provided the Wiki-links rather than direct links because I wasn't sure that people would be familiar with the NGOs in question. These are the ones I come across in my 'professional' capacity, and thought others might what some context.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are ways in which European countries tend to be "more free" than America -- especially on issues of economic rights.  The problem is, you haven't proven that, you simply gave Wikipedia links to each of the groups you claim looks at Europe favorably and expected me to do your research for you.  Even if it shows that 3 organizations agree that Europe is fairly free, it's not the same as using scientific statistics to do so because I'm willing to bet none of those organizations are peer reviewed.

Please find a flaw in Freedom House's methodology, or a way to do it better. Besides, it's not a paper, and therefore not something you would peer review. Further, peer review doesn't make something scientific, but rather a proper methodology does. The same goes with the other approaches - what kind of 'scientific study' would you like to use to measure 'freedom'? Further, reading more about the three NGOs will show you that they're really not the friend of any state. Find me a better ruler to measure states with, and I'll gladly use it.

Does it irritate me?  Yes.  Does it offend me?  Sure.  Do I think I have the right to then tell the speaker of those words, "Say it again and I'm going to report you and have you locked up in jail or seek financial compensation"?  No.  No way.  That is ridiculously immature, childish, and petty, to want to harm someone that way simply for speaking their mind.

That's your point of view, and you are entitled to it. Other people are not so thick skinned.

As for the Democracy Index, it also shows several European countries falling behind the US, as well, including the good ol' UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you wanted these statistics to say, but I don't know if it was quite the message you were intending.

If the US approach was better, then why is it not at the top? I have a very dim view of the UK's record on privacy, detention without trial. This is why I am working to change it. There will be a glorious day in the future when the UK government will put its money where its mouth is and pay more than lip service to human rights.

What really turned me around from the libertarian-utilitarian I used to be was Popper:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal

[mystictiger]

Humor.

I'm serious. I frame my views on interactions with others.

In my line of work I come across a lot of immigrants. Would their lives be better without people insulting them on the street? Yup.

Rather than simply saying that it's dumb to want to protect people, show me where insulting people that are different made the world a better place?

[Jude]

I'm serious too.  Hate speech is an important part of shock-based humor.  There's your example.

[Trieste]

Yes. Here at Part 3A or 4A, or Section 18, or maybe here at section 9.

That doesn't actually define 'indecent' or 'racialist' or the like. It's like telling people they can't run around 'too naked'. How much is too naked? Does it differ for men and for women? Do we ban people above a certain BMI from going around 'too naked'? Under a certain BMI? You've just done the legal equivalent of answering a question with a question. You've been going around in circles, in fact, for most of the thread.

But then in this country we make our important decisions through the legislature rather than let the courts decide them.

If you wanted an example of an ad hominem attack, here you go. I'm not sure if you're just hostile to the American system in general or if you're trying to needle my sense of nationalism or whatever, but going "My way is clearly superior and yours sucks plus you're doing it wrong" is not only irrelevant to the conversation, it's also beneath you.

Edit: Too many 'but's.

[mystictiger]

If you wanted an example of an ad hominem attack, here you go. I'm not sure if you're just hostile to the American system in general or if you're trying to needle my sense of nationalism or whatever, but going "My way is clearly superior and yours sucks plus you're doing it wrong" is not only irrelevant to the conversation, it's also beneath you.

You're right. That was rather too snide. After being told how worthless and backwards my continent is, and how my ideas are garbage, I think I'm allowed to get a little snide though. I apologise.

[Noelle]

Nobody is arguing that the US's approach is better. I've admitted several times that there are varying policies and ideas prevalent in most European countries I'd be happy to adopt (psst, I've lived in Europe for a good amount of time before, I'm not just speaking from no experience), but this isn't one of them. In fact, forcing the US to adopt European policies -- even free speech ones -- is a terrible idea. The cultures aren't the same. They haven't developed the same, we're not dealing with the same history or demographic, so just suggesting that the US needs to do like Europe alone is not a sufficient enough reason to do it. Maybe this whole discussion is a cultural gap, but those kinds of laws would not work in the US, as shown by the fact that our courts are struggling with this at all. As we've found with trying to spread American democracy around the world, it often gets rejected because it is not made compatible for the people it affects, they don't want it, and/or it just isn't acceptable to them as a culture.

