Question about free speech

[Beorning]

The subject popped up in the Trump thread and got my interest. I thought it'd be better to make it into a separate thread instead of making a tangent.

So, free speech. Over at the Trump thread, Bibliophilia said:

That's what he's saying.  Essentially, 'your rights end where my nose begins'.  This is why we need to stop allowing the cries of 'religious freedom' to impinge on the rights of LGBTQ people.  People have the right to believe whatever hateful, bigoted, shitty think they want.  Where their rights end is where those beliefs begin restricting the rights of other people.  We don't police beliefs, we police actions taken in the name of them.

My question is, does it really work that way? Free speech means that we don't police beliefs at all?

I mean: if you have beliefs, you tend to speak about them. So, does "we don't police beliefs" equal "everybody has the right to say everything, even it's bigoted, racist, sexist or homophobic"?

I don't know - here in Europe, we do have laws that restrict people from even speaking such things, at least in their most extreme form. At least in Poland - according to the existing law, people can be prosecuted for promoting racist views (at least in theory - in practice, that doesn't happen often). I believe other countries in Europe have similar laws. And I think some of these laws can also be used to prosecute people for being homophobic - wasn't there a case in Sweden (?) twenty years ago when a pastor was prosecuted for condemning homosexuality?

So, my question is: should people be prosecuted for saying such things? For instance, as many of you probably heard, here in Poland we have the government and the Catholic Church openly attacking LGBT people. With some Catholic bishops giving very public sermons on the threat represented by "the LGBT ideology". Very offensive words have been used, like "the rainbow plague", as well as statements that claim that the LGBT activists are similar to the Communist regime of old. So, should all of this fall under the free speech? Or should it be forbidden?

I honestly wonder what you think, because it's a heavy headscratcher for me...

[Haibane]

Beliefs means in this instance what you think inside your head. We don't police that because we cannot. If you put beliefs that you hold into words or actions and those words/actions break the laws of free speech in your country then you get clobbered by what the law requires.

The laws of free speech clearly vary from sovereign state to sovereign state.

And what is considered illegal to speak of varies too. Generally though nominally Christian states have roughly similar classifications on what is not acceptable.

[Oniya]

Being free to say what you want doesn't mean that you are immune to consequences of that behavior.  If you walk up to a bar bouncer, and call him every name in the book, you probably aren't getting into that bar, and may end up in a crumpled heap on the pavement. 

But, you know, freedom of speech.

If you walk around on street corners with a Faraday cage around your head, and talk about the 'end of days', you're likely to have people crossing the street to avoid you.

But, you know, freedom of speech.

If you go on social media and show everyone that you're a horrible person, you may end up losing all of your ability to sell product to people (because they are disgusted with you and don't want to listen to anything you say any more.)

But, you know, freedom of speech.

[Saria]

I’d like to try to answer Beorning’s questions as well as I can, but I have to make it clear I’m talking about state censorship, and state punishment for undesirable speech. I am not talking about private censorship (like Twitter, a private company, banning racists; haha, if that were to ever happen), or any societal consequences for nasty speech (like “cancelling”).

My question is, does it really work that way? Free speech means that we don't police beliefs at all?

It kinda has to work that way. The state can’t dig into people’s minds to figure out what they believe, and even if it could, that would be a gross violation of privacy.

Honestly, I don’t even mind if someone has truly awful and bigoted beliefs, so long as they keep them to themselves. I even expect that some people have truly awful and bigoted beliefs, simply because of the way they were raised (and that certainly goes for me as well). We all live in racist societies, so it’s only natural that we pick up some racist beliefs as we grow up. But if someone is trying to rise above their shitty beliefs by keeping those beliefs to themselves… if they’re trying to “fake it till you make it” their way to being better people… then I’m cool with that. In fact, that’s what I try to do myself.

I think the state should keep its fingers completely out of the private sphere (unless there is a clear health or safety reason to intervene), and beliefs are private up until the moment they are publicized. I am willing to tolerate hateful bullshit in private spaces (I mean, sort of; I’ll still totally be doing social consequences), rather than giving the state the power to poke its nose into everything and monitor everything.

As for how much power I’m willing to give the state in the public sphere….

I mean: if you have beliefs, you tend to speak about them. So, does "we don't police beliefs" equal "everybody has the right to say everything, even it's bigoted, racist, sexist or homophobic"?

I can give you, at least, the Canadian answer.

First though, a content warning, because I’m about to repeat some truly nasty antisemitic shit… not because I approve of it in any sense (I mean, obviously not), but because 1) we need real, concrete examples of what is and isn’t hate speech to really nail this stuff down; and 2) I’m going to be using real-world cases as examples, and they necessarily involve real-world hate.

There was a famous case years ago where a politician was charged with hate speech for saying some truly horrific shit to a reporter at a speaking event about how Hitler was right, and how Jewish people deserved the Holocaust, etc. etc.… all stuff that was well and surely within the realm of Canadian hate speech law. Canadian hate speech law basically boils down to “advocating genocide” or “inciting/promoting hatred”, both of which mean that it’s not merely enough to broadcast ugly and hateful opinions… you have to be saying something that could reasonably be interpreted as actually encouraging violence against an identifiable group. So saying something like “I hate Jews” or “Jews are all terrible” wouldn’t be enough for a hate speech conviction. You need to be saying something that could reasonably be interpreted as meaning that Jewish people should be targeted for some kind of action, like “Jews should be kicked out of Canada”. What that guy said to the reporter was well within the bounds of hate speech law; he wasn’t merely saying that he didn’t like Jewish people, if I recall he literally called Jewish people a “disease”.

And yet… the the guy got off scot free (on appeal).

Why?

Well, as I already explained, it wasn’t because what he said wasn’t hate speech.

What happened was this guy was giving a speech at an event that had literally nothing to do with Jewish people or antisemitism at all, and during the course of the speech and everything, nothing like that came up. After the speech, the reporter pulled him aside and started peppering him with questions. The politician was irritable, grumbling about how he didn’t want to talk about that stuff, but the reporter persisted, and eventually, the politician answered his question… with a barrage of antisemitic nastiness.

