Freedom of Speech; the paradigm (1)
- why everyone is for it, *exept* if... [fill in a reason] -
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that prohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.
Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones' own views, or else you have *no* freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of free speech; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid some speech they don't agree with and which may offend some ethnic or other group.
- Newsbyte
Exactly this topic was the focuspoint of a debate I had on slashdot, which begins like this:
"Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries."
Consistency should not be a goal on its own, or you get totalitarian situations. And I don't know whether it's more fair.
As they say: your rights end where someone else's rights begin. IMHO, inciting people to ignore this rule as far as certain groups of people are concerned can be seen as a first step to abandon that rule (at least in practice; in theory, that rule may still hold, but what use is it if it's largely ignored?), just like others argue that banning this kind of speech is (a first step towards)/(the same as) banning all free speech.
It's all a matter of trade-offs, and which trade-off you are more likely to accept depends a lot on history I think. I know I much prefer the European to the US system, but maybe unconsciously that is because my grandfather was captured as soldier and put on a train to a concentration camp? (although he managed to escape from the train, fortunately, or I wouldn't be here)
- Halo1
We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.Inconsistent laws lead to hypocritical laws (where, for instance, a law aplies to a white man differently then for a black man), and hypocritical laws inherently breed unfairness.Totalitarian states do not depend on the consistency of the laws, rather on the nature of those laws.
If laws induce and promote more freedom, even when being consistent, it is doubtfull it will lead to a totalitarian state where inconsistent laws wouldn't.I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.
"We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent."
Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law. Why? Because there are also fundamental differences with other mammals. The same thing can be argued about hate speech and other speech.
"I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws."
I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history. No single human can be purely objective.
"Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law."
I think you are confusing 'consistency' with 'generalisation' a bit.
"I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history."
That can be, but I wasn't argumenting it out of that reason (fear). In fact, it would fail to explain why, embedded in the history of europe, I would agree with them, especially as I'm rather anti-USA (even if I say so myself ;-). I doubt if it wasn't for the fact that I can see it truelly *is* more of a rational argumentation, I would ever have supported their view.
But, despite my dislikings and their fear as possible (sub)reason, I think they are right, on this particular issue, for the reasons I mentionned in above posts.Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden.
I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?
Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all.
It's not even meant to exclude those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.
The (in)consistency does not lay in the premisse one takes on that, however, but rather in reversing (and implementing) the exact same reasoning, but then to oneself. If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then? In both cases it would be 'hate speech' (as defined by law)...thus where would that leave you, with your above reasoning? Unless you accept that, in that case, they are fully entitled to forbid anti-racism speech too, you would be higly hypocritical.
"Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden."
"Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
"I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them."
As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.
"So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?"
Because hate speech is something entirely different.
"Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant to exclude those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech."
It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with opinions, it's much more fundamental then that.
"If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?"
If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you. They'll brand you a terrorist, dangerous to the public/state, whatever. It's very naive to think that absolute free speech will somehow protect you from that, just like thinking that the right bear arms can protect you from the government.
And I hope you will not try to take this argument to absurdum and claim that you can use this argument to justify all kinds of limitations to public freedom, because that's not true and not what I mean. I simply mean that you cannot use this argument to justify allowing hate speech, because it's bogus. On the one hand it won't help you one bit against an extremist government, and on the other hand you get hate speech on top of it.
And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need. If you think the need for absolute free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than the fact that hate speech can be free spread, then you keep hate speech legal. Otherwise you don't. In Europe (most?) governments chose for the latter option, in the US they chose the former.
""Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre."
LOL...I KNEW you were going to come up with that ;-) I almost was going to write about it even on beforhand, but I figured it would take me too far...yet, it seems I'll have to anyways, after all.
The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.The argument in the analogy is therefor unvalid, and I'm rather amused by it popping up like clockwork, as a counterargument to 'absolute' freedom of speech; it is, in fact, not really a matter of free speech.
"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common."
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech. I do not agree that the difference is fundamental, and even if I would, it would still not entitle you to the conclusion it should be inherently treated differently. Racist claim the color of one's skin is a fundamental difference too: could they thus, muffle some form of free speech?
I hope you get my point: your starting premise is already doubtfull. If the chinese government thinks the stability of the state and government is 'fundamental', following your reasoning, it can treat attacks (even as speech) on the government and state differently from any other speech.
You see? Once again, there is no difference in reasoning.You simply take your opinion as 'fundamental' while it is not. There is no reason, on itself, why calling for taking away rights that some call fundamental, would entitle anyone to muffle up free speech any more then any other person that thinks calling to take away the rights of a government is a fundamental difference in regard to other forms of speech.
"Because hate speech is something entirely different."
No, it's claimed to be entirely different. As I've said, the chinese government can well be of the opinion, that speech against the government is 'entirely different' then the rest of free speech.
Unless you claim universalism on the matter - which would be odd, because if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't allow said 'hate speech'. Yet, seen that it has a whole other viewpoint on it, one can hardly claim it's universal or fundamental.
"If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you."
I agree, but that was not my point. It's not whether it would protect me from a totalitarian regime or not, but simply the question if you would agree with the reasoning, *then*. If you don't, then the reasoning you used has no validity (if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is).
And while you claim I cannot use this, I'm inclined to use it anyway :-): a totalitarian regime could forbid whatever speech or freedom it (dis)liked, if it had full power and control. This is not an argument against allowing true free speech, while it still would be a distinctive characteristic that would devide closeminded totalitarian governments from openminded democracies.
"And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need."
That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice.
And ultimately, laws should above all consider if they are just, not if they fill a social or economical need.Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just. So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself. If laws become absurd because of it being consistent, then there is something wrong with the law, not the consistency. It may be, for instance, that the law is too much generalising (as in you mammal example); in that case, one should adapt the law and refine it, not make it inconsistent.
"The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech."
Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is. Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it.
"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech."
No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that.
"That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice."
It simply depends what you want to be consistent with. You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law. We only have laws because there is a society and to keep that society functioning.