Making offensive speech akin to murder is ridiculous. We already have a sue-happy culture full of people who will sue anything from teachers not informing them that electricity can kill you all the way to people suing playground monitors for allowing their children to jump from the swings and then get hurt. The very last thing we need is people suing because someone flipped them off in the street, because somebody told them to fuck off, because someone said that Democrats are fag-enabling tree-hugging socialists, because someone with any little irritation towards any other person said something out of anger that the other person simply couldn't deal with. We'd be breeding a culture of crybaby whistleblowers who have no real ability to maturely encounter and deal with things they don't like. That's a problem. If this isn't what you're saying, then it comes back to the question -- how much offense is enough? Or can we get up in arms and ban and sue the hell out of anything that even remotely makes us feel uncomfortable?

You're right. You don't have to tolerate intolerance. They have the right to speak their mind and so do you. You can actively protest them back, you can tell them you disagree, you can draw a political cartoon or hire a skywriter...You seem to forget that you are just as free to make your own ideas be known as they are. In the case of WBC, that's exactly what's happening -- both their ideas AND everyone else's have been allowed to be heard, and the 'better' ideas that point out their actions are shameful have largely won out. The marketplace of ideas at its finest.

Besides, as I pointed out, the Privacy Index is based on...Privacy. I'm not seeing what that is supposed to say about America's direct policies on free speech?

[Trieste]

You're right. That was rather too snide. After being told how worthless and backwards my continent is, and how my ideas are garbage, I think I'm allowed to get a little snide though. I apologise.

I don't think anyone has tried to paint Europe (I don't recall exactly where you're from, but most of the conversation has been re: EU and various parts thereof compared to U.S., so I'm assuming you're European) as being worthless and backwards. It's difficult to apply anything more than very basic laws to both sides of the Atlantic, because whether we share roots or not, the two cultures have become quite different.

Additionally, some of the policies of European countries really are bass ackwards. One example that has been mentioned was France's treatment of Muslims. That is not an example of positive human rights! However, it's also well known that in the U.S., we struggle with religion in other ways, and that as much as we try to have 'separation of church and state', the goal causes us no small amount of strife. There are bass ackwards policies on both sides. You acknowledge that when you say you're trying to fix it.

But for all our similarities, I really don't think that banning something due to it being offensive or improper or hateful or indecent would be appropriate for the U.S. Maybe it would be appropriate for European populations. Maybe their ears are more sensitive than ours. Maybe they are overall more thin-skinned. I think this is a case where the obnoxious, overbearing stereotype that Americans have developed globally might, in fact, have some underlying truth. We're a culture of strongly held convictions, and the individualistic culture you mentioned previously does not lend itself to anti-offense legislation.

So while many of the things you've listed already might be an appropriate 'why' for Europeans, it's sadly lacking by American standards. Not because of any lack on your part, but because of differences on Americans' part.

Edit: Ugh, the typos.

[DarklingAlice]

This has become increasingly futile. There is a difference between opinion and an argument. And I was hoping to see an actual rationale for the restriction of free speech proceeding logically from discrete principles. Instead there is just a whole lot of opinion and no "why" or rationale behind it.

The idea that just because nothing good ever came from something, is no sane reason to ban it without a demonstration that harm comes from it. It's like banning the color blue because it never did anything for anyone. Now if you could show that the color blue caused grievous injury, that would be a different story...

I am willing to consider the idea that certain forms of speech can be harmful, but there needs to be an argument, rationale and evidence behind that stance. Since that hasn't been provided, I don't see a compelling reason to do so.

