In Defense of Hate Speech

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

Or maybe we disagree.

I think you want people who say go kill that M-fer to be held responsible for a murder.

There are laws on the books for that and jury trials.

It is a messy messy ugly business this Freedom. But to clamp down on it would quickly effect freedom of Religion-Freedom of assembly-freedom of.......

Actually, not that I am agreeing with you, but within the law, if a Mafia boss orders a killing, does the law not hold him/her responsible?

Excellent thread. Most of your material is drawn from the experiences of German Jews during the 20th century. It's not surprising that Jews had much to do with the first laws forbidding religious insult as they were most often the targets of it.

After WW1 German government was transformed into the Weimar Republic, named for the city where the new Constitution had been drawn up. The principal draft author was Hugo Pruess:

He was the author of the draft version of the constitution that was passed by the Weimar National Assembly and came into force in August 1919.

Hugo Preuß was born in Berlin on 28 October 1860 as the only child of Levin Preuß (1820 or 1821-62), a Jewish owner of a lithographic business, and his wife Minna

On 13 February 1919, Preuß became Reichsinnenminister (Interior Minister) in the first elected government of the republic

Hugo Preuss en.wikipedia.org...

The first President of the Weimar Republic Friedrich Ebert was not Jewish but very much a socialist skilled at working with disparate interests:

German politician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the first President of Germany from 1919 until his death in office in 1925. Although Ebert studied the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, he was less interested in ideology than in practical and organisational issues that would improve the lot of the workers then and there.

Friedrich Ebert - en.wikipedia.org...

The loss of WW1 mystified many German soldiers. Germany had not lost one acre of territory. No Allies had set foot in Germany. Many theories sprang up for why they had surrendered including a conspiracy by Communists and Jews. This resulted in a great deal of antisemitism in the aftermath of WW1.

This explains much in why such hate speech laws would be included in the new Constitution as a protection for Jews who were being attacked in the difficult times suffered by Germany due to the Treaty of Versailles destroying their economy and their monetary system in the 1920's, in part due to overly generous social welfare programs promised by the Social Democrats.

The Treaty itself was signed for Germany by another Social Democrat party member Gustav Bauer - Bauer being an Ashkenazi Jewish surname and Bauer himself was born in Ozyorsk, Russia. He was a trade unionist leader and part of the reason for Germany's surrender was due to workers strikes disabling wartime production.

1929 brought on the Great Depression which was felt even more harshly in Germany than it was in the United States. It was the double whammy of the Treaty followed by the Depression that allowed Hitler to rise to power. The very laws meant to protect Jews became the tree of martyrdom for Hitler and other Nazis who were jailed over the content of their speeches and writings.

Noam Chomsky had something interesting to say about Holocaust Denial laws:

"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.

en.wikipedia.org...
Noam Chomsky

In the end open debate is the best defense against extremism. Driven to the dark corners to fester, extremist ideologies become deadly fantasies which are often unleashed when that person finally snaps. Not only is public deaf to the hate of these individuals they also deprive those very extremists of the chance of finding resolution and acceptance back in to society. We create outcasts who then attack the society that silenced them.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

Or maybe we disagree.

I think you want people who say go kill that M-fer to be held responsible for a murder.

There are laws on the books for that and jury trials.

It is a messy messy ugly business this Freedom. But to clamp down on it would quickly effect freedom of Religion-Freedom of assembly-freedom of.......

Actually, not that I am agreeing with you, but within the law, if a Mafia boss orders a killing, does the law not hold him/her responsible?

Not really.
They usually get them under the RICO act.

a reply to: InTheLight

RICO

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

to defeat our enemies, we must respect them.

if you wish to end hate, then leave it alone.

how very zen of you.

Not quite. As I mentioned, we destroy speech with more speech.

Not so easy to do when the person inciting violence with the impressionable won't meet you with them in the market place of ideas...

I'm not a pacifist. But I would never become a censor.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Destroy is the metaphor. We do both the speaker, the truth, and posterity an injustice by censoring others.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you should be able to tell people to do violence and it still be considered free speech?!?

Speech is speech. You should be able to say what you want. The problem is not necessarily the speaker, but those who do his bidding.

The supreme court has ruled on this.
Are you really saying inciting others to violence or shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theater is ok?
Charles Manson should be a free man?

Silence can be as loud as thunder, but then the question always pops up, to act or not to act.

originally posted by: Wildbob77
Controversial groups like Nazis or KKK should have the right to free speech.

However others may choose to counter the statements with their opinions.

I think that if the KKK or Nazis want to march and speak, they have that right. I also think if no one showed up to listen that would be a very powerful statement

I agree. An equally effective protest would be for everyone to turn their backs to them the entire time.
Wouldn't even have to drop your pants to get the message across though the prospect of a mass mooning would be hilarious.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you should be able to tell people to do violence and it still be considered free speech?!?

Speech is speech. You should be able to say what you want. The problem is not necessarily the speaker, but those who do his bidding.

The supreme court has ruled on this.
Are you really saying inciting others to violence or shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theater is ok?
Charles Manson should be a free man?

I'm talking about freedom of speech specifically, not the first amendment.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Everyone should have the right to think and say whatever they want. This leads to sharing of information and bringing to attention issues someone else may not know about. Discussing debating and arguing leads to further expansion and possibly consensus or negotiation.