You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way. Humans are not perfectly predictable or without exceptions, so the law can't be that way either... unless you are in a totalitarian system, where people are supposed to adapt to the needs of the law/those in power, instead of that the laws are adapted to the needs of society.
"Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just."
This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust.
So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself. Law can also become absurd as a consequence of striving for consistency without taking into account why exactly there was/is an inconsistency in the first place. Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency.
Consistency is not the highway to heaven. It's a good (and important) guide when making laws, but e.g. the whole debate about the directive on software patents in Europe (where they also want to treat "inventions in all fields of technology" in a consistent way) shows that if you treat it as a goal of its own, you miss a whole lot of other important stuff.
"Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is."
;-)
I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.
"Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it."
Note, however, that in many countries it isn't forbidden to say it on itself, it's just that you have to prove it afterwards, if you are sued. Unless clear harm can be demonstrated, as a *direct* result of the 'slander/libel' (and it's demonstrated to be just that), I would do away with those laws too. (Well, actually adapt them, thus). It's noteworthy that on this issue too, many countries have a far more tolerant policy then in our country, so there is nothing fundamental about it.
"No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that."
I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too.
There are dictators and right-wingers enough that have a whole other opinion of basic rights. So saying "it should be so, because it is fundamental", is nothing more then saying "it should be so, because in my opinion, it is a fundamental right". But then, we can go back to my example of the chinese government, and if that is of the opinion that the stability of the state is a 'fundamental right', then you can not argument against it. You may agree to it being a basic right or not, but that has no bearing on their opinion of it. So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.
Many would disagree with that, however, making the reasoning and application hypocrite.If, however, one is of the opinion that free speech should be absolute, then you must agree that another person can make use of that absolute free speech too.
Well, I agree another person can use that. :-)
So, you see, consistency DOES have an intrinsic value.
"You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law."
Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other. I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive. If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.I sometimes feel that people think 'generalistation' and 'consistency' are the same things, while they are not, at all. Laws may be bad because they are (over)generalising, NOT because they are consistent.
Take you example of "all mamals should be treated equal' and then saying; you can't be consistent, because you treat animals different then humans. Well, yes, but is it a bad law because it's not consistent, or is it a bad law, bacause it was generalising? If you accept the law (in its content), then, yes, you should treat all mamals equal, and other laws should reflect that, and be consistent with that. If, however, you refine the law and say 'all humans have to be treated equally', then laws that treat animals diferently, are no longer inconsistent.
So, it is not the fault of consistency that a law is bad or good, rather it's the law itself. But if you deem a law to be 'right', then you have to be consistent in it, or you'll create unjustice and unfairness.
"You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way."
That's why I said: "Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just."
;-)
"This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust. "
'Just' is determined by people themselves, but they *should* indeed remain consistent, if they want to improve on their own 'justice'. If people think rich people should cater the poor, then they should do so, and those that think they don't, should not. As long as they remain consistent, you can not say one group of people is more 'unjust' then the other. If, however, they think they should, but they themselves don't (and vice versa), they are being inconsistent, and, even in their own worldview, unjust.
"Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency."
No. The only reason why there are inconsistencies, is because laws are intrinsically bad (=they have contradictions within themselves), because they are elitist (=not followed by the populace, or against human nature), (over)generalising, or because they are rooted in irrational behaviour or bias. Unless one of those reasons is deemed 'a very good reason', I would refute that claim, thus.
It is true that laws can become absurd when they are followed consistently, but only because those laws fail in one of the above mentioned examples in the first place.
"I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before."
You can easily find out who I am by searching for my real name. And the country I live in can also be found from my email address. Whether we mailed or not, I don't know.
"I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too"
Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly [un.org]. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative.
"So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right."
As I said, this is not merely about my opinion. And article 30 of the above mentioned declaration nicely illustrates how racism and other hate speech goes against it, even though it also demands freedom of opinion and expression. And yet this document is quite consistent: it aims for protecting people, and therefore includes a clause for preventing abuse of one provision to get around another one. Both article 19 and article 30 are consistent with that goal, regardless of how one article may impose exceptions on the other.
"Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other."
I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post.
"I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive."
Not in all cases, but I place more value on being good for society/economy than on being consistent. If you can combine the two: more power to you. But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency.
"If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent."
Maybe all laws are bad and you are right. Before I accept that, I would like to see your proposal for a new law system that is entirely consistent without any exceptions whatsoever, and under which a free society could flourish. Certainly, the current laws are not perfect. But I do not believe all problems can be solved by having only consistent laws, nor am I sure that society as a whole would suddenly be that much better of if we only had purely consistent laws. I mean, theoretically it sounds nice, but I'm not sure how it would work out in practice.
If it's at all possible, you'll probably end up with a lot more laws than we now have, each for their extremely limited field without exceptions, so that the system would probably become a lot more complex as it is now. And special cases you didn't think of will probably always pop up, so you'll almost endlessly keep refactoring your laws.
Just like in programing you should not refactor endlessly, you have to draw a line somewhere: now it's been simplified enough, what still doesn't fit will be handled by special cases.
"Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative."
No, I'm only saying that when I actually knew you were going to say that, and this time, I didn't knew. I did went over with my thoughts before, however.Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'.
I agree, as an individual, with the priciple(s) and with most 'basic rights' as described, but that is something else. What it boils down too, is that it represents the greatest common nominator that the majority of people held as an opinion (and agreed to) of what constitutes a basic right. I am quite sure they are thought of, quite extensively, by the best experts there are...but it still represents an opinion, even though a (presumed) generally accepted one.
Which brings us back to what I said about a country: while 'the majority' in an european country may consider the current 'racism laws' a good thing, it does not make it a universal or fundamental thing. When the majority would shift to right-wingers, the same reasoning could be applied by them to muffle our free speech up - and I mean not in the 'but they could do it anyways', but in the 'remaining within the same reasoning' way.
You counter that by argumenting it's not the same, because it's (not) about a human right. But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.