So ima tag out now, but before I go, I will let a more eloquent voice than mine talk about why we should be concerned re: restrictions of freedom of speech and expression:

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.
-Neil Gaiman

Why defend freedom of icky speech?

and

Margaret Howard Memorial Lecture 2005

[OldSchoolGamer]

Then please explain why EU countries score equal to or better than the US on every single objective and non-anecdotal system of freedom? I pointed you towards Freedom House, Privacy International and so on. I could get Amnesty International reports if you'd like as well?Ah yes, that monolithic and culturally homogenous polity of Europe.

And how would outlawing speech that offends people address this issue and move America up the list?

[Brandon]

Im not sure I understand why speech of any kind should be regulated. To answer that question people will likely point to hate crimes but IMO they only serve to further segregate our society rather then making us 1 people with equal rights. If I understand the idea presented in the thread  correctly its because certain speech can mentally harm people, which is true. I lived my entire childhood and teenage life with that as part of my daily experiences in life. Problem is this is such a wide and thus vague topic that it makes legislation (something that needs to be as specific as it can) incrediby difficult. Then theres the other problem of peoples tolerance to this kind of thing varying from person to person

I know it was said earlier that bringing in a decade of peace by eliminating name calling and such would be worth it but that seems at best like a short sighted idea. Come to think of it havnt we seen something similar in history where the removal of basic rights created regime's that oppressed their people into poverty and near slave labor? That is an extreme example but when one considers an action like this I figure its best to look at the absolute worst outcome first

[LaCroix]

I don't think that speech should be regulated, myself, but then my old forum avatar and quotes from George Carlin in my profile are clear signals of that opinion. I'm of the mind that as long as the person exercising his free speech isn't standing outside of your home blasting it over loud speakers or beaming it directly into your brain where you can't make the choice to ignore it then they are well within their right to say whatever they want, about whoever they want, because given the choice you can make the choice not to listen to whatever it is that happens to be offending you.

As long as you have that choice and are not being forced to stand there and listen, then your right to be offended does not outweigh their right to express an opinion, no matter what that opinion might be and I stand firm and resolute in that belief. Even if I do not personally agree with or validate that opinion, even if it offends me to the very core of my being as long as it is not being forced upon me unjustly then I can simply change the channel, flip the radio dial, or walk away from whatever it is that is being said.

[mystictiger]

This is the irritating thing about studying, teaching, and 'doing' human rights. There is no way to discuss them because two falacies are always encountered - the popular falacy and the emotional falacy. Human rights are either grounded in natural law (these truths are self-evident) or emotion driven logic. This extent, any human rights law is either falling prety to the emotional fallacy (if we base human rights on a perceived desire to limit suffering) or on a populist fallacy (if we base human rights on a law). As a legal positivist, I'm with Hume here - all natural law is 'nonsense upon stilts'. Which leaves us with the tyranny of the majority. And then people tend to get sniffy for me for not being rational. I cannot be rational as there is no rational basis that doesn't fall foul of one of the 'classic' fallacies.

With regard to this, human rights are essentialy statements about how a state ought to be organised, and this differs from one culture to the next, and one time to the next, and is conditioned by the needs of the polity at any given time. The US constitution, for example, was drafted at a time when there was no standing army, meaning that - in the interests of survival - the militia system was a good idea. The Irish constitution was drafted at a time when Northern Ireland was regarded as being rightlfully part of Eire irrepsective of the wishes of the majority. And documents like the European Convention were drafted in the aftermath of WW2. It is hard to understate the impact that WW2 has had on European culture and history.

Human rights are an arbitrary thing. You cannot force a willing slave to be free. You cannot force a free person to be a slave by virtue of them.

Me? I tend to go with human rights as just mere laws. There is no special status about them in the same way that there is no special status about a tax code or parking laws. They are all statements about how our legistlative and our executive would like us to behave.

I don't see freedom of speech in the same stark terms as others do (which is probably obvious). In the purely pragmatic role of any good legal positivist, I saw the ill that needs to be cured - that of hate speech. As a lawyer, I see the cure in the form of societal change. How to best effect societal change? Through law. In fact, one of the things we have learned through the economic analysis of law is that the best way to change a person's heart is through their wallet. If societal ills are given pecuniary cost, they are far more deterant than prison terms or social advocacy and so on. I would site the study but I've leant my EOtL collection to someone else.

