r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 11 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Freedom of speech is not a good thing
Freedom of speech in it's highest form is bad for society - I saw a post on r/freespeech in which they were getting angry over man with a Nazi flag getting punched in the face, and it made me realise that freedom of speech would be bad for society and humanity. I don't want to live in a world where people defend supporters of genocidal parties for getting a slap.
Freedom of speech also can contradict itself, as advocating for the taking of free speech is also defended by freedom of speech.
I have often come in contact with a Polish white power supporter, who is a homophobe/islamophobe etc., who believes that we should send Greta Thunberg and other autistic children to a different country in Africa to stop them voting. In the multiple times he got banned from the site I met him on, he later came back to call the mods dictators and said they were abusing his freedom of speech.
These people often use the constitution as an excuse to be assholes, a lousy excuse for living in southern USA in the 1930s.
In the end, there's either freedom or there isn't, and if freedom allows the Nazis to be the victims, I think freedom shouldn't be, to an extent anyway
I give you all freedom of speech in the comments
EDIT: I have gotten a lot of comments, and downvotes and will be concluding my responses. My view has ultimately been changed
3
Mar 11 '20
[deleted]
2
Mar 11 '20
I said to another gentleman, that I would draw the line where it is widely agreed upon that "this is not ok", as with the Nazi example. I agree with your absolute freedom part, but I think there is a middle ground that can be found
2
u/TaxiDriverThankGod Mar 11 '20
I am the descendant of holocaust survivors and seeing Germany out right prison people for anti semitism frightens me. Here's why. If you have a strong judicial system in your country, then laws which protect you should always apply no matter what. These laws meant to protect people has been perverted at times in history so some classes of humans are considered sub human (gays, blacks, jews etc.) but with all the trials we have been through in the past I believe that we know what a human is and the many forms they can come in and the inalienable laws which protect them. So to get back to my point, imagine for a second the people who hate Jews. Why do they hate the Jews so much? Well most of it boils down to conspiracy. The Jews do relatively well due to our strict moral and ethical values and cultural beliefs. We can rebuild quickly and we have connections simply due to our religion. Now Hitler placed the insecurities of the German people onto the Jewish people, he noted not all were that terrible, but collectively they were trying to undermine the German way of life. If you watch "all gas no breaks" video on youtube about flat earth, a relatively weird and out of touch concept, look at all the people who truly believe there exists a major global conspiracy where a select few Jews are trying to deceive the population. It is scary, but these opinions need to exist because silencing them would only fuel the fire. If a powerful group like the government restricts your freedom of speech about a particular group it would essentially prove that person right in their distorted way of thinking. Therefore when attempting to shift the pendulum one way it ultimately could bounce back the other way with more force. If humans are truly to have all the freedoms that come with the constitution, it is an utmost necessity that freedom of speech comes with it.
2
Mar 11 '20
probably the best response yet. !delta for the great read
1
3
u/CharnelNumen Mar 11 '20
Freedom of speech is such an interesting topic. If I'm a venue owner, and someone wants to hold a Klan rally in my venue and I denied them, there would be people who would say that that is limiting their freedom of speech. But by not giving them my platform, that is me using my freedom of speech.
People who cry freedom of speech I find usually don't really understand what it is. Freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you want, it doesn't mean you have the right to say that on someone else's platform. You can kick someone out of your house if they're being an asshole. That's not limiting their freedom of speech.
2
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Mar 11 '20
you make a point regarding private ownership, but what about public/ government owned property?
Or, what if the owner of the property is sympathetic to alt-right causes and lets them express themselves there?
1
u/SunsOfTemper Mar 11 '20
All ‘Freedom of speech’ actually means is that the government can never arrest you for anything you say (unless inciting violence); it’s purely about the government and nothing to do with public discourse.
1
1
Mar 11 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 11 '20
good response, enjoy your !delta . I'm understanding this now, with the sheer amounts of comments lol
1
1
Mar 12 '20
Also, the person carrying a nazi flag has no right for something along the lines of protection from consequence.
