We must have the freedom to hate and be able to say NO to conformism

Hatred isn’t big or clever, but it should never be a crime.

I keep referring back to this editorial from Spiked (February 2016) by Brendan O'Neill, mainly to remind myself that freedom of speech/expression should always underpin a free democratic society. The editorial is directed towards the current trend of 'no platforming' by university campus student unions. I believe it to have a much wider relevance in this new age of conformism and what Mick Hulme (Editor-at-Large, Spiked) describes as "the internal menace of self-censorship, the widespread fear of giving offence among many who are no longer sure what opinions they are permitted to express, or even which words it is considered all right to use."

Brendan believes there is a deliberate rebranding of various ways of thinking, which are often based on moral conviction, as ‘hatred' These ways of thinking are then shamed or silenced into oblivion by concerted effort.

To lump together unpopular moralities as ‘hatred’ is to create a new category of heresy. Indeed, in modern parlance, the phrase ‘hate speech’ plays the same role ‘heretical’ once did: it denotes views that officialdom or self-styled representatives of fragile minorities have decreed to be wicked, and inexpressible. In our post-moral times, where it’s risky to say that any viewpoint is better than another, the self-elected guardians of public safety cannot write people off as evil. So instead they accuse them of practising ‘hate speech’ and throw the legal book at them. It’s a sly form of censorship, elevating the subjective feelings of the listener, their sense of being under-valued, over the objective right of the speaker to express his beliefs.

According to Brendan, censorship is ineffective in both confronting and dealing with hideous views to the point of being dismissive. He identifies an ominous double effect from this authoritarian approach.

1. It pushes hateful ideology underground where is festers and grows, unchallenged and unexposed.

2. It deprives us of the opportunity, the ability and the right to see, know and dent hateful ideology.

Brendan believes that censorship not only strengthens the haters, by convincing them that their hate is both justified and strong given societies' reaction, but also weakens the right-thinking, exonerating them of the human duty to stand up to what they think is wrong.

The policing of hate speech is bad for everyone. For those whose views are simply controversial, who find themselves redefined as ‘hate groups’; for those who want to challenge real hateful ideologies, who can never meaningfully confront them; for the minorities supposedly being protected, who are reduced to moral minors to be quarantined in a safe space for their own good, their fragile souls guarded by switched-on student leaders or officials. The bottom line is this: we must be free to hate. Hatred is an emotion, and when a society controls emotions, it’s not a free society. Rather, it’s a society in which authoritarianism has become so entrenched that moral guardians even think they can tell us what we may feel. The war on hate speech is the end not only of freedom of speech, but of the basic freedom of the mind.

I do believe conformism to be the biggest threat to freedom of speech/expression in current times. I have seen it stated that revolutions in pursuit liberty often end up as tyrannies. I am not sure if this is true but can see the potential for conformism to follow this illiberal path. Censoring hateful speech is another nail in the coffin of liberty and also a step towards thought crime. I will leave the last part of my OP to Mick Hulme, with a link to his editorial on current threats to freedom of speech.

Spinoza, the great Dutchman of the Enlightenment, who almost 350 years ago set a standard for a modern, civilised society that we are still struggling to meet in the 21st century.

Spinoza wrote that ‘In a free state, every man [to which we can add every woman or person of indeterminate gender] may think what he likes and say what he thinks’. If he were somehow to return today, he would surely be met by an online mob tweeting, ‘Think what you like and say what you think? WTF? You Can’t Say That!’

We must have the freedom to hate

A hand grenade to help fight the free‑speech wars

Nice piece.

I've always liked the following quotes from smarter people than I...

" The first amendment protects hate speech so that we can single out the kooks."

" Imagine the power to censor in the hands of your worst enemy "

"Let people say whatever they want, my right to an opinion ends at the tip of my fist and the end of your nose"

Hate speech is know a synonym to anything that hurts my feeling, or you political views are different then mine.

Yesterday, An LA face with an Oakland booty, was hate speech and racist.

A NBA player, from New Zealand, called his opposition, " "quick little monkeys" , that was racist and intolerant. Even though in New Zealand, that's a common term. In another example of tolerance is only a term used to mean, you need to think like me.

No we don't.

We started wars, which was supported by the majority and Government obliged the people.

As a consequence we had a group of terrorists supported by our Governments, attacking everyday folk like you and me.

We started to scream out, but in the end our freedoms were eroded in order to fight the terrorists, who are angry about an invasion of a sovereign state, a Muslim sovereign state at that.

However, criticism of such a policy is not acceptable, you are deemed a terrorist sympathiser.

Joke political policies, Joke security department, Joke foreign policy, Etc, Etc.......

a reply to: Morrad

We're not a democracy (thank "God"), we're a Republic.

And under a Republic (a nation of whats supposed to be legitimate laws), freedom of speech is a right protected by the Constitution.

The primary intent of the free speech aspect of the First Amendment was supposed to help guarantee a person's right to freely condemn and criticize the government without fear of retribution. Unfortunately our government over the years routinely persecutes its critics and whistle-blowers.

While we have the right to "yell fire" in a crowded movie theater (when there is no fire), we will be held accountable for our actions.

Freedom does work both ways but there is some speech which has consequences, especially when that speech is a call or implication for violence.

a reply to: Morrad

I think that often we confuse disagreement with hate. This is the new norm for many that as soon as you speak out about something that concerns you it is instantly bigoted and hate speech.

The immigration issue comes to mind as does the trans agenda. Both these things are examples where honest disagreement with how these things should be approached have devolved into screeching and hyperbole.