The Court decided that the politician hadn’t actually been “advocating” or “promoting” his hateful beliefs. He’s merely been answering the question asked about them. (The fact that he told the reporter he didn’t want to talk about that stuff was key. The reporter badgered him into talking about it, so it couldn’t reasonably be argued that the politician intended to publicize his beliefs.)

So that’s the (Canadian) answer to your question. You can have hateful beliefs. You can even say them out loud… in private conversations. You can even share them publicly if someone straight-up asks you about them. You can even discuss them in a public forum. So long as you’re not:

• advocating or promoting beliefs
  
• that could be reasonably interpreted as encouraging violence
  

you should not be censored or punished (by the state; of course you could very well be censored by private organizations, or punished by social consequences, etc.).

So, my question is: should people be prosecuted for saying such things? For instance, as many of you probably heard, here in Poland we have the government and the Catholic Church openly attacking LGBT people. With some Catholic bishops giving very public sermons on the threat represented by "the LGBT ideology". Very offensive words have been used, like "the rainbow plague", as well as statements that claim that the LGBT activists are similar to the Communist regime of old. So, should all of this fall under the free speech? Or should it be forbidden?

So as above, my answer is “yes”, with a caveat. Technically it depends on exactly what the Church is saying and how and where they’re saying it… but yeah, given what the Church actually says and does, yes, it’s hate speech, and should be censored, and punished. That is not the caveat, though; I’ll explain the caveat after the clarification in the next bit.

If the Church is merely saying “we don’t like gay people”… well, I would say that’s nasty, but not enough to rise to the level where censorship and punishment is justified. But of course, we all know the Church goes way beyond that, saying that gay people are “sinful”, “intrinsically disordered”, and “abhorrent” in the eyes of their god. In recent years the Church has tried hard to dodge the implications, dancing around whether being gay is actually a venial sin or a mortal sin (being gay may or may not be venial, but doing gay is undeniably mortal), etc. etc. … but the clear upshot of it all is that good Catholics should strive to eradicate from the world anything God doesn’t like, and God doesn’t like the queers.

So the message, once you strip away the bafflegab, is clearly hateful, and clearly encouraging violence toward LGBTQ+ people (and yes, “conversion therapy” is torture, so that’s violence too – violence doesn’t need to be literal physical violence or murder).

And the Church isn’t keeping this nasty belief private, and only sharing it when explicitly asked. They are clearly and undeniably advocating and promoting this belief.

So, yes, this is hate speech, and the Church should be charged and convicted for it. (Except, of course, there’s a loophole in Canadian law that gives hate speech a pass if it’s religious. But that’s just complete bullshit; that loophole shouldn’t exist.)

But here’s the caveat:

Hateful speech should only be censored/punished when it’s public speech. Recall the case I mentioned above: You can have hateful beliefs, and you can talk about them privately, and you can even mention them publicly… so long as you are not advocating or promoting them.

Now if the Church is meddling in public affairs – as is its wont – like, for example, weighing in on a public debate about legalizing same sex marriage, or just encouraging its followers to vote against protections for transgender people… then that is clearly very public speech, and should be punished as hate speech.

But… what about what happens within their churches? Is that public? Or private?

This is where I’m no longer sure of how to handle things. I’m not sure whether to consider preaching within the church to be public speech or private. Sure, the moment they step out of the church and start preaching at the general population, that’s public speech, so if they’re raging against homosexuality, that should be shut down as hate speech. But if they keep it all in-house… I’m no longer sure.

I think that if a bunch of ignorant racists want to get together and have a barbecue and rage against the other races… that should be allowed. (Again, I’m talking about by the state. If private citizens learn about this, they’re totally free to try to protest to stop it, or to socially punish the participants.) I don’t think the state should be in the business of policing private speech. If those same racists instead decide to hold an event where they share their beliefs with the general public… then yeah, they should be arrested and charged.

But where does a church service fit into that scheme? Is it more like the racist barbecue? Or more like the racist public event? 🤷🏾‍♀️

This means that if the Catholic Church were to just quietly teach its homophobic bullshit within its churches and such… then it might (?) be okay. But the moment they reach out of the churches and start broadcasting their hateful opinions publicly – and especially if they try to meddle in society by influencing policy – then that clearly crosses the line, and should not be tolerated. (And to be clear, I’m only talking about their beliefs that rise to the level of hate speech – that is, their beliefs that are encouraging or promoting violence. All their other beliefs are still protected as free speech, and should not be censored or punished.)

[legomaster00156]

What freedom of speech comes down to, in the USA at least, is that the government cannot police your speech. Other people can. So, for example, if I was to write, "Donald Trump needs to burn in Hell," then I cannot be arrested for it, but people who like Donald Trump can refuse me service at a private business, or I can be banned on a privately-owned platform like Twitter. This isn't fully universal, either, as credible threats can be used as evidence for a crime. For example, if I say, "I'm going to murder Donald Trump," then I might get a knock on the door from the FBI or Secret Service. They usually cannot use the statement alone as reason to arrest you, as they need to know that the threat was actually credible.

[Saria]

So, for example, if I was to write, "Donald Trump needs to burn in Hell," then I cannot be arrested for it, but people who like Donald Trump can refuse me service at a private business, or I can be banned on a privately-owned platform like Twitter.

(For anyone inclined to try refusing service based on political affiliation at their private business, I would strongly advise checking your local laws first. Depending on your jurisdiction, it might be illegal. For example, don’t try this in New York. Or California.)

[legomaster00156]

(For anyone inclined to try refusing service based on political affiliation at their private business, I would strongly advise checking your local laws first. Depending on your jurisdiction, it might be illegal. For example, don’t try this in New York. Or California.)

If these laws have been challenged/upheld at the Supreme Court level, I haven't heard about it, so there may still be a free speech factor here.

[Beorning]

Beliefs means in this instance what you think inside your head. We don't police that because we cannot. If you put beliefs that you hold into words or actions and those words/actions break the laws of free speech in your country then you get clobbered by what the law requires.

The laws of free speech clearly vary from sovereign state to sovereign state.

What I'm trying to work out is what "freedom of speech" means in the context of a modern democratic society and human rights (it is a human right, am I correct)? What would be the correct way to implement it?