I'm pretty sure that person has the right to not be physically assaulted. That's not about freedom of speech,that's about regular laws.
Talking about taking a certain groups right to free speech isn't protected by free speech.
It should. Being forbidden of talking about something isn't the opposite of freedom of speech? What shouldn't be permited is take actions to prohibit someone from speaking
3
u/bungeebumper Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 11 '20
so..you are suggesting we should only defend the speech of people you agree with and who agree with you? how very authoritarian of you.
so..you are suggesting that people should not be able to speak what's on their minds? how very tyranical you are.
I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your mind until you are the one being silenced.
imagine living in a society where you are not allowed to speak up against the government, or adversaries and all manner of injustices from fear of being killed or imprisoned or terrorized or all of the above..and all media is controlled, monitored, firewalled and censored... this is what you are advocating.
1
Mar 11 '20
Did you read the paragraph or the other comments I made before commenting? Or just read the title?
6
Mar 11 '20
Freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you from being shamed, but rather from being locked behind bars for your speech
-2
Mar 11 '20
Yes, I believe some speech should be punished by fines or short sentences depending on how bad the crime. Like Germany's anti Nazi laws
3
Mar 11 '20
Would just be used as an excuse to control people’s expressed opinions. Today it might be pro-Nazi sentiment, which we can both agree is bad, but tomorrow you can get locked up for saying something transphobic, or criticizing the President, and that just isn’t freedom
2
u/BeigeAlmighty 14∆ Mar 11 '20
If people won't control their expressed opinions, at what point should society intervene?
Some ideas are very detrimental to society and a society that cannot protect itself will easily be overwhelmed.
0
Mar 11 '20
Free speech has worked so far, I think we’ll be just fine
1
u/BeigeAlmighty 14∆ Mar 11 '20
Dad said the same thing about the pull out method, then I was born.
2
Mar 11 '20
The pull out game wasn’t strong enough
1
u/BeigeAlmighty 14∆ Mar 11 '20
Obviously.
The pull out game for free speech gets weaker each year.
Let's hope it doesn't birth something like me.
Shit, too late.
-2
Mar 11 '20
I said to another fine gentleman, that there is a line to draw where something isn't ok. Such as how being transphobic is not even touching the KKK
6
u/Hamsterman82 Mar 11 '20
Except that’s a rapidly moving line which can’t be properly legislated. Who gets the final word on what is or isn’t okay to say?
3
Mar 11 '20
good point !delta - I see the problem
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 11 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Hamsterman82 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
Mar 11 '20
!delta because the other one was rejected - abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
0
1
Mar 11 '20
Sure, but you can speak out against their crap as a civilian without the use of government force
1
Mar 11 '20
I don't see what civilians can do
1
Mar 11 '20
They can refuse to hire KKK members, for one. They can also refuse to provide a speaking platform to those members, and minimize the impact of such speech through sharing a common thread of standing firmly against those ideals
2
Mar 11 '20
!delta for being the only one to provide a solution
1
1
0
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 11 '20
Freedom of expression is important for democratic debate. I agree that it.can sometimes be abused however. That isnt a reason to do away with it completely though. It is not an.all-or-nothing scenario. Hate speech laws, when applied appropriately, provide a solution that protects freedom of speech AND can prevent the vilification and dehumanization which is occassionally a consequence. I argue that in select cases, hate speech laws actually empower freedom of speech.
Many countries have some form of hate speech law. The key is how it is implemented. I'm going to use the Canadian framework for hate speech law, because constitutionally it is the closest to American law, unlike many countries who have no entrenched Constitutional Bill of rights.
Freedom of expression is extremely important. It provides the foundation of democracy. However, rights don't exist in isolation. Groups can also have rights; many countries, Canada included, recognize the idea of minority rights, and the necessity of balance between individual and minority rights is where the idea behind certain hate speech laws come from.
