Hate speech = freedom of speech?

Is it correct to let people express their racist views?

  • Yes, absolutely.

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • To a certain point. (explain)

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Definitely not.

    Votes: 6 17.1%

  • Total voters
    35

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
I have participated in another (larger) forum in a discussion about this same subject, however I wanted to bring it up here because of the difference in mentality and the possibly different conclusions people might reach due to our cultural differences and our own racial issues.

First I have to point out that I am not overly PC. I don't believe that sanitizing the language gets us anywhere when the underlying feelings still exist. Furthermore, I believe that letting people speak their mind (within reason) make us realize the extent of the problem. Sometimes PC is just another name for hypocrisy.

This is my question: Do you believe that society (communicators, public fora, mass media) should set certain standards as to what private citizens might express or should they curtail to certain extent their freedoms to air their sometimes unpopular beliefs? What is there to win? What is there to lose? When we shut up (racist, bigoted) people, are we committing the same sin we may be criticizing? Are we being intolerant ourselves?

I'd like to invite you to take a second and read this story as it explains my point much better than I could.

[SNL] Discuss [/SNL]
 

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
I have to concur.
Racism is one of today's serious social and political problems. Now, unfortunately, it is getting mixed with religion and making discourse even harder to maintain.

Hate is a dreadful thing and generally is the product of weak minds, demagogic propaganda and pus-for-brains leaders.
To base hate on race is idiotic.. To base it on color is even more depraved.

So, arguments on racism, its existance, postures and applications, such as in the US, can lead to some interesting and intelligent discussions.

When these degenerate into the absurd, either oh-so-PC or downright offensive: Delete Button!

HB
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
I am not going to debate the pros & Cons of Racism here but I will point out that it is the, so called, lovers of Freedom that are the first to censor those who disaggree with them.
I Voted "Yes!!!!! Absolutely!!!!"
 

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
I would like to hear your opinion on why "Yes, absolutely" Tony C? Do you mean yes always, no matter what they say? Even if they are calling for violence against certain minority or group in society? Even if their words could result in somebody been harmed or killed?

I am not passing judgement on your opinion, just curious about the extent of your approval.
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
I voted for 2 but...

Subjectivity is the problem here. For example, the law in the UK on freedom of speech does not outlaw racist organisations as such but will curtail their activities and publications if they are deemed to 'incite racial hatred'. The very words Pib used as her yardstick.

The problem is that how do you define 'inciting racial hatred'?.

Then the question of what is unacceptable racist language? Can we say 'nigger' or 'yid' or can only people of those races use them between themselves in the same way that only gay people are allowed to call each other 'queers'? That is the usual PC 'wisdom' on those matters. In Germany there is a law against 'Holocaust denial' which is more specific. If you say 'the holocaust is a Zionist fabrication' in public, you're busted!

In many places, racist terms are in the same category as obscenities so you won't get them on TV or newspapers unless there is a justifiable context. But again, this is not set in stone. 'Paki' for example, is very offensive in Britain, but in other places it is used harmlessly to describe Pakistanis. I'll never forget a BBC radio news programme broadcasting to a home audience carrying a live interview with a Canadian UN official in Somalia, who used the term several times when talking about the different nationalities in the peace-keeping force. You could feel the BBC journalist squirming as he tried to bring the interview to an end before he said it again.

The article is very thought-provoking. The writer makes the case that by having it all in the open, it is easier to tackle than covert racism. Personally, I think he is a little generous. In any case we all have our personal threshold of what offends us.

Chiri
 

Robert

Stay Frosty!
Jan 2, 1999
20,574
341
83
dr1.com
It comes in many shapes and forms, what is perfectly innocent for one is offensive to another.
I remember the thread on DR1 about the "chocolate friends" and how some people found that very racist. To the people that invented the name it was completely innocent in their eyes.

I personally hate the "passive aggressive racism" as I usually find that these people deep down are as racist as they come, just haven't got the guts to be open about it.

I voted #2, I have my own guidelines and if I feel someone crosses them, then I react accordingly.

How do we deal with racism on DR1? It's a judgment call.
I'm all for the people that actively participate in this board setting the guidelines in certain areas, racism being one of them.
 

sjh

aka - shadley
Jan 1, 2002
969
2
0
52
www.geocities.com
I vote:"To a certain point"

If some guy gets up on his soap box and deliberately causes a riot, that represents a real danger to society. Otherwise I support peoples right to hate whomever they choose.
 

Ken

Platinum
Jan 1, 2002
13,884
495
83
I, too, voted #2. Like Shadley, I believe people have the right to hate whom they choose, but there are limits to how far they should be allowed to go in an effort to get others to share their hatred/prejudice.
 

mondongo

Bronze
Jan 1, 2002
1,533
6
38
I voted #1. Government or "society' should rarely tell he individual what to think, say or do. I place a great mistrust in giving away my individual rihgts to an unassialable, amorphous entity such as a governement. I have a better chance when I personally confront individuals who trangress into my personal space. Typically what happens is that we turn into friends.
 