Being free to say what you want doesn't mean that you are immune to consequences of that behavior.  If you walk up to a bar bouncer, and call him every name in the book, you probably aren't getting into that bar, and may end up in a crumpled heap on the pavement. 

But, you know, freedom of speech.

Hm. In general, I agree - but if we take this reasoning very literally, it'd mean that everybody in the world has freedom of speech, even when living in some super-repressive dictatorship. Because they are still free to speak their mind, even though the consequences for that would be severe...

To use another example: freedom of religion doesn't mean just that you can decide what religion you subscribe to and, then, face the consequences. Because if you get burned at stake for choosing this or that religion, that's not much of a freedom, really...

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I’d like to try to answer Beorning’s questions as well as I can, but I have to make it clear I’m talking about state censorship, and state punishment for undesirable speech. I am not talking about private censorship (like Twitter, a private company, banning racists; haha, if that were to ever happen), or any societal consequences for nasty speech (like “cancelling”).

It kinda has to work that way. The state can’t dig into people’s minds to figure out what they believe, and even if it could, that would be a gross violation of privacy.

Honestly, I don’t even mind if someone has truly awful and bigoted beliefs, so long as they keep them to themselves. I even expect that some people have truly awful and bigoted beliefs, simply because of the way they were raised (and that certainly goes for me as well). We all live in racist societies, so it’s only natural that we pick up some racist beliefs as we grow up. But if someone is trying to rise above their shitty beliefs by keeping those beliefs to themselves… if they’re trying to “fake it till you make it” their way to being better people… then I’m cool with that. In fact, that’s what I try to do myself.

I think the state should keep its fingers completely out of the private sphere (unless there is a clear health or safety reason to intervene), and beliefs are private up until the moment they are publicized. I am willing to tolerate hateful bullshit in private spaces (I mean, sort of; I’ll still totally be doing social consequences), rather than giving the state the power to poke its nose into everything and monitor everything.

As for how much power I’m willing to give the state in the public sphere….

I can give you, at least, the Canadian answer.

First though, a content warning, because I’m about to repeat some truly nasty antisemitic shit… not because I approve of it in any sense (I mean, obviously not), but because 1) we need real, concrete examples of what is and isn’t hate speech to really nail this stuff down; and 2) I’m going to be using real-world cases as examples, and they necessarily involve real-world hate.

There was a famous case years ago where a politician was charged with hate speech for saying some truly horrific shit to a reporter at a speaking event about how Hitler was right, and how Jewish people deserved the Holocaust, etc. etc.… all stuff that was well and surely within the realm of Canadian hate speech law. Canadian hate speech law basically boils down to “advocating genocide” or “inciting/promoting hatred”, both of which mean that it’s not merely enough to broadcast ugly and hateful opinions… you have to be saying something that could reasonably be interpreted as actually encouraging violence against an identifiable group. So saying something like “I hate Jews” or “Jews are all terrible” wouldn’t be enough for a hate speech conviction. You need to be saying something that could reasonably be interpreted as meaning that Jewish people should be targeted for some kind of action, like “Jews should be kicked out of Canada”. What that guy said to the reporter was well within the bounds of hate speech law; he wasn’t merely saying that he didn’t like Jewish people, if I recall he literally called Jewish people a “disease”.

And yet… the the guy got off scot free (on appeal).

Why?

Well, as I already explained, it wasn’t because what he said wasn’t hate speech.

What happened was this guy was giving a speech at an event that had literally nothing to do with Jewish people or antisemitism at all, and during the course of the speech and everything, nothing like that came up. After the speech, the reporter pulled him aside and started peppering him with questions. The politician was irritable, grumbling about how he didn’t want to talk about that stuff, but the reporter persisted, and eventually, the politician answered his question… with a barrage of antisemitic nastiness.

The Court decided that the politician hadn’t actually been “advocating” or “promoting” his hateful beliefs. He’s merely been answering the question asked about them. (The fact that he told the reporter he didn’t want to talk about that stuff was key. The reporter badgered him into talking about it, so it couldn’t reasonably be argued that the politician intended to publicize his beliefs.)

So that’s the (Canadian) answer to your question. You can have hateful beliefs. You can even say them out loud… in private conversations. You can even share them publicly if someone straight-up asks you about them. You can even discuss them in a public forum. So long as you’re not:

• advocating or promoting beliefs
  
• that could be reasonably interpreted as encouraging violence
  

you should not be censored or punished (by the state; of course you could very well be censored by private organizations, or punished by social consequences, etc.).

So as above, my answer is “yes”, with a caveat. Technically it depends on exactly what the Church is saying and how and where they’re saying it… but yeah, given what the Church actually says and does, yes, it’s hate speech, and should be censored, and punished. That is not the caveat, though; I’ll explain the caveat after the clarification in the next bit.

If the Church is merely saying “we don’t like gay people”… well, I would say that’s nasty, but not enough to rise to the level where censorship and punishment is justified. But of course, we all know the Church goes way beyond that, saying that gay people are “sinful”, “intrinsically disordered”, and “abhorrent” in the eyes of their god. In recent years the Church has tried hard to dodge the implications, dancing around whether being gay is actually a venial sin or a mortal sin (being gay may or may not be venial, but doing gay is undeniably mortal), etc. etc. … but the clear upshot of it all is that good Catholics should strive to eradicate from the world anything God doesn’t like, and God doesn’t like the queers.

So the message, once you strip away the bafflegab, is clearly hateful, and clearly encouraging violence toward LGBTQ+ people (and yes, “conversion therapy” is torture, so that’s violence too – violence doesn’t need to be literal physical violence or murder).

And the Church isn’t keeping this nasty belief private, and only sharing it when explicitly asked. They are clearly and undeniably advocating and promoting this belief.

So, yes, this is hate speech, and the Church should be charged and convicted for it. (Except, of course, there’s a loophole in Canadian law that gives hate speech a pass if it’s religious. But that’s just complete bullshit; that loophole shouldn’t exist.)

But here’s the caveat:

Hateful speech should only be censored/punished when it’s public speech. Recall the case I mentioned above: You can have hateful beliefs, and you can talk about them privately, and you can even mention them publicly… so long as you are not advocating or promoting them.