I am very opinionated, but I don't waste my time 'hating' anyone. I don't 'hate' people, but I might dislike what they are doing and the choices they are making.

Gay people and transgendered people are saying "No!" to conformity but people don't like that. They want to make laws where people are treated unfairly just for being themselves.

originally posted by: arpgme
Gay people and transgendered people are saying "No!" to conformity but people don't like that. They want to make laws where people are treated unfairly just for being themselves.

Gay and transgendered people are saying "No" to conformity by insisting that everyone else conform to them. They can't just be themselves regardless of the rest of us.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I am in the UK. Apologies for not making that clear. I understand that rights and freedoms are protected in a republic by a constitution which the government cannot change. Maybe democratic was the wrong word to use. I did consider using egalitarian (political doctrine rather than social philosophy). Perhaps a free, civilised society was enough.

a reply to: arpgme

I was referring to conformism in a moral-political sense ie a passive acceptance of prevailing opinions.

a reply to: Morrad

Yes he is right. If you watch tv if anyone speaks out they are shut down so quickly by the interviewer its a disgrace.

The first time I noticed it clearly was when an elderly German was being interviewed and he said that the problem i Germany was that the Jews were taking over his country and they had to be stopped from turning people into slaves.
The young interviewer nearly suffered a fit and had to visibly stop himself from trying to get at the man, It was then that I realised I had only ever heard one side of the facts here and that our history education was purely from earlier periods incase obviously we asked too many questions.

Since that one interview, which I watched purely by chance when in my 20's I have seen this time and again on so many different subjects but always ones with a clear agenda of control and to shut people up. You also have the shrill plants there who acts inclusion with the for or against guest and attacks the 'opposing guest and the two look sanctimoniously smug. Its why I don't give any credibility to our tv any more. Even films try to regurgitate the past or give a message to you that's current propaganda, but with your blocking mechanism in place you can get past that one.

originally posted by: Morrad
We must have the freedom to hate

Actually, no one can take your 'freedom' to be hateful!
Love and hate are not 'privileges', it is who and what you are!
Where the question lies, is how far you should be allowed (by law; laws are for those with no ethics; hateful people, for example), in common society, to express/manifest your toxic hatred, to unleash your Hell upon others!

a reply to: Shiloh7

The fact is that Jews were butchered by the Nazis. What possesses you to want to hear the "other side of the story" when it is a fact that the other side engaged in genocide?

People excuse anything nowadays

a reply to: Shiloh7

The Germans invaded Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia right? The Nazis banned democracy in Germany from the early 30s so they could enact whatever policy they wanted minus accountability. They really were bad guys, right?

The Nazis weren't 'victims' and the histories haven't been written by the USA. The histories have been written by all the nations that were involved...including modern Germany. Yes, Germans number 80 million and several million of those will either remember the war or have relatives who told them what happened.

It's popular amongst some to frame the Nazis as victims of an overbearing West and give them a free-pass. I mean, what the hell could the Nazis say that they didn't already say at the Nuremberg Trials? "Sure we invaded a few countries, suppressed millions and operated a terror-based security force with carte-blanche for torture and mass-killings," says the Gestapo veteran, "but the way people go on, you'd think we were monsters."

Hate often comes from fear, ignorance and/or stupidity.

I`m the first person to be anti-conformist but there`s still a line between liberty of speech and hate speech. I don't believe that hate speech should be illegal but it rarely attracts anything good. The sentence of the hater is drawn as soon as he steps over the line, over the freedom of others.

Responsibility is another important value to society, we should not forget that we are responsible for what we say.
Too many attest their right to free speech as a way to evade the responsibility that comes with saying whatever they want.

a reply to: theMediator

I agree. Freedom of speech carries with it both responsibilities and often consequences.

As gladtobehere posted:

Freedom does work both ways but there is some speech which has consequences, especially when that speech is a call or implication for violence.

I also agree with Metallicus that disagreement is often perceived as hate, as is ignorance.

a reply to: Morrad

The only issue I have with this analysis is that it seems to assume that speech labeled as "hate speech" is actually hateful. That isn't the case, much of the time. Overall, valid points. We cannot have a free society if people are not allowed to think for themselves, to like r dislike what they want, and to talk about all of that.

Far too often, those who would condemn censorship of some things are all too willing to promote it, when it comes to groups/people they don't like.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The only issue I have with this analysis is that it seems to assume that speech labeled as "hate speech" is actually hateful.

In his editorial, Brendan referred to one man's 'hate speech' being another man's deeply felt belief. Is this what you refer to or does it relate to the fear and ignorance mentioned by theMediator?

originally posted by: Morrad
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The only issue I have with this analysis is that it seems to assume that speech labeled as "hate speech" is actually hateful.

In his editorial, Brendan referred to one man's 'hate speech' being another man's deeply felt belief. Is this what you refer to or does it relate to the fear and ignorance mentioned by theMediator?

I am not sure, but one part of the information was speaking of such restrictions making the "hate" go underground, and thus causing it to be harder to combat. I might have read too much into that. These days, a lot of people use "hate" as a label for anyone that disagrees with them, which is a real problem. The goal, in that case, is to make the one disagreeing look very bad, and to discredit their position. Logical debate and discussion then goes right out the window. In some cases, such a label can even cause someone to actually begin to hate, as a result of the attacks from those applying the label.

there is a deliberate rebranding of various ways of thinking, which are often based on moral conviction, as ‘hatred'

I hate to break it to you, but many of them are hate, especially the ones coming from religious people. In fact, the people who say they have morals are usually worse human beings than people who don't blab about morals all the time.