The Liberalists

[Ban-jani]

I can't support hate speech laws as they're inherently political.

They're laws built on top of laws. Any act of hate speech worth noting is already breaking a different law. The problem with hate speech law is that it lacks strong and clear evidential guidelines from the CPS as it is badly written. Therefore there is no consistency and it is used in ridiculous cases such as these.

That's the logistical issue. Over the years my position on free speech has hardened to where I now am at the point of believing that unless somebody is LITERALLY endangering someone, not just "stirring up hate" then we need to let them speak.

We've become a society where people believe outrage is a viable strategy for debate and influence. We have to turn this around and only hearing more speech can do this.

This is my position.

It shouldn’t be for the state to tell us what we can or can not say unless we’re plotting or suggesting violence or other criminal activity such as theft, kidnapping or criminal damage etc.

We have to draw a line somewhere as the muddier the water gets, the worse freedom of speech will become and the more it will become a weapon to shutdown those people disagree with.

 

[Damocles]

Get all of my votes. Every one of them. Pick them up, roll them in a ball and hand them to this woman like Excalibur pulled from the stone.

There are some sane people still on the left. I'm so relieved.



She also has a spectacular TED talk out there and produced a very good documentary on the far right.

 

[Neville Kneville]

No doubt mate and I’ve been guilty of it but the last few months have seen a real change in the way the site is moderated and you really do have to be a twat to get binned off these days.

I'm not having a go at you lot, I'm just making the point that people use 'freedom of speech' applying rules from their own perspective, where they assume they are right but often aren't.

Neither the left nor the right want freedom of speech, they just want their own freedom of speech for themelves.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not having a go at you lot, I'm just making the point that people use 'freedom of speech' applying rules from their own perspective, where they assume they are right but often aren't.

Neither the left nor the right want freedom of speech, they just want their own freedom of speech for themelves.

No that's wrong. There's a difference between wanting Government mandated freedom of expression and speech and wanting no rules on a privately owned forum.

As I said earlier, moderators enforce policy decisions and not make them exclusively. It's not up to us to decide arbitrarily that we're not going to enforce something in the rules because we don't like it, that's what the Mod Forum is for.

I also wouldn't be caught dead using hate speech but I don't believe it should exist as a law. There's no hypocrisy there.

 

[Henkeman]

I'm not having a go at you lot, I'm just making the point that people use 'freedom of speech' applying rules from their own perspective, where they assume they are right but often aren't.

Neither the left nor the right want freedom of speech, they just want their own freedom of speech for themelves.

The test for whether someone believes in freedom of speech is and always has been defending the right of people to say things that you hate. The proof that others don't like freedom of speech is if they assume it means you agree with the speaker.

 

[Neville Kneville]

No that's wrong. There's a difference between wanting Government mandated freedom of expression and speech and wanting no rules on a privately owned forum.

As I said earlier, moderators enforce policy decisions and not make them exclusively. It's not up to us to decide arbitrarily that we're not going to enforce something in the rules because we don't like it, that's what the Mod Forum is for.

I also wouldn't be caught dead using hate speech but I don't believe it should exist as a law. There's no hypocrisy there.

And you assume you are being neutral when doing it, but often are swayed by other things.

Which is exactly what happens outside the forum.

 

[Neville Kneville]

The test for whether someone believes in freedom of speech is and always has been defending the right of people to say things that you hate. The proof that others don't like freedom of speech is if they assume it means you agree with the speaker.

Absolutely.

But I think people on the whole prefer freedom of speech to be controlled, so it is.

 

[BobKowalski]

And you assume you are being neutral when doing it, but often are swayed by other things.

Which is exactly what happens outside the forum.

Agreed. I think a democracy such as ours has to manage the right of discourse between us. We have hate laws to try and limit the damage untrammelled discourse can do especially if it’s discourse based on lies. I’m an atheist and am antagonistic toward religion as a whole. But it doesn’t require me to spread hate about that religion or a culture or individuals that practise a faith. I can criticise it without being a dick about it. Be polite, don’t be a dick and you won’t have a problem. Although this last bit may explain why I have so many problems on here :)

 

[Henkeman]

Agreed. I think a democracy such as ours has to manage the right of discourse between us. We have hate laws to try and limit the damage untrammelled discourse can do especially if it’s discourse based on lies. I’m an atheist and am antagonistic toward religion as a whole. But it doesn’t require me to spread hate about that religion or a culture or individuals that practise a faith. I can criticise it without being a dick about it. Be polite, don’t be a dick and you won’t have a problem. Although this last bit may explain why I have so many problems on here :)

Yes, but there's a difference between you not shouting about how much you dislike a religion because you see no reason to antagonise people, and criminalising those who do. And there is the problem - you say you can criticise it without being a dick about it, but if you do so and someone objects and claims that you are spreading hate, then it's using the law to shut down that kind of discussion, and definitely limiting free speech. What happened to Graham Linehan recently when he got a police warning for arguing with a transgender person is a perfect example of that. While it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who specifically used this kind of thing to shut down those he disagreed with, his troubles are exactly the kind of misgivings that many have about hate speech laws in the first place. Passionate debate isn't hate.

 

[BobKowalski]

Yes, but there's a difference between you not shouting about how much you dislike a religion because you see no reason to antagonise people, and criminalising those who do. And there is the problem - you say you can criticise it without being a dick about it, but if you do so and someone objects and claims that you are spreading hate, then it's using the law to shut down that kind of discussion, and definitely limiting free speech. What happened to Graham Linehan recently when he got a police warning for arguing with a transgender person is a perfect example of that. While it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who specifically used this kind of thing to shut down those he disagreed with, his troubles are exactly the kind of misgivings that many have about hate speech laws in the first place. Passionate debate isn't hate.

Passionate debate is fine. Very heated debate is fine. We see plenty of that on here. But we also have rules on here that seek to manage that discourse in the same way a democracy has to manage its discourse. If we had no rules on here the chances are debate would spiral out of control and the forum wouldn’t function. Democracy is the same. It needs rules that allow differences to be aired but not become destructive. It’s like language between nations. It’s coded in diplomatic speak so that it doesn’t spiral out of control. It has its own language that tries to prevent unfortunate occurrences like the outbreak of war.

And yes the rules can be applied imperfectly or over zealously which is why you need to debate the parameters or have them tested and refined in a court of law. We may not agree on the exact parameters or how they are always applied but we still need the parameters and we need to try and keep the balance where freedom of speech is encouraged but not stifled by the State or by people shouting louder than everyone else and drowning dissenting voices or by promoting a freedom of speech which is nothing more than the right to speak hate freely and deny a right to reply.

PS: I have no knowledge of the Linehan case so I can’t comment either way.