Now if the Church is meddling in public affairs – as is its wont – like, for example, weighing in on a public debate about legalizing same sex marriage, or just encouraging its followers to vote against protections for transgender people… then that is clearly very public speech, and should be punished as hate speech.

But… what about what happens within their churches? Is that public? Or private?

This is where I’m no longer sure of how to handle things. I’m not sure whether to consider preaching within the church to be public speech or private. Sure, the moment they step out of the church and start preaching at the general population, that’s public speech, so if they’re raging against homosexuality, that should be shut down as hate speech. But if they keep it all in-house… I’m no longer sure.

I think that if a bunch of ignorant racists want to get together and have a barbecue and rage against the other races… that should be allowed. (Again, I’m talking about by the state. If private citizens learn about this, they’re totally free to try to protest to stop it, or to socially punish the participants.) I don’t think the state should be in the business of policing private speech. If those same racists instead decide to hold an event where they share their beliefs with the general public… then yeah, they should be arrested and charged.

But where does a church service fit into that scheme? Is it more like the racist barbecue? Or more like the racist public event? 🤷🏾‍♀️

This means that if the Catholic Church were to just quietly teach its homophobic bullshit within its churches and such… then it might (?) be okay. But the moment they reach out of the churches and start broadcasting their hateful opinions publicly – and especially if they try to meddle in society by influencing policy – then that clearly crosses the line, and should not be tolerated. (And to be clear, I’m only talking about their beliefs that rise to the level of hate speech – that is, their beliefs that are encouraging or promoting violence. All their other beliefs are still protected as free speech, and should not be censored or punished.)

Thank you, this was very interesting to read!

I can tell you that the thing that really gives me the proverbial headache is the question of how to couple freedom of speech and its limits with freedom of religion. I mean, on one hand, I really am incensed by all the homophobic crap the Catholic Church preaches over here. I'm pretty sure it counts as hate speech - and if we agree that hate speech should be prosecutable, then the CC's homophobic teachings should be prosecutable, too. On the other hand, freedom of religion is an important value, too - and many Christians honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin. So, should the state step in and force Christians to change their beliefs? That is problematic, too...

It's all very complicated. And it's complicated especially in the context of Polish law, which has both rules both against hate speech and blasphemy... which tend to be applied by the state prosecution in quite an asymmetric manner (especially under the current government). So, on one hand, you can prosecute some forms of hate speech (but not all of them - our current law doesn't mention homophobia as a form of hate speech, for example) - but, in practice, such cases are rarely pursued these days. On the other hand, you can get easily prosecuted for doing something supposedly offensive towards religious people - like drawing Virgin Mary with a rainbow halo. And, of course, atheists have zero protection under these laws, because they are not a coherent group that would fall under any hate speech laws - and they aren't a religion, so they cannot be offended as described by the blasphemy laws. Speaking as an atheist, this is very frustrating...

What freedom of speech comes down to, in the USA at least, is that the government cannot police your speech. Other people can. So, for example, if I was to write, "Donald Trump needs to burn in Hell," then I cannot be arrested for it, but people who like Donald Trump can refuse me service at a private business, or I can be banned on a privately-owned platform like Twitter.

Wait. Can you be refused service because of promoting pro-LGBT views, then? I thought it'd be a form of discrimination?

[legomaster00156]

Wait. Can you be refused service because of promoting pro-LGBT views, then? I thought it'd be a form of discrimination?

Yes, and yes, it is a form of discrimination. While it is illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their sex (and, by extension, sexuality), refusing to serve one as a customer is fully legal. As far as private businesses go, anyone can refuse service to anyone else for any reason.

[Saria]

If these laws have been challenged/upheld at the Supreme Court level, I haven't heard about it, so there may still be a free speech factor here.

Why would there be?

Before I go on, let me just state that I can’t stand US law. It’s so needlessly over-complicated. And I fully admit I don’t understand it nearly as well as Canadian law.

When dealing with US law, nothing is ever simple. If you want to know whether something is legal, you need to read federal, state, and local law, and then figure out the interactions between the three.

US anti-discrimination laws generally follow the same pattern as the federal law from the civil rights era. The federal law bans discrimination on a handful of protected grounds: there’s sex, race, religion, nation of origin, and I think a couple of other things. (And as of just THIS YEAR, the Supreme Court made a ruling that cleverly shoehorns sexual orientation and gender identity into the mix.) Some states add a few more protected grounds, like disability, or sexual orientation, or… political affiliation. Some smaller jurisdictions probably add even more grounds.

So in the US, the bare minimum is the civil rights era law that says you can’t refuse service based on race, sex, religion, etc.. You can count on that being true everywhere. But some states do go further. So you best check what your local laws are before assuming you know what is legal and what is not. Some states add political affiliation to the list of protected grounds, so you can’t refuse service to someone for wearing a MAGA hat. Some states protect political affiliation only obliquely: for example, you can refuse to serve someone for wearing a MAGA hat in your store, but if there’s no sign of their political affiliation in the store, and you only know they’re a Trumpet from outside knowledge, then you can’t refuse them service.

(And by the way, I keep saying “states”, but this applies to every kind of jurisdiction (things are so messy in the US!). Like I’m 90% sure that Washington DC is one of those places where you can’t refuse service for wearing a MAGA hat.)

Why do you think there would be a “free speech factor” to any of this? If it was okay to compel businesses to serve people regardless of their religion – and it sure looks like there’s no problem with that, because that civil rights law has been around since the 1960s – why wouldn’t it be okay to do so regardless of their political affiliation?

I can tell you that the thing that really gives me the proverbial headache is the question of how to couple freedom of speech and its limits with freedom of religion. I mean, on one hand, I really am incensed by all the homophobic crap the Catholic Church preaches over here. I'm pretty sure it counts as hate speech - and if we agree that hate speech should be prosecutable, then the CC's homophobic teachings should be prosecutable, too. On the other hand, freedom of religion is an important value, too - and many Christians honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin. So, should the state step in and force Christians to change their beliefs? That is problematic, too...