So, 'basic human rights' are maybe deemed basic by most in our timeframe, but they certainly are not 'universal' in the strict sense. If the islam had dominated the world in the 20iest and 21st century, our basic human rights would probably be based on the teachings of the shariat, and might include some things that you wouldn't deem a basic human right.Ultimately, ALL rights are based on opinions.
"As I said, this is not merely about my opinion.[...]"
No, and I'm not alone with my opinion neither; but that doesn't amount to anything. Whether you or I are alone with our opinion or not; it still is an opinion.
Besides, what should china care if some article does not find the stabibilty of the state as fundamental, if they do? I mean, if a christian or islamic figure begins to site paragraphs out of the bible or koran, to show you what rights you have and what not, would you feel compelled to abide by it?Only if you deem those paragraphs and books to be right (or authorative) for yourself.
I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll assume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.Well, that just proves my point, actually. I do not agree with that, then. Nor does the USA, in majority. And if the majority of the world, including those experts that thought so long about it, would see it the same way...well, what then? Article 30 would be scrapped or adapted, period. The authority it has is not carved in stone, nor is it truelly universal (meaning, of all places and times), it's only power is that which it has and is bestowed upon by people whome accept it.
"I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post."
You make, again, the mistake of thinking that consistency and a general rule-of-thumb are somehow intertwined. Being consistent can be catered to specific fields, AND to general area's, as long as, there too, it is being *used* consistently. I thought I made that clear in my example, that was in fact, yours, with the mammals. There is nothing impossible with making such a law consistent, but whether or not you want that law to be implemented (and that depends on the feasability of what you want to reach with that law).
"But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency."
There's the perceived dichotomy again. :-)
Society would adapt, as it always does, and not be destroyed or other doomthingies by more consistency in its laws. In fact, to some extend I would claim we partly DO sacrifice (at least in terms of justice) society because of inconsistencies.But I think we basically disagree on this issue.
Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better. Both our opinions are, in a certain respect, worth equally as much (as an opinion, that is).
Only, yours could impose restrictions upon people, while my viewpoint will allow free speech for everyone. (btw, when I say 'you' I don't mean you personnally ;-)
"Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'. "
Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason.
"But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today. "
Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion.
The laws that rule a society are per definition conventions that are agreed upon. And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent. I really don't understand why you seem to think this perceived consistency is pretty much the most important thing and why all the rest is hypocrite. I'm not even convinced that the banning of hate speech as it is done in e.g. de Universal Declaration of Human Rights is somehow inconsistent with at the same time guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression in the first place.
Social sciences simply don't work with pure logic, strict consistency etc. There are a bunch of people who argue and then get a general consensus, based on historic background etc (as I remarked in one of my first messages afaik). You cannot approach it from a purely rational point, because then you are arguing in the void and based on false premises (namely that social law is or should be created out of nothing based on some consistent rules of logic).
You start from society, make some rules and only then try to get them consistent while still meaning the same thing (and if you can do that: wow, fantastic, great!). Forcing society into a different ruleset simply because you want consistent rules (and before you reply with the same thing again: no, I do not think that consistency per definition leads to different rules) because you are convinced that will make a better new world for all without any backup for that: no, thank you.
Changing the world or society does not work like that.
"I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement."
Strange, I just tried it again and it works fine here. Anyway, here's article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
And here's article 30:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. It does not say anything about hate speech, it just forbids the use of any rights granted by the declaration to be used for attempts to destroy other people's rights stemming from that declaration.
"Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better."
I guess you mean the fact that it can be used to anonymously spread hate speech? So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies. Technology has exactly nothing to do with this debate as far as I'm concerned.
Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion. Maybe you need such a justification for yourself, maybe you don't, but I don't really care for that kind of meta-hippy talk.
Only, yours could impose restrictions upon people, while my viewpoint will allow free speech for everyone. And that is, to use a favorite phrasing of yours, a false premise. Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech. It's not as black and white as you try to paint it.
"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation)."
That's very true, and that's what I've been trying to convey. Whether you call it universal or not, it is not. Something that is truelly universal would be something that can be found back in any time, in any society. There are some examples which may be eligible, but 'hate speech' is not one of them.
It is, therefor, not universal, nor fundamental (or basic).Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.
"And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent."
Ofcourse they should be debated on their merrits...but the merrits are also derived from the fact if they are consistent or not. That's what I've been saying: 'bad' laws are not bad because of the consistency, they are bad because of their content. If you see inconsistencies, it's an indicator that something is wrong with the law.
"So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies."
Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.
"Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion."
They are as weak or as strong as saying that it will sacrifice society. :-)
"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech."
Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions. To claim speech should be forbidden when it offends a perceived basic right, or even a mere feeling of offense, like some people are claiming, is ridiculous. Your claim is , in essence, not correct: unfettered hate speech, as long as it remains speech, does NOT actually restrict rights of people. Freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to agree with it, to listen to it, to act on it, etc. Clairly, the level of restriction, even if you would take it there is one, is far less then the restriction imposed by racism-laws that plainly forbid certain forms of speech.
One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the free speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group.
"Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal."
Your perceived consistency does not make social positions any stronger. Social laws grow out of society, not out of some perceived consistency in logic.
"Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net. "
I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Anonymous proxies, open news servers, freebie websites... Once something is out on the Internet, you already cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Just ask the MPAA how successful they were of getting DeCSS wiped from the Internet. You may make it even more easy, but there are no fundamental changes.
"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech. Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions."
That's the theory, yes. But you can't be so naive to think that whatever you say has no consequences at all. Just like yelling fire --even though it may not be pure speech-- also has consequences, and is banned for those consequences; you are claiming that the consequences can never be so bad that it can be used as justification to prohibit some kind of speech. Fine, that may be your opinion. But calling everyone who thinks that is not the case "a hypocrite" is not very convincing to support your stance.
