Hate speech = freedom of speech?

[Larry]

Pib

I honestly dont know if all the participents would have to be assmebled in the same place for the person giving the command to be guilty of the crime.Typing "Lets Kill Rob" on a message board dosent seem to hold the same effect as shouting it through a megaphone to an angry mob.Good question though.

OK.Joe Millionaire is back on.
Larry

 

[sjh]

Ok I am changing my vote to yes absolutely after thinking about larry, pib and others points....

 

[mobrouser]

question:

is it acceptable in society for someone to profit financially through the usage/display of racist/hate material?

the cynic in me says that the publicity surrounding the diner in a "seedy" part of Cleveland has been beneficial to the owner's income and perhaps the diner owner in the Post's article was not just motivated by his "search for justice".

it seems to me that in many instances the argument of freedom of speech above all else is used when someone is trying to profit from racist actions.

i voted no.

mob

 

[Pib]

That's a good point (racism for profit), but the main point is that the journalist thinks it is STILL right to let the guy speak. Is the "making a profit" that bothers you? Would you feel different if he wasn't making any money and still felt and expressed himself the same way?

Curious.

 

[Hillbilly]

The New York Post and the One Nation Times (I made that up) would have different takes on the disastrous incident in Chicago.
One would be harshly critical of the officials that allowed it to happen and the money grabbing owners. The other would say "Good riddence" Now that is racism at i's worst.

HB

 

[mkohn]

I guess I'd rather know someone is a racist, than not. I used to think that racism was a white problem, so was very confused when a person of color seemed to hate me.

Once, while in the hospital, I had the pleasure of witnessing my OB-GYN describe the procedure he had done to the patient next to me. She had very bad fallopian tubes, and had to lose an ovary. He explained how on the other side, to her badly scarred tube, he "made a cuff" to make the opening stiffer - giving her a better chance at getting pregnant with 1 ovary left. He is white. She was black... I knew then, a racist doctor would have taken everything out, and left her barren... And he didn't.
mk

sorry Pib, if I've strayed off topic.

 

[Amber]

Number 1. Only by knowing who you are dealing with can you know what to expect, what do say and wether or not you need to be wary. There's an old saying, be your enemy's best friend so you always know what he/she is up to. Most of us have had to deal first hand with bigotry. In my case, I make it into either an oporutnity to become stronger or to let them see me as just as human as they.
Amber

 

[mobrouser]

no it wasn't the main point of the article (too touchy-feely, in my opinion) but it is something that springs to mind any time i hear someone arguing their right to freedom of speech. invariably there is more than one motivation. is it really the right to speak or the effect on ratings that motivates howard stern, for example? why did the diner owner choose his business rather than his home to display/voice his opinions?

and regardless of the profit question--which you didn't answer!!--i would still vote no. i believe that society must somehow maintain a certain level of civility, otherwise eventually we may all be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. i don't see racism disappearing by "talking" about it, or keeping it "out" in the open.

mob

 

[Tony C]

We need a definition first

Before this thread can continue I believe we should ettl on what is a definition of Racism.
Most people believe they know what racism is but it can be subtle.

If a guy has a preference for Black women is he a racist?
How about the Canadian woman who goes to the DR for "Dark meat" because she would never do it at home?
Afirmative Action?
How about a black person who says that he can use the word "nigger" but that a white person can't?
How about a Corporate marketing exec. who comes up with a plan targeting Latins or any other ethnic group?

Is Jesse Jackson racist? Al Sharpton? La Raza? NAACP? The NFL? The NBA? BET?

I m curious about what people think on these thoughts.

Personally I do not consider myself racist. I do consider myself "elitist". I make no apologies for that.

Tony C.

 

[Pib]

There is a difference between being elitist and racist. The first judges people based on social status and/or financial situation, the second based on race:

rac?ism
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
www.dictionary.com

Feeling attracted to one particular kind of people may or may not be rascism. Are you attracted to this particular kind of people BECAUSE you consider them superior or because you consider the rest inferior to them? Yes, then it is rascism. If it is only personal preference then it is not rascim.

A silly example: I like tall men, since in AVERAGE asians are shorter than blacks and white there is much less chance that I am going to be atracted to an Asian. Which doesn't mean I consider them inferior in any way, they just don't tickle my fancy - so to speak.

 

[Pib]

Is Jesse Jackson racist? Al Sharpton? La Raza? NAACP? The NFL? The NBA? BET?

Too broad a subject and not the time yet to discuss it. Pls. keep that out.

 

[Arve]

Oh my God.. these things should only be discussed when smoking pot.. As I'm not stoned ..right now.. it's a bit too complicated for me but I'll try to make a point or two 'cos if I don't
I'll have to go back to my dissertation and do something useful.

I voted "no", but these things are dodgy and I'll be postmodern
enough to not make any claim to a "truth".

Also, I'm a liberal. That basicly means I believe that one should
have the right to do whatever one pleases as long as one doesn't
harm the rights of other individuals.

Some definitions: "Express": I assume people here mean "to
express themselves orally"? Because just now there was some
guys where I came from that expressed their racist views by stabbing someone in the back.

"Correct": "Morally"? "Legally"? I'm pinching the ""s from someone
here.. Apologies.

"Racism": The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. ( Pib )

Now, first, the terminology here is a bit twisted...*Snips*....