Honestly, I think most issues raised that involve freedom of religion are unnecessarily overblown, and in most cases religion is just used to obfuscate something that would be crystal clear if described using less emotionally-charged language, like “freedom of belief” or “freedom of conscience”. This is especially true in the US, where “religion” is usually used as a cover for simple bigotry that often doesn’t even have a religious basis. I think religion should be completely irrelevant, and completely ignored, and I understand that that sounds like a wildly controversial statement… but hear me out.

Take a Christian that sincerely believes that homosexuality is a sin, for example. In my mind, this situation is no different in any way from a nonreligious person who sincerely believes that (for example) people of colour are an “inferior subspecies”, and unworthy of equal respect as human beings. I see no reason why it matters that the former ugly belief is “religious” while the latter is based solely on secular stupidity. To my eye, both cases are essentially identical, and should be treated the same way.

In both cases, it is no business of the state that these people hold these beliefs, or that they may share them privately with friends, family, and fellow like-minded idiots. None of it is of any concern of the state’s until they either try to bring those beliefs into the public sphere, or they try to act on them in a way that infringes the rights of others. Because we’re talking about free speech here, I’ll ignore the latter, and focus on the idea of bringing one’s private beliefs into the public sphere: or in other words, advocating, promoting, or encouraging their beliefs.

The way I see it, the public sphere is our collective property – the property of all members of a society. So long as you stay within your private sphere, then you can do as you please. You can imagine it as an apartment complex where everyone has their own private apartment, but there are also common areas. What you do in your apartment is your business (unless and until it somehow escapes the confines of your apartment and begins affecting others, of course, but that’s not really relevant to a free speech metaphor). You want to poop on the floor in the middle of your apartment? Hey man, it’s your space. Knock yourself out. But you want to poop on the floor in the middle of the common area? Then you’ll find your freedom to colonically express yourself has limits.

So both our Christian homophobe and racist atheist are free to be as nasty as they please in their private spaces (which obviously includes their minds). If they invite you into their private space, and you willingly go, and then get blasted with a wave of bigotry and ignorance… well, that’s unfortunate, and I feel for you… but you did go into their private space. If they come into your private space and start regurgitating bigotry, then you are free to ask them to leave (and if they refuse, then it becomes an issue of them infringing on your rights, and the state can step in and remove them, and otherwise deal with them in a reasonable manner).

But if either of them goes into our shared, common space – the public sphere – and starts puking up hate… then it’s perfectly reasonable to say that our shared space has standards set by the community – standards intended to protect the community from harm, but not necessarily from discomfort – and if you violate those standards, the state (the manager of our shared spaces) can step in to correct the situation. The standards have be fairly minimal, fairly loose, and fairly broad, to account for the diversity of people who share the public sphere, and the fact that the public sphere is where we discuss the hard questions about what course our society should take, so we can’t simply ban anything that’s irreverent, upsetting, or uncomfortable. But stuff that could reasonably lead to harm – like advocating hatred – well, yeah, it’s perfectly reasonable to put limits on that.

You see, at no point anywhere in the discussion above do I need to care about whether an idea is religious or not. I don’t think that should matter. I’m not saying that religious beliefs don’t matter or that religion doesn’t matter. I’m saying that people have deeply held beliefs, and not all of them are religious. It doesn’t matter what someone’s justification for a belief is – whether that comes from a prophet, a holy text, a secular philosopher, or a gut feeling. If it’s deeply held, it’s deeply held; where it comes from or why it’s deeply held is irrelevant.

I’m not religious, but I respect the deeply-held convictions of religious people… in exactly the same way that I respect the deeply-held convictions of secular humanists, and so on. And the limits of that respect apply exactly the same in both cases.

I think the state should work the same way. In fact, I think the state doesn’t even need to know whether a given belief is religious or not. In fact, I think it’s wrong for a secular state to even ask! Once it’s been told that a belief is deeply held… that’s all it needs to know. Then it can weigh that against any other rights that are affected.

So the Christian homophobe and the racist atheist get exactly the same freedoms, privileges and protections for their beliefs, with exactly the same responsibilities and limits attached to those beliefs:

• the right to hold them
  
• the right to live by them, so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others
  
• the right to share them and discuss them privately; and
  
• the right to share them and discuss them publicly, so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
  

It’s only the last clause of the last item that becomes an issue, because advocating hatred does threaten the rights and well-being of others. So we consider the balance between the rights of the two parties – the freedom to express your beliefs for the homophobe/racist, and the freedom to, you know, not be murdered because of your sexual orientation or skin colour for the millions of LGBTQ+ people or people of colour – and, I mean, well, the balance seems pretty obvious to me.

And of course, the solution to the conflict isn’t to somehow strip the homophobe or racist of their beliefs, or to force them to change their beliefs, or even to censor/control what they can do privately. But I think it’s quite reasonable to demand that when they’re in shared spaces – when they’re in the public sphere – they need to restrict their behaviour so that it doesn’t harm others. The racist/homophobe will probably chafe at this restriction, and maybe even try to spin it as thought control, but that’s bullshit. Public spaces are shared spaces; grown-ups understand that means some restrictions in what we can do in those spaces. The racist/homophobe is still free to believe their crap, to express it privately, and even live by it so long as it doesn’t harm others. All freedom comes with responsibilities.

What do you think? Do think I’m way off base for saying the religiosity should be irrelevant? That deeply held beliefs should be considered in exactly the same way regardless of whether the basis of those beliefs is religious or not?

It's all very complicated. And it's complicated especially in the context of Polish law, which has both rules both against hate speech and blasphemy... which tend to be applied by the state prosecution in quite an asymmetric manner (especially under the current government). So, on one hand, you can prosecute some forms of hate speech (but not all of them - our current law doesn't mention homophobia as a form of hate speech, for example) - but, in practice, such cases are rarely pursued these days. On the other hand, you can get easily prosecuted for doing something supposedly offensive towards religious people - like drawing Virgin Mary with a rainbow halo. And, of course, atheists have zero protection under these laws, because they are not a coherent group that would fall under any hate speech laws - and they aren't a religion, so they cannot be offended as described by the blasphemy laws. Speaking as an atheist, this is very frustrating...

