General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums40% Of Millenials Say The Government Should Be Able To Step In And Censor Peoples Speech If It Is
Considered Offensive. Pew Research polled people from several different generations, Silent, Baby Boomers, and Millennials, and the results are interesting. 40% of millennials polled said that they believe that the government should be able to take action to prevent people from giving speeches with content that may offend someone in a minority group. Would this be an infringement on freedom of speech or is it a way to prevent racist violence? Either way Donald Trump had better watch his step.
The Young Turks give their side:
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I guess they don't realize that someone could find THEIR speech offensive and ban it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Snow Leopard
(348 posts)Initech
(100,129 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)brush
(53,968 posts)To think that 40 percent of Millennials think that way.
Talk about slippery slope and an invitation to a demagogue to enforce their foolish beliefs.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Troubling, rather authoritarian attitude....
Crunchy Frog
(26,701 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Hate speech is a deferred incitement to violence and should be limited more.
Hate the blacks, hate the Jews, hate the Kuffars, all this has consequences down the road.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Some of us in this country believe in civil liberties. Besides, who decides what is hate speech?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)would be by enthusiastic evangelical District Attorneys in Southern states, rushing to be the first person ever to put an American in prison for "blaspheming Christianity".
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The worst thing? Their approval ratings would skyrocket.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Ted Cruz gets to decide who's guilty.
Yeah no
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)such as quoting the bible.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)It is not the civil liberty of a person suffering from dementia to walk about with an AK47.
Preaching mindless hate to an impressionable audience is equally dangerous.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You hit several of the major fallacious tropes used to attack the right to free speech. Thanks for playing.
https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)What is referred to as the #1 fallacy in the article is not what I am saying.
Yes, as it is, the First has no hate speech exception. And I disagree.
In History, hate speech has been a potent weapon leading to mass deaths.
While it is difficult to define, granted, action is better than fascist or islamist hate speech.
imho.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)And would love that power.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Trump is a demagogue. Does he really have a tyrannical strain? I don't know and I don't think it matters: he's too over the top to be a credible threat.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Even forgetting fallacy #1 you hit several of the others, including #5 for certain.
And well, as it is, the constitution is the law of the land. Good luck getting an amendment passed banning hate speech. I'd love to see someone try.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Lots of people take offense over this or that phrasing, reporting at any whiff of un-PCness
But hate speech should be protected? I'd like to see some coherence.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)We are here because the owners say we can be here.
If Skinner says I can't use hate speech, then I'm obliged to conform to his rules or leave. He can't punish me, fine me, put me in jail - he can just kick me off of the site.
That's completely different than the government banning hate speech.
FYI, the First Amendment doesn't apply here.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)And besides, we're talking about a legal concept here, not the TOS for playing in someone else's sandbox which is understandably different.
Nice try, again!
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Opinions about concepts should be protected.
But I question the wisdom of not tackling hate speech suggesting violence directed at some group or in support of violent groups.
For instance, would speech extolling ISIS and suggesting to join them be protected?
MADem
(135,425 posts)ideas about the types of conversations they want to see here. We are guests in THEIR home, in essence.
You want to shoot your mouth off and say things that don't 'go over' here? You're welcome to go do that elsewhere--but here we're supposed to operate within the TOS.
There's a line in the TOS that says the admins can toss a person over the side if they don't like them or if they make DU suck.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Irony is quite frequently taken literaly. Disclaimers are advised whenever parallels are used.
In effect, a noticeable percentage of people in action not word lean toward restricted speech.
But in word here, free speech seems to be taken as untouchable, even vs hate speech.
I am just noting an amusing contradiction.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You have to click to see it. It's not really hidden or censored--it's just tucked behind a link.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)or to an image which is meant as figurative, but pointed at with a literal comment.
Don't tell me you never noticed these tricks played by some to silence opinions they disliked.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't like your candidate so I'm going to deliberately misread what you wrote, take faux offense, and demand that a jury misread the post as well, along candidate lines...
And it's not only played along Bernie/HRC lines. Other topics too.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)the government controls the citizens, rather than the citizens controlling the government, because if the government can control what people say to each other, the government can control political discussion.
When Skinner creates a discussion website or someone walks into a church, that is a private area, and membership/participation is voluntary and has its own rules.
The difference between what the government mandates and what private voluntary associations mandate should be obvious.
f you are a committed conservative, you lose nothing by not being allowed to promote your views on DU. If you are a devout Catholic, you lose nothing by someone railing against Catholics in a fundamentalist church. If you are a vegan, nothing about your life changes because the local steak house is doing a roaring business. If you are a Christian Scientist, nothing about your life changes because I go to the urgent care clinic for a bad respiratory infection.
If the government decides what is hate speech, it will always be speech against those in power at the moment. Not only that, but we will all be locked in fruitless battle about what is hate speech ALL THE TIME. Everyone will lose freedom.
The government does not protect hate speech. The government protects the basic civil rights of individuals without regard to their speech.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Britain is about to change its laws to make it permissible to crack on islamist hate speech.