The line for me is exactly how article 30 of the UDHR described it. You can have your free speech, as long as you do not try to use it to limit other people's basic rights. You can of course keep arguing out of the void that there is some ultimate principle somewhere out there that states that allowing all free speech is always more consistent than not (regardless of how this may be inconsistent with your goal of getting a well functioning society and of how you can argue based on the past in which ways exactly this can happen), and that regardless what kind of arguments I bring in, you will not accept any kind of limitation to that because you do not accept that social laws with a reason can overrule this ultimate principle of truth, but then please say so.
This is getting very tiring and totally unproductive as far as I'm concerned, since you discard all arguments with "everything is an opinion". I have news for you: that's exactly how societies come to their rules, and that is exactly the justification that is needed. Rules are made by society according to a society's opinion. You may not find this consistent, logical, pure or basic in anyway, but that's per definition what a society is: "The relationship of men to one another when associated in any way; companionship; fellowship; company".
The rules that govern those relations are consequentially made by society as well. You may not like those rules, but if you try to impose other rules thinking that you know it better, then you get situations like Mao in China etc. I do not know of any place in the world where rules were imposed on society with the result that society suddenly functioned a whole lot better. Even in the French revolution, it was society that chose the new rules.
So society can change, and so can the rules. It's indeed even possible that one day the UDHR will be gone. But until you give any social reason as to why the rules in that declaration are somehow harming society as a whole, I don't think you have any ground to discard them as "merely opinions of no value". Simply saying "They are not basic rights. Period." is too easy a cop out, and I'm not sure why you want to "debate" with people like that (except to wear them out, maybe).
You have your dogmatic position and are not accepting any arguments against it, because your postion is not based on anything (not because you haven't thought about it, but because there simply are no basics according to you, only opinions of no value and some principle of consistency that totally ignores the social reality), so they can also not be shown wrong in your view.
One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the fre speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group. Yeah, you try to organise a debate between the KKK and the Black Panthers. Is it really so hard to understand that hate speech has absolutely nothing to do with debate? If anything, it prevents debates, because it's intended exactly to avoid debates, to stop people thinking about something and to get them so agitated to make sure they won't think any further about it.
Anyway, this will be the last message I will post in this thread. I can just as well argue with a mathematician about whether it really is possible to draw a straight line between any two points, and only one at that [bymath.com]. If you do not want to accept that social rules should come from society (and that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences) because then they aren't necessarily "basic" or "consistent in your view, then that is it I guess.
It is becoming tiresome, indeed. While you perceive my posts as being dogmatic and not open to arguments, I rather see yours as increasingly so. I try to give arguments and counterarguments in every post, while you respond hardly to any of my questions or points.You say it's dogmatic that I regard rights, including 'basic human rights' as written down statements that express an opinion.
Well, then YOU answer it: do you think those rights do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature?
If they are, indeed, opinions, then you have to acknowledge that those opinions can change, agreed with that?
Well, then, I'll repeat my question:In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*.
My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.
If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.
If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.
You are on your high horse, claiming I said you are a hypocrite, while I never did, which you would have noticed, if you read my posts carefully.Whether you are hypocrite or not, fully depends on you, and your stance and some few variables, such as: do you accept that opinions, laws and rights can change? Do you think 'basic human rights' do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature? Do you agree that you are bound by your OWN reasoning, even if that very same reasoning is, or would be, used to forbid you (when ultra-right would become the majority, for instance) to speak something you feel very strongly about, such as anti-racist speech?
Depending on these questions, you could or could not be a hypocrite, that is all I said and am saying.
You speak of consequences, but you know as well as I do, that people are responsible for their OWN deeds and actions. There has never been established a direct correlation, let alone a causality, between mere speech (not incitement or your fire-alarm example, thus) of one person, and the actions of others. Even in europe, courts have ruled that guilt-by-proxy in such a matter is not valid, and with reason. If you are not only going to hold the persons responsible that DO the illegal things, but also the persons who *might* have had an influence on their behaviour, even when it is only speech, then one can start suing everybody, really.
If courts would rule differently, then every media, including books and movies, that depicted or conveyed illegal or violent acts, could be forbidden, because it might lead to some people doing something that is illegal or damaging to somebody else. Luckily, people are deemed guilty for their actions, not their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts on themselves (at least in the USA). For the latter, however, suddenly europe makes an exeption when it comes to 'racist speech', without giving any substantial reasons why this would merrit such a peculiar treatement.
Oh, yes, because it is against a 'basic right'...which isn't basic, but rather an opinion in the first place, but, even if it were, it does still not explain why 'racist speech' should be forbidden, while others are not. I mean...there are other 'basic human rights', no? Why isn't it forbidden to speak against those, then? 'Right of education' is one of them, I believe. Well, now, if I make a campaign, claiming kids should not get an education, I'm going against a 'basic right' too, right? And it might hurt kids too. Some dudes could even close or burn down schools, after hearing me speak.
So...why am I not forbidden to speak that?
Because, the reason given is bogus. It's not about it being a basic right or not, as you well know. The reason why 'racist speech' is forbidden, but all the rest not, even if it equally goes against 'basic human rights' is because europe is still holding itself hostage to the past. Nazism-history has given us a trauma which we still can't get rid off, and it keeps us chained in this sort of irrational behaviour and law-making, especially in this particular context.
THAT is the reason why only 'racist speech' is forbidden here, and nothing else, even if other speech goes against other 'basic human rights'.
That's why we try to forbid free speech in that context; in an attempt to make sure it never happens again. Seen the fact that, even with all the immermore draconian laws on racist speech and with all the attempts of clamping down on free speech in this regard, and making it illegal, the ultra-right-wing movement in europe is way bigger and stronger (and in general keeps getting stronger) in europe then in the USA, one can seriously doubt the wisdom of it all.
In the meantime, ofcourse, you are imposing your will on others, and limiting their freedom in a way you would not want to be limited yourself, (nor in a way we do with other things that are just the same, but does not involve racist speech - and thus making our system of justice more irratic), like when others would decide anti-racist speech, for example, is forbidden.