Methinks another point is vital too. By judging people on their
race/ethnicity you take away their individual capabilities and place
the person into a wider category with certain attributes attached to it. Those are stereotypes, they may be true but never the hole
true but useful/necessary simplifications of reality. Ignoring their
limitations is dangerous and that's why I think racism is bad as
well as stupid as the attributes are negative. It's not a "white people's phenomena" as I've had a problem with Dominicans on
this as well.

So.. trying to follow these assumptions, I can't vote option 1.
Morally it's just not nice. It should be illegal as it'd be naive, imho, to think that words can't cause physical harm as such. Words, thoughts, ideas do have causal powers and I think that's
true both in law and in philosophy of science. Surely the climate
of discourse in Germany from around the 1850ies and onwards,
which Adolf H. was a part of, contributed strongly to the holocaust? "Oi! I'm innocent!! I just gave the orders!!!!!"

Also, linked with the liberal notion of an individual's right to freedom of speech and a government's right to intervene, I think
racists views aren't logical. Now, how do I put that point.. It's
contradictionary to hold this liberal notion of universal rights of
the individual and then ignoring another individual's rights by taking away that person's personal qualities and replacing them,
partially or fully, with some assumed qualities of some other category. It's a messed up and confused conceptual framework,
isn't it?? It must be.... And I'm not just being PC.

So, I don't think number one is a logical position to hold by claiming freedom of speech. It's not important for me to not find it morally correct ( nice ) as I can't be bothered wasting time on other people's immorality. ( Not my problem. ) However, even though it's a dogdy one, I think it should be illegal in principle.

I didn't do option 2 because it looks like one of those "I don't know" answers to those polls that ask you about your favorite
colour.. So I was stuck with option 3.

Am I waffeling?? ... I need a life.. No, even better, I need a sh@g.

 

[dale7]

I voted for #1, yes absolutely

I am openminded and can understand where many people are coming from. Since I live in the US and believe in the Constitution's freedom of speech, I support all freedom of speech. The government keeps taking more and more of our personal freedom, I am patriotic by the way and a conservative Democrat, but if we give an inch on our freedom of expression where will it end. I dislike racists and bigots but usually they are uneducated people scared of what they do not know. It is so easy to have scapegoats to blame all their worries and problems on. I am sure that all of us have been involved in a conversation with someone who was so offensive and racist that you had to walk away before you punched the individual's head in. We also have the freedom to choose to listen or not to. I believe in keeping as much freedom as we can and if Freedom of Speech is more regulated, what will be next, the right to bear arms? The government has all ready restricted what types of weapons we can have and some in the government want to disarm the citizens. I mentioned this because any loss of my personal rights I feel will be a go ahead to take more away. Being multi-ethnic I have experienced stupid racists and those that are too afraid to say they are, I dislike those more than blunt racists because I respect honesty even if I think they are living in a stone age and are ignorant. You know those people who say, "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend but I would never date one, and they are all on welfare, etc. These remarks irk me along with hateful language. I can choose not to listen and I guess I am a better person as I walk away. It is not even worth my time to argue with someone who is racist/bigot because no matter what you say, they will not listen and will not change their ignorant ways.
dale7(where has humanity gone/Good poll Pib)

 

[Negro Lindo]

I vote # 2

Maybe if the mind was as free as the mouth we would all understand things a little better. Most people have the mentality of " I can say whatever I want but I think you need to shut the hell up!"

 

[Tony C]

For all those who answered # 2 who gets to decide what can and cannot not be said?
What might be Racism to you might be common sense to somebody else!

 

[Criss Colon]

The American Civil Liberties Union,(ACLU)

Who in my opinion(and,ironically, they would defend my right to express my opinion!) are a "Left-Wing", anti GOD, self promoting group of "Schmucks"! They defend the rights of "Neo-Nazi Skin Heads",and the North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) to "march" and publish their messages of "HATE",and "PERVERSION"!!! So I guess with the exceptions of "Enciting to Riot",and yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater,anything goes!But you better not use the word "Nigger" around me or my family, no matter what color you are!!! and I doubt if Colin Powel and Condaliza Rice greet each other at the White House by saying "Whut up Nigger?"!!!!!!!! To have respect for others,you must first have respect for yourself!!CRIS

 

[mobrouser]

who gets to decide what can and cannot not be said?

in a democratic society the majority decides. is there a problem with that?

mob

 

[Pib]

I was referring about the subject in general (in fact more like applied to this message board).

About "who will decide what goes", as addressed by this thread is not so important as "to what extent". My opinion? Everything goes except defending or mentioning harming anyone. Anything short of actually defending or promoting the use of "sticks and stones".

What did you vote for Criss?


[as a mod] Pls. don't stray into the "let's bash the American institutions" thing. [/aam]

 

[Tony C]

in a democratic society the majority decides. is there a problem with that?

mob

What if the majority is wrong? Hitler was elected. So was Chavez and Hippo! Jim Crow was popular in the south.
The peoples freedom should not be effected by the whims of the populace.

 

[Tony C]

About "who will decide what goes", as addressed by this thread is not so important as "to what extent". My opinion? Everything goes except defending or mentioning harming anyone. Anything short of actually defending or promoting the use of "sticks and stones".

?
[/aam]

So anybody advocating military force or the use of force in protecting oneself should be band as well?