Rightly so, as islamists are trying to pit one community against another,
through violence if need be.
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There is a reason the 1st Amendment was put first.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)someone decides to act on them. A person with dementia is unable to even decide. That's why they are not allowed to drive or carry weapons. They can't function.
The "impressionable audience" you are discussing is the populace. The voters. If they are too feeble and unwise to listen to bad ideas and discard them, then obviously they are incapable of electing a government that will likewise reject these ideas.
You are preaching an idea that is the enemy of democracy.
Democracy achieves a high overall level of decency and public safety. You are advocating tyranny, and that's all you are advocating.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Oneironaut
(5,538 posts)Many right wing Christians in the US are whiny, entitled, and uninformed about even their own religion.
Oops, I just committed hate speech. I guess the SWAT team is going to break down my door now and arrest me for hate speech against Christianity. Actually, they won't because we're better than that as a country.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)It is perfectly OK to say Christianity is nonsense. That's a view I incidentally share.
It's OK to criticize any ideology. The problem starts when you target a group.
If I say all {insert neme of group here} are {insert expletives here} and should be {insert form of violence here}, it's not OK.
The SCOTUS only gives a no-no to incitement to immediate violence. I disagree.
Incitement to deferred violence repeated over time is equally very dangerous. imho.
Oneironaut
(5,538 posts)Many people think that criticizing Christianity is hate speech. If these people got into government, they would be able to carry out punishment against what they perceive to be hate speech because hate speech is so subjective.
Example:
All right wing Christians are whiny and entitled, and should be mocked. The previous statement might be considered hate speech. It might also viewed as inciting violence because it's 'encouraging persecution' of Christians.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)OK, you did target a group, but you did not incite violence.
Anyway, some right wing Christians are not whiny and entitled,
maybe.
onenote
(42,821 posts)The reason that the violence has to be immediately caused by the speech is that otherwise it's impossible to prove what "incited" the violence.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If you tell 100 times a complicit congregation that {group X} is scum which deserves {violence Y} one day, you know it's not going to end well.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That's kind of part and parcel of the definition of speech inciting lawless action.
And yes, yes, we get it, your sacred cow would never get gored on those horns.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)And if you are referring to religion as my sacred cow, I have a herd of cows then.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)They of the nature of 'disparaging' people based on their race, religion, nation of origin, etc.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)European laws target hate speech, therefore deferred incitement.
One can't continuously spew hatred about one given group and not expect actual violence.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)The blame falls on the people committing the violence, not the people exercising their right to free speech.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)But don't be surprised when nobody gives a flip what you call it in the face of what everyone else does.
If you want european style hate speech laws in the US, then don't hide behind contrived definitions that sound similar to something that is already not protected speech.
e.g. Australia: - "The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
France: "Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. "
Denmark: "Any person who, publicly or with the intention of disseminating ... makes a statement ... threatening (trues), insulting (forhånes), or degrading (nedværdiges) a group of persons on account of their race, national or ethnic origin or belief shall be liable to a fine or to simple detention or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
Good luck trying to get such an amendment passed here.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Europe is going too far the other way, criminalizing criticism.
But hate speech is more than mere criticism, it's preaching violence.
It's not the same to say 'religion X is silly' (which is OK, but barely in Europe), and to say'(un)believers in Y should be subjugated/repressed/whatever'.
The fact you do not see the vast expanse between these two possible statements leaves only place for a discussion of blue elephants and potatoes, as you suggest.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Until you can put out something other than this nonsensical 'deferred incitement', all you have left is Europe's model.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Not interested in doing that here, not to mention the fact that absent a Constitutional amendment, it can't be done.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)If they're in place to take away freedoms, not so much.
Plus there is no way such an amendment would pass.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...
The Justice Minister had tweeted the following on 17 November, without any further details: "Paragraph 356 Penal Code: Whosoever incites the hatred of any (...) religion (...) will be punished by deprivation of liberty for up to two years." According to the media, his tweet was a reference to a demonstration that took place at Albertov in Prague that day involving the Bloc against Islam and Czech President Milo Zeman.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)It is OK to be opposed to Islam. The text of Islam is opposed to secular democracy.
It's another to incite violence against Muslims.
From your excerpt, the indictment is OK if Martin Konvička incited violence or hatred vs Muslims. But the text of "Paragraph 356 Penal Code" is dangerously worded if it forbids "hatred of any (...) religion".
I hate nazism, facism and most religions. Hate is maybe a strong word, but I resolutely object to the Torah, Old Testament and Quran. And the NT is incoherent chatter.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)The hate part is the rationale for the crime.
Someone gets robbed on the street it's theft.
Someone gets into a fight on the street in a drunken brawl it's assault.
Someone gets beaten on the street while racial epithets are spewed it's a hate crime.
Saying something hateful and no crimes happen because of it is not a hate crime, it's just someone being hateful.