See part 2.
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that prohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.
Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones' own views, or else you have *no* freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of free speech; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid some speech they don't agree with and which may offend some ethnic or other group.
- Newsbyte
Exactly this topic was the focuspoint of a debate I had on slashdot, which begins like this:
"Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries."
Consistency should not be a goal on its own, or you get totalitarian situations. And I don't know whether it's more fair.
As they say: your rights end where someone else's rights begin. IMHO, inciting people to ignore this rule as far as certain groups of people are concerned can be seen as a first step to abandon that rule (at least in practice; in theory, that rule may still hold, but what use is it if it's largely ignored?), just like others argue that banning this kind of speech is (a first step towards)/(the same as) banning all free speech.
It's all a matter of trade-offs, and which trade-off you are more likely to accept depends a lot on history I think. I know I much prefer the European to the US system, but maybe unconsciously that is because my grandfather was captured as soldier and put on a train to a concentration camp? (although he managed to escape from the train, fortunately, or I wouldn't be here)
- Halo1
We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.Inconsistent laws lead to hypocritical laws (where, for instance, a law aplies to a white man differently then for a black man), and hypocritical laws inherently breed unfairness.Totalitarian states do not depend on the consistency of the laws, rather on the nature of those laws.
If laws induce and promote more freedom, even when being consistent, it is doubtfull it will lead to a totalitarian state where inconsistent laws wouldn't.I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.
"We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent."
Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law. Why? Because there are also fundamental differences with other mammals. The same thing can be argued about hate speech and other speech.
"I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws."
I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history. No single human can be purely objective.
"Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law."
I think you are confusing 'consistency' with 'generalisation' a bit.
"I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history."
That can be, but I wasn't argumenting it out of that reason (fear). In fact, it would fail to explain why, embedded in the history of europe, I would agree with them, especially as I'm rather anti-USA (even if I say so myself ;-). I doubt if it wasn't for the fact that I can see it truelly *is* more of a rational argumentation, I would ever have supported their view.
But, despite my dislikings and their fear as possible (sub)reason, I think they are right, on this particular issue, for the reasons I mentionned in above posts.Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden.
I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?
Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all.
It's not even meant to exclude those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.
The (in)consistency does not lay in the premisse one takes on that, however, but rather in reversing (and implementing) the exact same reasoning, but then to oneself. If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then? In both cases it would be 'hate speech' (as defined by law)...thus where would that leave you, with your above reasoning? Unless you accept that, in that case, they are fully entitled to forbid anti-racism speech too, you would be higly hypocritical.
"Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden."
"Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
"I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them."
As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.
"So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?"
Because hate speech is something entirely different.
"Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant to exclude those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech."
It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with opinions, it's much more fundamental then that.
"If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?"
If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you. They'll brand you a terrorist, dangerous to the public/state, whatever. It's very naive to think that absolute free speech will somehow protect you from that, just like thinking that the right bear arms can protect you from the government.
And I hope you will not try to take this argument to absurdum and claim that you can use this argument to justify all kinds of limitations to public freedom, because that's not true and not what I mean. I simply mean that you cannot use this argument to justify allowing hate speech, because it's bogus. On the one hand it won't help you one bit against an extremist government, and on the other hand you get hate speech on top of it.
And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need. If you think the need for absolute free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than the fact that hate speech can be free spread, then you keep hate speech legal. Otherwise you don't. In Europe (most?) governments chose for the latter option, in the US they chose the former.
""Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre."
LOL...I KNEW you were going to come up with that ;-) I almost was going to write about it even on beforhand, but I figured it would take me too far...yet, it seems I'll have to anyways, after all.
The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.The argument in the analogy is therefor unvalid, and I'm rather amused by it popping up like clockwork, as a counterargument to 'absolute' freedom of speech; it is, in fact, not really a matter of free speech.
"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common."
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech. I do not agree that the difference is fundamental, and even if I would, it would still not entitle you to the conclusion it should be inherently treated differently. Racist claim the color of one's skin is a fundamental difference too: could they thus, muffle some form of free speech?
I hope you get my point: your starting premise is already doubtfull. If the chinese government thinks the stability of the state and government is 'fundamental', following your reasoning, it can treat attacks (even as speech) on the government and state differently from any other speech.
You see? Once again, there is no difference in reasoning.You simply take your opinion as 'fundamental' while it is not. There is no reason, on itself, why calling for taking away rights that some call fundamental, would entitle anyone to muffle up free speech any more then any other person that thinks calling to take away the rights of a government is a fundamental difference in regard to other forms of speech.
"Because hate speech is something entirely different."
No, it's claimed to be entirely different. As I've said, the chinese government can well be of the opinion, that speech against the government is 'entirely different' then the rest of free speech.
Unless you claim universalism on the matter - which would be odd, because if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't allow said 'hate speech'. Yet, seen that it has a whole other viewpoint on it, one can hardly claim it's universal or fundamental.
"If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you."
I agree, but that was not my point. It's not whether it would protect me from a totalitarian regime or not, but simply the question if you would agree with the reasoning, *then*. If you don't, then the reasoning you used has no validity (if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is).
And while you claim I cannot use this, I'm inclined to use it anyway :-): a totalitarian regime could forbid whatever speech or freedom it (dis)liked, if it had full power and control. This is not an argument against allowing true free speech, while it still would be a distinctive characteristic that would devide closeminded totalitarian governments from openminded democracies.
"And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need."
That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice.
And ultimately, laws should above all consider if they are just, not if they fill a social or economical need.Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just. So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself. If laws become absurd because of it being consistent, then there is something wrong with the law, not the consistency. It may be, for instance, that the law is too much generalising (as in you mammal example); in that case, one should adapt the law and refine it, not make it inconsistent.
"The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech."
Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is. Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it.
"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech."
No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that.
"That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice."
It simply depends what you want to be consistent with. You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law. We only have laws because there is a society and to keep that society functioning.