Ah, well, yes, blasphemy laws are complete bullshit. The state shouldn’t be in the business of protecting people’s feelings. Nor should it be in the business of censoring the universe in such a way that people can live in a happy fog where nothing unpleasant ever ruins their day. And doing so only for religious people is just plain discriminatory.

I actually bristle every time someone compares blasphemy laws with hate speech laws, because usually the person doing this is a right-winger trying to delegitimize hate speech laws by claiming that hate speech laws are just “blasphemy laws for social justice warrior snowflakes” or some such nonsense. As if social justice were a religion, and anything “politically incorrect” is blasphemy in that religion.

That’s all bullshit of course, but even if it were true that social justice or progressivism or whatever is a religion, and that saying “politically incorrect” stuff was blasphemy in that religion, the whole comparison is wrong. Because hate speech is not merely “politically incorrect”; it is dangerous. It is threatening. It is advocating freaking genocide (in Canadian law). Right-wingers love to dishonestly spin hate speech and “stuff that hurts your feelings”, but that is not how it is defined in any legal system that I’m aware of, nor is it even how anyone who advocates for hate speech laws define it.

I don’t see blasphemy laws and hate speech laws as being even in the same broad categories of law. The former is about giving groups the power to regulate the speech of others, which is just manifestly unjust. The latter is about protecting groups from violence by stopping it at the earliest possible stage: the advocacy, promotion, and incitement stages. This is not giving groups the power to decide what speech is acceptable; it’s not like black people get to decide what is and is not hate speech against them. I’m sure, for example, black people would love to make it illegal for others to use the n-word, and if hate speech law were some kind of “SJW blasphemy law”, then that would seem to be something they could do. But it isn’t.

Wait. Can you be refused service because of promoting pro-LGBT views, then? I thought it'd be a form of discrimination?

(Depends on the jurisdiction.)

While it is illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of their sex (and, by extension, sexuality), refusing to serve one as a customer is fully legal. As far as private businesses go, anyone can refuse service to anyone else for any reason.

No, that is flat-out wrong.

You cannot refuse service on the basis of sex anywhere in the US. That’s federal law. It’s been that way since the 1960s.

You also cannot refuse service on the basis of race, and a few other things. Decades later, new law prevented refusing service to people with disabilities. (And, as of THIS YEAR, that does include sexual orientation and gender identity. More on that in a moment.)

Obviously, as in all places that have these kinds of laws, there are exceptions for special cases, like women-only gyms. How these exceptions are justified varies from place to place (if I recall, the federal law includes a way to request an exemption). In any case, I’m not talking about special cases like that.

Also obviously, federal law only applies where federal jurisdiction applies. But states and other jurisdictions usually have their own variants of the law that apply to the kinds of businesses federal law doesn’t directly apply to.

In addition, some states and other jurisdictions add extra protected grounds to the federal list, including sexual orientation and political affiliation. In those jurisdictions, you cannot refuse service on the basis of someone being gay, bi, or genderqueer, or whatever.

Okay, but what about sexual orientation specifically? You probably remember the infamous case of the cake shop that refused to make a cake for a gay couple, and how that case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the bakery “won” the case. Couple things here:

• First of all, winning a case in court – yes, even at the Supreme Court – doesn’t necessarily mean what it sounds like. There are many ways to “win” a case without winning the case. What happened in the Masterpiecce Cakeshop case was that the state (either Connecticut or Colorado, I can’t remember exactly which) bungled the case. That was what the Supreme Court ruled. Let me spell it out clearly, because there’s a lot of confusion about the case:
  
  The Supreme Court did NOT rule that refusing to serve gay patrons was legal. In fact, they explicitly refused to rule on that. They JUST ruled that the state had fucked up its case when it charged the bakery, so the charges were dropped. That’s it. Nothing more. They did NOT rule that the charges were were unconstitutional to begin with.
  
  
• This case was a couple years ago. THIS YEAR the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” implies “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. (It’s a fantastically weird ruling. I can try to explain it if you really want, but even I’m flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics involved.)
  
  I don’t think anyone is completely clear on exactly what this means – such as whether it applies only to sex discrimination in employment, or whether it also applies to sex discrimination in the other stuff civil rights law applies to: like housing, financial services, health care, and… refusal of service.
  
  If it DOES apply to refusal of service – and, by my reading, it does – that means that it is now illegal to refuse service to someone for being gay or genderqueer everywhere in the US. I’m not 100% sure this is the case… but frankly, if I were a ’Murican, I would assume it is.

So it might be the case that it is now illegal to refuse service to LGBTQ+ people anywhere in the US. At the very least, businesses should think very carefully before hanging up the “no queers” sign.

In any case, the bottom line is, no: It is not true that business in the US can refuse service to anyone for any reason. It never has been true. There are a variety of federal, state, and local laws that limit refusal of service. As they say, your business may be private, but so long as it is open to the public, then it is not your private little fiefdom where your law is the only one that applies.

So again, if you’re inclined to refuse service – for whatever reason – you’d be wise to check federal, state, and local laws very carefully before doing so. Do not believe the myth that it’s your private property, so you can do as you please.

[Fox Lokison]

There's already been a ton of great answers, but I'd like to throw my hat into the ring from a historical perspective.

When we talk about freedom of speech, we really do tend to keep it in the context of modern times. Which is fine, that's where we live, but the roots of it are relevant to, imo. The idea of freedom of speech comes from times when there was none. You could not say or do anything your liege or leader did not approve of. There was no justice, no argument to defend yourself. If people thought you had said something true, and you were killed by a tyrannical leader, they could rise up and revolt, but we didn't have the complicated legal system we have now. While the idea of it dates back to Ancient Greece, the actual practice was not so old. Traditionally, it was the privilege of the powerful, and even they had limits on what they could say or do.

The idea that you can be just straight up killed for what you say, because your leader is basically a king installed by God who can do no wrong to you, the peasant, isn't one we tend to think in, in modern day. All of us know about and are familiar with free speech, how it works, how it's worked in recent history, and the benefits of it. As well as the drawbacks. But it was made for a time and a people where next to nothing was permitted. The counter-balance to a society like that, understandably, is to let the gates fly open and allow all manner of things. If the king didn't like them and banned them, and we don't like the king, surely then, anything the king dislikes, we like? I mean, I know I'm very much oversimplifying it, but my point here is; It was made for a time when there was no free speech, there was no precursor. There was only the idea that your leader, state, whatever, had a significant level of control over you, and if you didn't like it, sucked to be you. Go shank the king or something if you want to change it. No one cares about you.