If you speak lies or truth it can be identified or corroborated and dealt with accordingly by courts if necessary.

If you dont like words dont read or listen. If you like them say so and pay attention.

Its when someone decides to ACT on words deal with the actors appropriately. Of course if someone says "you there in the red shirt go do X" and they do then the relevant parties all get treated the same way for good or bad.

Words and thoughts dont need to lead to action. They can also be used to influence others words and thoughts. Words dont automatically lead to actions or "go @#$@ yourself" would lead to lots of masturbation...

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you should be able to tell people to do violence and it still be considered free speech?!?

Speech is speech. You should be able to say what you want. The problem is not necessarily the speaker, but those who do his bidding.

The supreme court has ruled on this.
Are you really saying inciting others to violence or shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theater is ok?
Charles Manson should be a free man?

Hitler comes to mind when we think of others who do the speaker's bidding; inciting hate and violence through ideas then words.

One of my favorite quotes:
"Although I do not agree with what you say sir, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire,
French Author

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you should be able to tell people to do violence and it still be considered free speech?!?

Speech is speech. You should be able to say what you want. The problem is not necessarily the speaker, but those who do his bidding.

The supreme court has ruled on this.
Are you really saying inciting others to violence or shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theater is ok?
Charles Manson should be a free man?

I'm talking about freedom of speech specifically, not the first amendment.

Nor are we talking about Hate Speech as your title implies but "hateful speech". I think trying to eliminate negative emotions from public discourse is a ludicrous idea, indeed a dangerous one. However you fail to even address the examples I gave of speech that endangers others, from which I can only intimate that you reject the idea that any speech can go too far and should stopped and/or punished.

If that is your ideal of free speech I will have to disagree strongly with you.
There is no true freedom without a reciprocal responsibility to the society that allows it.
Philosophical purity is about as solid as ocean foam when it hits the rocks of reality.

originally posted by: Brian4real
One of my favorite quotes:
"Although I do not agree with what you say sir, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire,
French Author

Voltaire seemed to denigrate rather than offer constructive criticism which may have opened up debate.

2. He was imprisoned in the Bastille for nearly a year. Voltaire’s caustic wit first got him into trouble with the authorities in May 1716, when he was briefly exiled from Paris for composing poems mocking the French regent’s family. The young writer was unable to bite his tongue, however, and only a year later he was arrested and confined to the Bastille for writing scandalous verse implying the regent had an incestuous relationship with his daughter.

5. Many of his most famous works were banned. Since his writing denigrated everything from organized religion to the justice system, Voltaire ran up against frequent censorship from the French government.

8. He never married or fathered children. While Voltaire technically died a bachelor, his personal life was a revolving door of mistresses, paramours and long-term lovers.

www.history.com...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Nor are we talking about Hate Speech as your title implies but "hateful speech". I think trying to eliminate negative emotions from public discourse is a ludicrous idea, indeed a dangerous one. However you fail to even address the examples I gave of speech that endangers others, from which I can only intimate that you reject the idea that any speech can go too far and should stopped and/or punished.

If that is your ideal of free speech I will have to disagree strongly with you.
There is no true freedom without a reciprocal responsibility to the society that allows it.
Philosophical purity is about as solid as ocean foam when it hits the rocks of reality.

I was talking about hate speech as it pertains to censorship, actually. There are numerous laws against them now in the books of many countries, and I used the Weimar laws as an example of when hate speech legislation did not help at all, but may have even contributed to the worst of human atrocities.

As for "speech that endangers others", no there is no such thing. No one has ever in the history of mankind been hurt by speech.

You mentioned "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" to sell the idea of the Supreme court ruling that speech can be dangerous, but failed to mention that that was an analogy used in a case that was overturned over 40 years ago. The law for incitement in the US is actually centered on the phrase "immanent lawless action". People can say any speech advocating violence so long as it isn't likely to produce such action. That is because speech doesn't always and necessarily lead to such action.

originally posted by: Brian4real
One of my favorite quotes:
"Although I do not agree with what you say sir, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire,
French Author

And I will defend to the death your right to misattribute that quote to Voltaire.

a reply to: ScepticScot

And I will defend to the death your right to misattribute that quote to Voltaire.

To be fair, that quote was used as an attempt to distill Voltaire's thoughts.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for the clarification. Given my first post essentially added historical background to your OP I thought it would be apparent I knew what you were referencing.

I do take issue with the phrase "hate speech" itself, as it is essentially undefinable, a gross over-generalization and thus worthless as a descriptor. Not that you are wrong to use it in your title as people understand the context you apply it in.

You are a very gifted writer who offers challenging subjects desperately in need of discussion. For that I am grateful to you. Too many topics remain buried as people are afraid to offend others, resulting in a cycle of self-censorship. Not only is this firmly against Western philosophical tradition, it is also an abandonment of one our most sacred values. It is this turning away from tradition that leaves the door open for ideologies that would subvert and destroy our culture and way of life.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I also take issue with the canard "hate speech" for the exact reasons you stated. It's indefinable. It is also, in a way, a form of blasphemy law. But worse it restricts the individual's rights to say and hear what he wants to.