You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way. Humans are not perfectly predictable or without exceptions, so the law can't be that way either... unless you are in a totalitarian system, where people are supposed to adapt to the needs of the law/those in power, instead of that the laws are adapted to the needs of society.
"Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just."
This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust.
So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself. Law can also become absurd as a consequence of striving for consistency without taking into account why exactly there was/is an inconsistency in the first place. Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency.
Consistency is not the highway to heaven. It's a good (and important) guide when making laws, but e.g. the whole debate about the directive on software patents in Europe (where they also want to treat "inventions in all fields of technology" in a consistent way) shows that if you treat it as a goal of its own, you miss a whole lot of other important stuff.
"Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is."
;-)
I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.
"Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it."
Note, however, that in many countries it isn't forbidden to say it on itself, it's just that you have to prove it afterwards, if you are sued. Unless clear harm can be demonstrated, as a *direct* result of the 'slander/libel' (and it's demonstrated to be just that), I would do away with those laws too. (Well, actually adapt them, thus). It's noteworthy that on this issue too, many countries have a far more tolerant policy then in our country, so there is nothing fundamental about it.
"No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that."
I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too.
There are dictators and right-wingers enough that have a whole other opinion of basic rights. So saying "it should be so, because it is fundamental", is nothing more then saying "it should be so, because in my opinion, it is a fundamental right". But then, we can go back to my example of the chinese government, and if that is of the opinion that the stability of the state is a 'fundamental right', then you can not argument against it. You may agree to it being a basic right or not, but that has no bearing on their opinion of it. So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.
Many would disagree with that, however, making the reasoning and application hypocrite.If, however, one is of the opinion that free speech should be absolute, then you must agree that another person can make use of that absolute free speech too.
Well, I agree another person can use that. :-)
So, you see, consistency DOES have an intrinsic value.
"You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law."
Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other. I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive. If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.I sometimes feel that people think 'generalistation' and 'consistency' are the same things, while they are not, at all. Laws may be bad because they are (over)generalising, NOT because they are consistent.
Take you example of "all mamals should be treated equal' and then saying; you can't be consistent, because you treat animals different then humans. Well, yes, but is it a bad law because it's not consistent, or is it a bad law, bacause it was generalising? If you accept the law (in its content), then, yes, you should treat all mamals equal, and other laws should reflect that, and be consistent with that. If, however, you refine the law and say 'all humans have to be treated equally', then laws that treat animals diferently, are no longer inconsistent.
So, it is not the fault of consistency that a law is bad or good, rather it's the law itself. But if you deem a law to be 'right', then you have to be consistent in it, or you'll create unjustice and unfairness.
"You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way."
That's why I said: "Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just."
;-)
"This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust. "
'Just' is determined by people themselves, but they *should* indeed remain consistent, if they want to improve on their own 'justice'. If people think rich people should cater the poor, then they should do so, and those that think they don't, should not. As long as they remain consistent, you can not say one group of people is more 'unjust' then the other. If, however, they think they should, but they themselves don't (and vice versa), they are being inconsistent, and, even in their own worldview, unjust.
"Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency."
No. The only reason why there are inconsistencies, is because laws are intrinsically bad (=they have contradictions within themselves), because they are elitist (=not followed by the populace, or against human nature), (over)generalising, or because they are rooted in irrational behaviour or bias. Unless one of those reasons is deemed 'a very good reason', I would refute that claim, thus.
It is true that laws can become absurd when they are followed consistently, but only because those laws fail in one of the above mentioned examples in the first place.
"I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before."
You can easily find out who I am by searching for my real name. And the country I live in can also be found from my email address. Whether we mailed or not, I don't know.
"I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too"
Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly [un.org]. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative.
"So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right."
As I said, this is not merely about my opinion. And article 30 of the above mentioned declaration nicely illustrates how racism and other hate speech goes against it, even though it also demands freedom of opinion and expression. And yet this document is quite consistent: it aims for protecting people, and therefore includes a clause for preventing abuse of one provision to get around another one. Both article 19 and article 30 are consistent with that goal, regardless of how one article may impose exceptions on the other.
"Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other."
I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post.
"I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive."
Not in all cases, but I place more value on being good for society/economy than on being consistent. If you can combine the two: more power to you. But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency.
"If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent."
Maybe all laws are bad and you are right. Before I accept that, I would like to see your proposal for a new law system that is entirely consistent without any exceptions whatsoever, and under which a free society could flourish. Certainly, the current laws are not perfect. But I do not believe all problems can be solved by having only consistent laws, nor am I sure that society as a whole would suddenly be that much better of if we only had purely consistent laws. I mean, theoretically it sounds nice, but I'm not sure how it would work out in practice.
If it's at all possible, you'll probably end up with a lot more laws than we now have, each for their extremely limited field without exceptions, so that the system would probably become a lot more complex as it is now. And special cases you didn't think of will probably always pop up, so you'll almost endlessly keep refactoring your laws.
Just like in programing you should not refactor endlessly, you have to draw a line somewhere: now it's been simplified enough, what still doesn't fit will be handled by special cases.
"Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative."
No, I'm only saying that when I actually knew you were going to say that, and this time, I didn't knew. I did went over with my thoughts before, however.Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'.
I agree, as an individual, with the priciple(s) and with most 'basic rights' as described, but that is something else. What it boils down too, is that it represents the greatest common nominator that the majority of people held as an opinion (and agreed to) of what constitutes a basic right. I am quite sure they are thought of, quite extensively, by the best experts there are...but it still represents an opinion, even though a (presumed) generally accepted one.
Which brings us back to what I said about a country: while 'the majority' in an european country may consider the current 'racism laws' a good thing, it does not make it a universal or fundamental thing. When the majority would shift to right-wingers, the same reasoning could be applied by them to muffle our free speech up - and I mean not in the 'but they could do it anyways', but in the 'remaining within the same reasoning' way.
You counter that by argumenting it's not the same, because it's (not) about a human right. But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.