I myself have been called many hateful, libelous things, by very disturbed individuals. I would not want their hate speech to be restrained.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The phrase "hate speech" is a dangerous one. It doesn't actually mean anything, but it lets people oppose freedom of speech while telling themselves that that's not what they're doing it.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)For some, hate speech is criticizing the religion of the majority, being openly gay, or contributing money to the wrong political party.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Nothing could possibly go wrong...
DustyJoe
(849 posts)the Eloi in HG Wells time machine thought life was hunky dory not really much different than 40% millenials who seem to think being controlled is safer than freedom.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)In it, radical Mulism women advertise the ISIS caliphate in private 'Tupperware' sessions.
Is it free speech?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Guess what? No, there isn't.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)There is a vast comfort zone between tyranny and anarchy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Someome says something that maks someone else mad = "incitement!"
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Into generations by party affiliation, political leaning, etc...?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)That would have been interesting to know.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)They have no fucking clue what is going on in politics and attempts to narrow down the 'demographic' are a nightmare.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It's so nursery school.
Nobody with half a brain sacrifices RIGHTS to offenses.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Oneironaut
(5,538 posts)It's not the government's job to make sure that your fee fees aren't hurt. It should never have that job. Everybody has the right to be a jerk, no matter how offensive they are.
Somewhere along the line, these people lost the plot. Yes, offensive speech is bad. That doesn't mean it should be banned. Coming to that conclusion is not only stupid - it's dangerous.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I say we fight racism with education but not government. We need to raise well educated young people who are smart enough to know that racism and other bigotries are wrong. The government should not have to step in. If kids are brought up knowing that we are all one people and that race is completely insignificant to who you are then we will defeat racism.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)The trouble with "There oughta be a law" is that laws require enforcement. And what is another name for law enforcement? It will come to me any second now. It starts with a "P" I think.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I will leave it at that.
Waldorf
(654 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)I imagine most would find that significant.
This is just as bad...
hatrack
(59,599 posts)Pull your heads out, Precious Tech-Savvy Snowflakes.
"Now" would be a really good time to start doing so.
Reter
(2,188 posts)40% of them should be deported or jailed.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I am a millennial I don't believe in limits on free speech but I find what you just said slightly odd. Your talking about jailing or deporting a huge amount of people because of the generation they belong to. I have to ask, are you Donald trump?
mountain grammy
(26,663 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I think it's BS but his "political correctness" crap has hit a nerve out there.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)the rethuglicans have always bitched about the PC police. But have you ever talked to one about what that actually means? I talked to a republican I know, and a republican family member. Apparently some republicans think that being politically correct means that you are a political insider, that you are a career politician, and others think it means not offending people. I like how trump is picking up speed based on a topic his supporters cant agree on the definition of.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)No thanks! The first amendment doesn't have a qualifier. Who makes the decision on what is or isn't offensive? It's clear that our education system is broken because 40% of Millennials have no understanding of history. You couldn't possibly think it was okay unless you had no idea how authoritarian governments have used the suppression of free speech to shut down schools, news organizations, laboratories and to silence political opposition.
Bleeping out curse words on the radio isn't the censorship you'll have to worry about. Censoring of ideas and discussion is the antithesis of intellectualism. Letting the most recent crop of sociopaths that rule us decide what speech is or isn't offensive is a recipe for locking up anyone who speaks out against the status queue or injustice. Fascism is right around the corner.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)but we have seen aggression against the media
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)and France...can folks guess the reason?
Why does America think itself so special it refuses to learn from history?
Throd
(7,208 posts)The 1st Anmendment is just fine the way it is.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Under President Trump your rantings will be considered a security threat and harmful to public order.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)There are many ways in which European politics is preferable to American. Freedom of speech is not one of them.
You can't ban speech you don't like without opening the door to e.g. banning the burka, which France has also done.
The only way to protect the freedom to be right is to protect the freedom to be wrong.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As much as that may drive some people perpetually bonkers
Throd
(7,208 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Just think in what decade they grew up in and you can see why.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)refugees, multiculturalism and diversity.
All that is great and cause for Trump and his fellow right wingers to see what the future holds for their fading brand of hate and fear politics.
The bad news is that young people feel the evilness of RW politics so much that too many are willing to sacrifice basic rights to fight against it.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)they are on the correct side might well find themselves in the wrong. Consider, for example, a totalitarian dictatorship.
As another example, I once had a friend that thought nothing bad should be allowed to be said about Bush during or after the US Iraq invasion.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)Now the "Getting Dressed" course (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/1112/3a.shtml) is much more useful for today's modern world. Who needs free speech when you can learn how powerful clothes can be?
ileus
(15,396 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It's easy to filter out anything you don't like on the internet. They're bringing their reality to real life, as each generation does.
The thing about life is you never know where it's going.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,405 posts)Canada 37%
France 48%
Germany 70%
Italy 62%
Poland 50%
UK 38%
Australia 36%
Japan 79%
South Korea 56%
There isn't an obvious consensus on this, in the developed world.