If we're gonna revamp it, we need to consider the ground it was built upon, rather than just building up further in hopes the foundation holds.

What I'm trying to work out is what "freedom of speech" means in the context of a modern democratic society and human rights (it is a human right, am I correct)? What would be the correct way to implement it?

That's never going to be answered. The method of implementing it back in the day was just as negative and nasty for society as it is now. "Correct" is not the goal I'd strive for - though perhaps that's me being picky with semantics. However. Back in the day, the concerns were more "what will this do to the aristocracy, if the rabble can say whatever they please about us? They'll undermine our right to lord over them!" It was focused on the idea that citizens challenging their leaders and getting nasty little ideas about how society should be run was a bad thing. The "correct" way to implement it then was thus; Free speech was good, so long as it didn't threaten existing power structures. I still believe that's an issue nowadays, but what we also have to consider is that whole "your right to swing your arm ends when it hits my nose" business. Free speech has always been a threat to those in power. But what happens when free speech is a threat to those around you?

In a modern day and age, we need to - and often fail to - consider how fast communication is, how global society is, and how different circumstances are. My free speech doesn't just impact a small community anymore. It isn't confined in the way it used to be. I think we need to focus less on legislations - though those do need revamping - and more on individual responsibility. For example, I have the right to depict the Prophet, despite this being offensive to Muslims. But should I? A lot of free speech that causes such virulent tensions is literally spite masquerading as free speech. It's not thoughtful critique, it's not nuanced reasoning. "There was no Holocaust" isn't dangerous, edgy thinking that deserves to be heard - it's a pot-stirring statement meant to rile tempers and cause conflict. And that's where my issue arises. When I have the right to start a conflict I, and possibly no one, can stop, is that really a right that should be preserved?

I don't know. On one hand, I absolutely believe in free speech, even harmful speech. I believe someone has the right to say or do those things. I don't believe they should be free from consequences. Ever. No one should. But, at the same time, I recognize that my belief allows harm, and in many cases, great harm. All for a philosophical notion that a human being deserves this right. People died for this right. For hundreds and hundreds and even thousands of years, people died for this. People killed for this. People lived and breathed for this. That right was fought for, bled for, and hard earned. But does a majestic backstory make it right? Should it be preserved? We overturn things that grow old, that no longer help us, that do more harm than good to our societies, even when they used to be of great benefit. Is free speech one of those stepping stones?

Another thing to consider is, are the consequences for harmful speech enough? And who decides what IS harmful speech? I've said it before - I'm reluctant to hand over unlimited power to punish "bad" things to any government, because inevitably, someone will come to power who will use these measures for their own bad ends. I will never stand behind the right to spread white supremacist beliefs, yet at the same time, if the mechanism to stop them exists, what stops that mechanism from being used against marginalized people, whomever those may be? I think we put too much pressure on governments to sort out what should and shouldn't be said, and not enough on individuals to learn to speak responsibly. But I'm also really not sure how one would implement that, just that the onus gets put on a government way too much, rather than the collective responsibility of the people.

I guess my thoughts can be summed up as such. I can say whatever the fuck I want, and I know it. And I continue to choose, over and over again, to be civil, to act in good faith, and to try to focus on unity and the betterment of my society rather than just my individual, cultural, social, or racial gains. My 'tribe' is the whole world, or at least a significant chunk, and I try to recognize that. I prioritize being honest but not offensive, being questioning rather than assertive, and trying to understand rather than refusing to. I have a responsibility to use my rights ethically. I believe we should all be prioritizing our responsibility to our society as a whole, but I also know that's increasingly murky ground.

Wish I had some good answers 

[Regina Minx]

As far as private businesses go, anyone can refuse service to anyone else for any reason.

I seem to remember a slew of civil rights legislation in the 1960s that said the exact opposite. Not to derail the conversation away from freedom of speech, but discriminating against customers on the basis of protected class characteristics is illegally discriminatory in most circumstances. Political affiliation and 'whether or not you think and say that Donald Trump should burn in Hell' is not a protected class, however, so the original point stands. Just not the generalization of it.

[Saria]

Political affiliation and 'whether or not you think and say that Donald Trump should burn in Hell' is not a protected class, however, so the original point stands.

Careful! “Political affiliation” is a protected class in some places. California for example, and I think DC.

That’s why I keep repeating: check your local laws first!

I’m actually cool with refusing to serve people wearing MAGA hats. Heck, I’d extend it to refusing to serve anyone associated with the Republican Party, at least until they show some kind of sign that they’re repudiating Trump and the other bullshit that triggered the insurrection.

But, I wouldn’t dare actually try it myself until I made damn sure that it was legal in my jurisdiction.

[Regina Minx]

Careful! “Political affiliation” is a protected class in some places. California for example, and I think DC.

Can you provide a reference to this to California and DC code? I was unable to independently confirm this.

[Andol]

I’m actually cool with refusing to serve people wearing MAGA hats. Heck, I’d extend it to refusing to serve anyone associated with the Republican Party, at least until they show some kind of sign that they’re repudiating Trump and the other bullshit that triggered the insurrection.

So I assume your cool with it going the other way as well, aka refusing to serve anyone associated with the Democratic Party. Once you start laying down those kinds of idea to bite one side in the ass. It can always be turned around the other who used it in the first place.

[Fox Lokison]

So I assume your cool with it going the other way as well, aka refusing to serve anyone associated with the Democratic Party. Once you start laying down those kinds of idea to bite one side in the ass. It can always be turned around the other who used it in the first place.

As true as that is, refusing to provide service to resurrectionists or militias who do not service your country is baked into the core of American beliefs. American citizens were forced to host, feed, and provide for British soldiers, and that was considered an outrage, because the British were only there to keep a boot on American necks. If you attempt a coup to keep an unlawful, unwanted leader in power, instead of the leader the people chose, it's pretty American to deny service or assistance. Personal morals aside. That is one of the ways we fought British power. It's also a method of civil disobedience against those oppressing you.