So, 'basic human rights' are maybe deemed basic by most in our timeframe, but they certainly are not 'universal' in the strict sense. If the islam had dominated the world in the 20iest and 21st century, our basic human rights would probably be based on the teachings of the shariat, and might include some things that you wouldn't deem a basic human right.Ultimately, ALL rights are based on opinions.
"As I said, this is not merely about my opinion.[...]"
No, and I'm not alone with my opinion neither; but that doesn't amount to anything. Whether you or I are alone with our opinion or not; it still is an opinion.
Besides, what should china care if some article does not find the stabibilty of the state as fundamental, if they do? I mean, if a christian or islamic figure begins to site paragraphs out of the bible or koran, to show you what rights you have and what not, would you feel compelled to abide by it?Only if you deem those paragraphs and books to be right (or authorative) for yourself.
I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll assume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.Well, that just proves my point, actually. I do not agree with that, then. Nor does the USA, in majority. And if the majority of the world, including those experts that thought so long about it, would see it the same way...well, what then? Article 30 would be scrapped or adapted, period. The authority it has is not carved in stone, nor is it truelly universal (meaning, of all places and times), it's only power is that which it has and is bestowed upon by people whome accept it.
"I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post."
You make, again, the mistake of thinking that consistency and a general rule-of-thumb are somehow intertwined. Being consistent can be catered to specific fields, AND to general area's, as long as, there too, it is being *used* consistently. I thought I made that clear in my example, that was in fact, yours, with the mammals. There is nothing impossible with making such a law consistent, but whether or not you want that law to be implemented (and that depends on the feasability of what you want to reach with that law).
"But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency."
There's the perceived dichotomy again. :-)
Society would adapt, as it always does, and not be destroyed or other doomthingies by more consistency in its laws. In fact, to some extend I would claim we partly DO sacrifice (at least in terms of justice) society because of inconsistencies.But I think we basically disagree on this issue.
Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better. Both our opinions are, in a certain respect, worth equally as much (as an opinion, that is).
Only, yours could impose restrictions upon people, while my viewpoint will allow free speech for everyone. (btw, when I say 'you' I don't mean you personnally ;-)
"Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'. "
Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason.
"But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today. "
Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion.
The laws that rule a society are per definition conventions that are agreed upon. And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent. I really don't understand why you seem to think this perceived consistency is pretty much the most important thing and why all the rest is hypocrite. I'm not even convinced that the banning of hate speech as it is done in e.g. de Universal Declaration of Human Rights is somehow inconsistent with at the same time guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression in the first place.
Social sciences simply don't work with pure logic, strict consistency etc. There are a bunch of people who argue and then get a general consensus, based on historic background etc (as I remarked in one of my first messages afaik). You cannot approach it from a purely rational point, because then you are arguing in the void and based on false premises (namely that social law is or should be created out of nothing based on some consistent rules of logic).
You start from society, make some rules and only then try to get them consistent while still meaning the same thing (and if you can do that: wow, fantastic, great!). Forcing society into a different ruleset simply because you want consistent rules (and before you reply with the same thing again: no, I do not think that consistency per definition leads to different rules) because you are convinced that will make a better new world for all without any backup for that: no, thank you.
Changing the world or society does not work like that.
"I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement."
Strange, I just tried it again and it works fine here. Anyway, here's article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
And here's article 30:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. It does not say anything about hate speech, it just forbids the use of any rights granted by the declaration to be used for attempts to destroy other people's rights stemming from that declaration.
"Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better."
I guess you mean the fact that it can be used to anonymously spread hate speech? So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies. Technology has exactly nothing to do with this debate as far as I'm concerned.
Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion. Maybe you need such a justification for yourself, maybe you don't, but I don't really care for that kind of meta-hippy talk.
Only, yours could impose restrictions upon people, while my viewpoint will allow free speech for everyone. And that is, to use a favorite phrasing of yours, a false premise. Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech. It's not as black and white as you try to paint it.
"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation)."
That's very true, and that's what I've been trying to convey. Whether you call it universal or not, it is not. Something that is truelly universal would be something that can be found back in any time, in any society. There are some examples which may be eligible, but 'hate speech' is not one of them.
It is, therefor, not universal, nor fundamental (or basic).Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.
"And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent."
Ofcourse they should be debated on their merrits...but the merrits are also derived from the fact if they are consistent or not. That's what I've been saying: 'bad' laws are not bad because of the consistency, they are bad because of their content. If you see inconsistencies, it's an indicator that something is wrong with the law.
"So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies."
Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.
"Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion."
They are as weak or as strong as saying that it will sacrifice society. :-)
"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech."
Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions. To claim speech should be forbidden when it offends a perceived basic right, or even a mere feeling of offense, like some people are claiming, is ridiculous. Your claim is , in essence, not correct: unfettered hate speech, as long as it remains speech, does NOT actually restrict rights of people. Freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to agree with it, to listen to it, to act on it, etc. Clairly, the level of restriction, even if you would take it there is one, is far less then the restriction imposed by racism-laws that plainly forbid certain forms of speech.
One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the free speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group.
"Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal."
Your perceived consistency does not make social positions any stronger. Social laws grow out of society, not out of some perceived consistency in logic.
"Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net. "
I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Anonymous proxies, open news servers, freebie websites... Once something is out on the Internet, you already cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Just ask the MPAA how successful they were of getting DeCSS wiped from the Internet. You may make it even more easy, but there are no fundamental changes.
"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech. Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions."
That's the theory, yes. But you can't be so naive to think that whatever you say has no consequences at all. Just like yelling fire --even though it may not be pure speech-- also has consequences, and is banned for those consequences; you are claiming that the consequences can never be so bad that it can be used as justification to prohibit some kind of speech. Fine, that may be your opinion. But calling everyone who thinks that is not the case "a hypocrite" is not very convincing to support your stance.