Show me a better way to cure this ill, and I'll gladly do it.

[Trieste]

You're speaking of human rights, but the right not to be offended or discomfited is not a human right. It is not a fundamental right, which is why it shouldn't be in legislature.

Outlawing objectionable speech does nothing but force the attitudes to simmer. You could stop the use of the word 'kike' in public venues if you wanted, but that's not where those who use it in earnest first learn the word, or the attitude behind it. Outlawing such speech in public does nothing to change the attitudes; it makes them harder to track and gauge. I'm not even going to address the idea of outlawing such speech in private and public - the government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot say inside your own home, unless you're leaning out a window and yelling it at passersby. Not to mention the unenforcability of such a law.

The best way is through education, and it's a slow change that doesn't see immediate results like a law would give. However, it gives more permanent and complete change. There will always be havens of hate, as there are always people that have an enduring need to feel better than their fellow man. However, we can do our best to make sure that children are socialized, and that they are socialized in a manner that encourages tolerance and discourages hate speech. We already do this, to an extent, with schools. You'll notice that most of the die-hards (such as these girls) are homeschooled, to avoid 'tainting' them with pesky doubts and questions. Considering the best way to break hatred is to humanize the target, the last thing close-minded parents want their kids doing is making friends with the black kid, or the gay kid. It's really hard to hate all gays when your best friend Jerry likes boys.

I cannot be rational as there is no rational basis that doesn't fall foul of one of the 'classic' fallacies.

This is frustrating. We allow the Politics and Religion board on here because a) it's relevant and involves issues that people care about and want to discuss, and b) some people really do enjoy debating. However, the tradeoff to allowing these touchy subjects on what is otherwise a roleplay board is that we expect people to heed those classical fallacies and treat the threads in here like debates. Some sarcasm is allowed (duh) but if it gets too pointed, or if the thread in general gets too scrappy, we lock it. It's not perfect, not even close, but you're getting the reaction that you've gotten because the expectation - complete with sticky at the top of the board - is that you will at least try to base your points in logic and fact. Otherwise, you get one hugenormous appeal to emotion that really boils down to "Your way is awful and mine is better". This is why you have so many people demanding a 'why' to your statements - because otherwise you're really just soapboxing.

[Jude]

Hate speech is an ill that cannot be cured because it stems from fundamental human faults.  We're programmed on a very basic level to engage in tribe behavior.  We associate that which is like us with virtue naturally and that which is different from us with vice.  This is why people so strongly identify with groups that have similar traits to their own even if the group has nothing to do with anything even remotely moral, political, of philosophical in nature.  Groups can even form around things like hobbies which are totally neutral, then that group begins to act like a unit of social cohesion which often discriminates against other organizations that are distinct from them.  It's so silly that even people who enjoy interactive entertainment have a divide between "hardcore" and "casual" to the point of antipathy and stereotyping.

Racial, ethnic, political, economic, and social divides will always inspire a certain degree of discomfort.  Sure, we've come a long way since back in the day when we as a species gladly embraced these prejudices, but it wasn't law that made this progress, it was recognition that this prejudice exists.  Critical thinking and awareness of our own faults as a species is the only antidote to the systemic failures of the human condition.  It's taken a long time for the more evolved cultures on earth to begin to judge individuals on the content of their character and not arbitrary designations, you can't simply force that by banning the communication of such ideas.

As for how much damage hate speech does?  Very little if any lasting damage at all.  Take the example of the gay teen that commits suicide:  this doesn't happen overnight because one person calls him a "fag."  It's systematic cultural disdain of homosexuality, taunting by peers, and a pattern of harassment and shame that takes hold within his mind over the course of many years.  Giving society a surface-level makeover isn't gonna fix the problems, in many ways we need cultural renovation on a grand scale if we want to make being certain things more acceptable.