[Aiden]

So I assume your cool with it going the other way as well, aka refusing to serve anyone associated with the Democratic Party. Once you start laying down those kinds of idea to bite one side in the ass. It can always be turned around the other who used it in the first place.

/sarcasm
I will get my guns and chew tobacco elsewhere then!


Liberals don't tend to wear a hat declaring their political ideologies on our heads. A little hard to pick them out.

[Andol]

/sarcasm
I will get my guns and chew tobacco elsewhere then!


Liberals don't tend to wear a hat declaring their political ideologies on our heads. A little hard to pick them out.

As true as that is, refusing to provide service to resurrectionists or militias who do not service your country is baked into the core of American beliefs. American citizens were forced to host, feed, and provide for British soldiers, and that was considered an outrage, because the British were only there to keep a boot on American necks. If you attempt a coup to keep an unlawful, unwanted leader in power, instead of the leader the people chose, it's pretty American to deny service or assistance. Personal morals aside. That is one of the ways we fought British power. It's also a method of civil disobedience against those oppressing you.

I will assume you both are joking on that matter...

[Fox Lokison]

I don't know why you'd assume I'm joking, but if there's some point you'd like to put out there, I'd be glad to hear it.

[Andol]

I don't know why you'd assume I'm joking, but if there's some point you'd like to put out there, I'd be glad to hear it.

Your comparing American's who were air their grievances against the state, by pointing their anger a instrument of said state (Yeah they probably could have done it different, but after seeing police stations burned down I am like meh... as long as the grievance was aired against the state.) to British soldiers housed in homes via the Quartering Act. That is a big big stretch.

Also you mention civil disobedience... and since you didn't say violent or non-violent I assume that doesn't matter. Let me play devils advocate and again say wasn't what you just said what those people were doing. Wither they where being oppressed or not... they felt like they where... they had a grievance against the state and felt like this was they had to do to show it. So they went to the source of that grievance and took action. Just like last summer when people felt grievances against the police(which is just the teeth of the state mind you) and decided a few police stations had to burn.   

[Fox Lokison]

Actually, I'm comparing denying services to those who harm your country, to denying housing and food to those who harm your country. I don't particularly care what they attacked. That was an attempted coup. They came armed, they had bombs, they had zipties, and were talking about and planning out ways to lynch politicians, in order to keep their candidate in office. We can frame it however we want. They came that day to keep Donald Trump in office by any means necessary. I'd be remiss to act as if this was just a protest.

They weren't there "airing grievances". Burning a police station is a violent act. Riots themselves are violent acts. There's no denial of that. Protests can also be violent acts. Neither are coup attempts. What seems to be missed in your reply is the professed intent. The actions taken. There is a world of difference between burning down a police station or staging a riot, and attempting to lynch, blow up, or otherwise kill elected officials upholding the law, and, more importantly - keeping your leader from maintaining his power.

One is the people at the bottom attempting to get the attention of the people at the top. The other is the people with the power trying to maintain their power by any means necessary. So yes, I do stand by that comparison, and no, I am not joking. Attempting to assassinate government officials isn't anywhere near the same caliber as many of the riots and protests breaking out across America. Trumpers have held plenty of protests and even had riots. This is not one of them.

[Blythe]

Let me play devils advocate and again say wasn't what you just said what those people were doing. Wither they where being oppressed or not... they felt like they where... they had a grievance against the state and felt like this was they had to do to show it.

The attempted coup at the Capitol does not need Devil's Advocates.

It's incredibly inappropriate to play Devil's Advocate in that way. Let's not, please.

I really should not have to explain why to anyone reading along with this thread.

[Andol]

Actually, I'm comparing denying services to those who harm your country, to denying housing and food to those who harm your country.

Ah... well that is fair. As long as we are only talking about denying stuff to those who where actually at the capital riots, because if you starting taking it further than that... man that is one slippery slope.

Also I have been curious on why it has been called a 'coup' and not just a very messed up riot. I mean yeah it was obvious by the stuff they had with them they wanted to cause a lot of damage, and kidnap some people, but have their been any statements by them on that matter beforehand or afterward. Because for a coup/terrorist attack they only shot themselves in the foot goal wise. I really and not trying to be stupid, I just want to understand the difference with this certain case because usually with terrorist/coups their is always a statement of intent.   

[Fox Lokison]

For the very same reason we call any attempted coup, an attempted coup. They attempted a coup. We give way too many passes to white terrorists already. We call their attacks lone wolf attacks, we say they were mentally unwell, we deny political or religious motivations, and this environment has encouraged a mentality from all of us, that what white people do in this country is not as bad as anyone else. And while this was not a "white lives" thing, we can't ignore the fact that yet again, we are giving a free pass to a group of people who committed a heinous, politically motivated act - in this case, a coup attempt - because of the color of their skin, the political or religious motives they had, and their status in our society.

Right wing terrorism in America gets called "mental illness". Right wing violence in America gets called patriotism. Right wing coup attempts in America get called protests. There were bombs. They were there to kill people. We don't call Hitler's failed coup a protest, we call it a failed coup. Because it was. And in our current time and place, we need to pay EXTRA care to not giving yet another pass to a movement because it's white, right wing, or aligns with the majority/dominant beliefs in this country. Because then, we're just enabling it.

They tried to murder senior government officials to keep Donald Trump in office. If a black person did that, ever BLM protest would be treated to live fire from here on out, and every black person would be suspect of criminality. If it was a Muslim, same for them. If it was any group in this country that has been the whipping child of the nation, it wouldn't matter how many "the election was stolen, we were exercising our rights" arguments were made. We can't just skate past that fact and continue giving passes to the majority because we've been taught they're allowed to commit acts like this.

[Andol]

I have to admit that I will relent to you on that, if only because I remember now some things the rioters where saying actually would confirm their attempt to commit a coup. Plus their politically motivated act had a counter effect, of making those Republican senators not go through with a constitutional legal process, of bringing up stuff about the election.

I would hope that we are not giving a pass for any of the reasons you say, didn't really see any to do so.