The line for me is exactly how article 30 of the UDHR described it. You can have your free speech, as long as you do not try to use it to limit other people's basic rights. You can of course keep arguing out of the void that there is some ultimate principle somewhere out there that states that allowing all free speech is always more consistent than not (regardless of how this may be inconsistent with your goal of getting a well functioning society and of how you can argue based on the past in which ways exactly this can happen), and that regardless what kind of arguments I bring in, you will not accept any kind of limitation to that because you do not accept that social laws with a reason can overrule this ultimate principle of truth, but then please say so.
This is getting very tiring and totally unproductive as far as I'm concerned, since you discard all arguments with "everything is an opinion". I have news for you: that's exactly how societies come to their rules, and that is exactly the justification that is needed. Rules are made by society according to a society's opinion. You may not find this consistent, logical, pure or basic in anyway, but that's per definition what a society is: "The relationship of men to one another when associated in any way; companionship; fellowship; company".
The rules that govern those relations are consequentially made by society as well. You may not like those rules, but if you try to impose other rules thinking that you know it better, then you get situations like Mao in China etc. I do not know of any place in the world where rules were imposed on society with the result that society suddenly functioned a whole lot better. Even in the French revolution, it was society that chose the new rules.
So society can change, and so can the rules. It's indeed even possible that one day the UDHR will be gone. But until you give any social reason as to why the rules in that declaration are somehow harming society as a whole, I don't think you have any ground to discard them as "merely opinions of no value". Simply saying "They are not basic rights. Period." is too easy a cop out, and I'm not sure why you want to "debate" with people like that (except to wear them out, maybe).
You have your dogmatic position and are not accepting any arguments against it, because your postion is not based on anything (not because you haven't thought about it, but because there simply are no basics according to you, only opinions of no value and some principle of consistency that totally ignores the social reality), so they can also not be shown wrong in your view.
One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the fre speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group. Yeah, you try to organise a debate between the KKK and the Black Panthers. Is it really so hard to understand that hate speech has absolutely nothing to do with debate? If anything, it prevents debates, because it's intended exactly to avoid debates, to stop people thinking about something and to get them so agitated to make sure they won't think any further about it.
Anyway, this will be the last message I will post in this thread. I can just as well argue with a mathematician about whether it really is possible to draw a straight line between any two points, and only one at that [bymath.com]. If you do not want to accept that social rules should come from society (and that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences) because then they aren't necessarily "basic" or "consistent in your view, then that is it I guess.
It is becoming tiresome, indeed. While you perceive my posts as being dogmatic and not open to arguments, I rather see yours as increasingly so. I try to give arguments and counterarguments in every post, while you respond hardly to any of my questions or points.You say it's dogmatic that I regard rights, including 'basic human rights' as written down statements that express an opinion.
Well, then YOU answer it: do you think those rights do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature?
If they are, indeed, opinions, then you have to acknowledge that those opinions can change, agreed with that?
Well, then, I'll repeat my question:In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*.
My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.
If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.
If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.
You are on your high horse, claiming I said you are a hypocrite, while I never did, which you would have noticed, if you read my posts carefully.Whether you are hypocrite or not, fully depends on you, and your stance and some few variables, such as: do you accept that opinions, laws and rights can change? Do you think 'basic human rights' do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature? Do you agree that you are bound by your OWN reasoning, even if that very same reasoning is, or would be, used to forbid you (when ultra-right would become the majority, for instance) to speak something you feel very strongly about, such as anti-racist speech?
Depending on these questions, you could or could not be a hypocrite, that is all I said and am saying.
You speak of consequences, but you know as well as I do, that people are responsible for their OWN deeds and actions. There has never been established a direct correlation, let alone a causality, between mere speech (not incitement or your fire-alarm example, thus) of one person, and the actions of others. Even in europe, courts have ruled that guilt-by-proxy in such a matter is not valid, and with reason. If you are not only going to hold the persons responsible that DO the illegal things, but also the persons who *might* have had an influence on their behaviour, even when it is only speech, then one can start suing everybody, really.
If courts would rule differently, then every media, including books and movies, that depicted or conveyed illegal or violent acts, could be forbidden, because it might lead to some people doing something that is illegal or damaging to somebody else. Luckily, people are deemed guilty for their actions, not their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts on themselves (at least in the USA). For the latter, however, suddenly europe makes an exeption when it comes to 'racist speech', without giving any substantial reasons why this would merrit such a peculiar treatement.
Oh, yes, because it is against a 'basic right'...which isn't basic, but rather an opinion in the first place, but, even if it were, it does still not explain why 'racist speech' should be forbidden, while others are not. I mean...there are other 'basic human rights', no? Why isn't it forbidden to speak against those, then? 'Right of education' is one of them, I believe. Well, now, if I make a campaign, claiming kids should not get an education, I'm going against a 'basic right' too, right? And it might hurt kids too. Some dudes could even close or burn down schools, after hearing me speak.
So...why am I not forbidden to speak that?
Because, the reason given is bogus. It's not about it being a basic right or not, as you well know. The reason why 'racist speech' is forbidden, but all the rest not, even if it equally goes against 'basic human rights' is because europe is still holding itself hostage to the past. Nazism-history has given us a trauma which we still can't get rid off, and it keeps us chained in this sort of irrational behaviour and law-making, especially in this particular context.
THAT is the reason why only 'racist speech' is forbidden here, and nothing else, even if other speech goes against other 'basic human rights'.
That's why we try to forbid free speech in that context; in an attempt to make sure it never happens again. Seen the fact that, even with all the immermore draconian laws on racist speech and with all the attempts of clamping down on free speech in this regard, and making it illegal, the ultra-right-wing movement in europe is way bigger and stronger (and in general keeps getting stronger) in europe then in the USA, one can seriously doubt the wisdom of it all.
In the meantime, ofcourse, you are imposing your will on others, and limiting their freedom in a way you would not want to be limited yourself, (nor in a way we do with other things that are just the same, but does not involve racist speech - and thus making our system of justice more irratic), like when others would decide anti-racist speech, for example, is forbidden.
See part 2.
posted by newsbyte | 10:27 AM
|
1 comments