Like Trieste said, banning hate speech doesn't ban hate, intolerance, or bigotry.  It simply causes it go underground and manifest itself in other ways.  For example, racism is considered utterly intolerable in America, but that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that it's gone.  Instead of admitting that their actions are motivated by racism, we now have people who do prejudicial things and claim other justifications.  When people are free to be honest about their intentions it's a lot easier to actually observe their behavior for what it is, if anything banning hate speech will give the illusion of progress while simply driving hatred further underground where it's more difficult to expunge.

EDIT:  This proposition kind of reminds me of the town that tried to redefine pi as 3.1 so it would be easier for students to understand in math class.  Yes, that would seem on the base level to be a fix to all of their problems, but then everyone would be asking why all of the buildings in town are crooked.

You can't legislate a different reality than what already exists.  Law doesn't have that kind of power.

[mystictiger]

You're speaking of human rights, but the right not to be offended or discomfited is not a human right. It is not a fundamental right, which is why it shouldn't be in legislature.

On what basis do you determine what human rights are, both fundamental and ordinary? Indeed, what is the difference between them? Is it ok to violate a non-fundamental right?

This is another thing that I have issue with - 'official' doctrine is that human rights are universal and indivisible. This means that they apply to all, and all such rights are equal - that one cannot rank or prioritise human rights.

I'm not sure which one I'd put on top of the pile, but it would one of freedom from torture or right to private and family life.

The best way is through education, and it's a slow change that doesn't see immediate results like a law would give.

I don't necessarily think that it's the best way, but I certainly agree that it is a good way. How, though, do you mandate this program of education? And when you educate someone, you are generally imposing a view on them, and thereby restricting their freedom of speech (I'll come back to this one).

One issue I have real problems coming to an answer on is the teaching of creationism in schools. On the one hand, I think the theory of evolution best describes the mechanism by which we came to be. On the other, I'm aware that I place far more value on certain ideas and modes of thinking than other people might. By only teaching one, I am imposing my world view on others. I think that it should be taught because a person should be free to make up their own mind. If, once exposed to the differeing viewpoints they decide to embrace creationism, then it is their choice to make. I don't think I have a right to impose my views on others.

I know that this runs counter to my general approach to wanting to ban hate speech, but to paraphrase the Shaft theme-song... he's a complicated man and no-one understands him... Mystic!

Education as a restriction on freedom of speech is a particularly tricky one. We teach our children to be tolerant. In doing so, we are denying them the chance to be intolerant. In our societies, tolerance is regarded as a virtue. It hasn't always been the case, and it may not always be so. Especially if people like Sarkozy get their way.

Racial, ethnic, political, economic, and social divides will always inspire a certain degree of discomfort.  Sure, we've come a long way since back in the day when we as a species gladly embraced these prejudices, but it wasn't law that made this progress, it was recognition that this prejudice exists.

If, as you say, that law isn't what changed these, why have laws about discrimination or harassment at all? Why not just leave it all to development and society?

I think, though, that this exchange has been useful in that my viewpoint is changing.

[Jude]

Law only mandates changes in action, never in thought.  I can pass a law against drinking on Sunday, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to want to do it.  It can't bring about real change of opinion or culture.

[mystictiger]

Well, I could pass a law outlawing the slave trade, a law that allowed my Navy to board and inspect any ship in the world in order to supress that trade.

I could pass a law to that abolished law and mandated a return to an agricultural economy, resulting in the slaughter of countless millions of my civilians.

The Security Council could pass a law that creates ad hoc tribunals to prosecute grave breaches of the laws and customs of war, and end up prosecuting heads of states.

The entire premise of the criminal justice system is the deterent effect of punishment.

[Will]

Outlawing hate doesn't compare quite so well with outlawing slavery.  Slavery is an action; hate is an attitude.  You can outlaw certain manifestations of that attitude (in the case of this thread, hateful speech), but there will always be other ways for that hate to manifest itself.  The attitude is the real issue.