PJT

Silver
Jan 8, 2002
3,562
298
83
I voted #2. I do believe everyone has a right to think and say what they want. My limit, would be when someone expresses hate in such an inflamatory manner that would obviously bring harm to himself or others, should be reined in. Regards, PJT
 

RandyE

New member
Feb 4, 2002
338
0
0
Yes, with an explaination. We ( the US gov't) have gotten so pc that people are beginning to shy away from saying or doing anything that MIGHT be construed as demeaning or hurtful to any individual. Nothing good about people who are afraid to speak their minds. Let everyone speak, and the majority will be able to figure out who the ###holes really are. Just my opinion.
 

Larry

Gold
Mar 22, 2002
3,513
2
0
I vote #1

I voted "Yes absolutely" because the concept of Freedom of Speech" is one of the ideals that the foundation of Democracy is built upon.


"When we shut up (racist, bigoted) people, are we committing the same sin we may be criticizing? Are we being intolerant ourselves"? - Pib
Yes Pib,the United States has tried so hard to be PC that the pendulum has swung too far to the left and it appears that Free Speech has been thrown out the window in an effort not to offend.



"If some guy gets up on his soap box and deliberately causes a riot, that represents a real danger to society. Otherwise I support peoples right to hate whomever they choose".--SJH
Yes Shad but if the topic he is preaching has nothing to do with race but he still causes a riot he is guilty of the same crime.....INCITING A RIOT.The fact that the topic is race should be insignificant.The fact that you are expressing you views should not be the crime.

Larry
 

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
Very interesting to hear the different views on the subject. Even more surprising (and reassuring) is to hear that nobody is supporting a complete silencing of people's ideas, no matter how unpopular they might be.

Larry said something very interesting:
Yes Shad but if the topic he is preaching has nothing to do with race but he still causes a riot he is guilty of the same crime.....INCITING A RIOT.The fact that the topic is race should be insignificant.The fact that you are expressing you views should not be the crime.
And it leads me to another way of explaining my views. Race (as a group of individuals) should not have more rights than the individuals themselves. Don't worry I'll elaborate.

If someones says in public: "Pib is an idiot, an inferior human being and should not be allowed to live amongnst us" I cannot sue the person because said person has just expressed his/her opinion on me and people are legally free to express their opinions.

If, however, someone says "Pib is a thief" or any accusation of that sort, then yes, that person is expressing something as a fact, not an opinion, I should be free to pursue any recourse available to clear my name.

If someone steps outside and shouts "let's lynch Pib", then that's a criminal act and SHOULD be punished by whoever is in charge of enforcing the laws/rules.

If you substitute Pib by any race then it is easy to see what I believe. It is one thing to say that "certain group of people is inferior, morally corrupt or whatever", another thing is supporting harming physically or otherwise said group of people.

Did I make any sense?
 
Last edited:

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
Pib said:
I would like to hear your opinion on why "Yes, absolutely" Tony C? Do you mean yes always, no matter what they say? Even if they are calling for violence against certain minority or group in society? Even if their words could result in somebody been harmed or killed?

I am not passing judgement on your opinion, just curious about the extent of your approval.

I have yet to see or hear a word that can cause physical pain. If a person commits a crime I believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If somebody gave a speech and said: "Kill all the Spics" all he has done was show is stupidity but is not a criminal as far as I am concerned. Now if Somebody was to follow his advice and kill somebody than that person is a murder.
I am against hate crime laws well. If somebody attacks another person it shouldn't matter the motives.
The views of society change over time. What is considered evil words and thoughts today were at one time what "Good people" coinsidered proper. and vice versa. Galileo, Scopes Monkey trial, Rosa Parks are just some examples

Tony C.
 

Larry

Gold
Mar 22, 2002
3,513
2
0
"If somebody gave a speech and said: "Kill all the Spics" all he has done was show is stupidity but is not a criminal as far as I am concerned. Now if Somebody was to follow his advice and kill somebody than that person is a murder". --TonyC

Yeah Tony.According to New York State Penal Law (I am not sure about the rest of the United States) if you were to make that statement and 10 or more people were to act upon it then you would be guilty of INCITING TO RIOT.The people that did the act would be guilty of RIOT itself as well as whatever crimes they were to commit in the process.
Larry
 

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
How about somebody says "Let's kill Rob"? What if a group of people act on these words (not such luck :devious: )? Would the first person have committed a crime? (I don't even know here, but I suspect it could be a crime).
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
If the person said "I believe Rob should be killed" No crime has been commited. It was stupid and irresponsible.
Now if that person offered money or some other compensation of any form then a crime has been committed.
Sorry Rob....Nothing personal.

Tony C.
 

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
There have been too many cases than people have been incited to act without any promise of compensantion.

You said "I believe Rob should be killed", I said "let's kill Rob". Two entirely different things. I think both are illegals (just guessing).