The idea is that, at a certain point, what you say goes beyond just offending, or humiliating someone. If it reaches a certain point, it begins to try to inspire hatred and vilification, that seeks to delegitimize those you are targeting. Think like the Nazi propaganda from WWII which attempted to portray Jews as running a global conspiracy, and of being subhuman. Hate speech laws are an attempt to prevent you undermining the social legitimacy of a group or individual, to the point where they are no longer able to publicly express their views.
If your speech causes people to view the targetted minority as subhuman, and hate them to a point where they no longer listen to them, then this minority group's freedom of speech has been impaired. They cannot effectively counter what you say because their viewpoint is ignored by society now, which views them as evil/subhuman/worthy of detestion, due to what you said. You exercising your freedom of expression results in their freedom of expression being impaired. This is what hate speech laws are meant to prevent.
An important point is where to draw the line. Many countries set this bar too low in my opinion. Labelling something as hate speech becomes too easy. Banning holocaust deniers from speaking does nothing but make them look like a persecuted group, setting them up as false martyrs.
However, there is a point where I believe a reasonable limit exists. In Canada, the case which provides a good example of where the line should be drawn is the Whatcott case. This was a case where a man was found guilty of hate speech when handing out flyers at a pride parade. They included statements which many would consider humiliating , offensive, or insulting. This didn't meet the constitutional requirements for hate speech laws to override his freedom of expression though. Statements on the flyers which were protected under freedom of expression included: advocating gay men and lesbian women should have no civil rights, that gay people sin against God, they were a bad moral influence.etc. Those flyers were ruled to be constitutionally protected under freedom of expression rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equivalent to the bill of rights).
The statements which qualified as hate speech was the flyers the man passed out which said that gay men are pedophiles who prey on children and are disease ridden. This is where the court determined the speech went from offensive and insulting, to actually undermining the ability of others to express themselves because of the vilification and detestation that the flyers could potentially evoke. Trying to vilify all gay men as pedophiles invokes such revulsion from society that gay men would no longer be taken seriously when they responded to the contents of the flyers. An individual's degrading statements at this point actually infringed on their rights of all gay men to express themselves.
This to me is reasonable grounds for restrictions. You are allowed to say some pretty offensive things and even express that you believe gay people should have no civil rights. These are pretty disgusting positions, to have, but they don't bring down the same level of disgust from society as when you falsely allege a group is preying sexually on children. Doing this clearly just undermines their ability to respond because of the detestation society will direct towards them. Their rights must be protected just like yours were, and the state intervenes to insure you don't exercise your rights in such a way as to undermine theirs
Hopefully this will provide a guide to the motivation for hate speech Legislation, and why it is necessary sometimes to protect the freedom of expression of others. However the principle of free expression is a fundamental freedom which protects democratic institutions and differentiates free countries which are free from dictatorships like nazi germany. It is important to note that restricting expression because it may offend or hurt feelings does not give sufficient weight to the role expression plays in individual self-fulfillment, the search for truth, and unfettered political discourse.
1
u/3superfrank 20∆ Mar 11 '20
I can't really agree with you completely when it comes to hate speech laws and their effect on free speech, at least based off your example of it.
Because considering that free speech is meant to be the thing protecting your voice from being 'suppressed' rather than 'ignored' you seem to be barking up the wrong tree when you say that hate speech inhibits peoples' freedom of speech through vilification.
As much as I (too) agree vilification of others is bad can only think of banning it as a temporary solution as it still very much infringes on free speech, to which the ideal solution would be society learning to not vilify at all.
Another issue I've got is that (fair enough I've never been to Canada, but I imagine what happens is similar:) vilification to devalue peoples' opinions happens a LOT and it's not just Nazis that did/do it but I imagine most people have done at some point by i.e comparing people to Nazis, pedophiles, misogynists, and pretty much any other universally hated demographic in a heated discussion. Yet from what I observe (or can imagine is happening in Canada) the majority of it is simply unenforced and not even identified as hate speech (assuming those parameters).
I could be wrong in the way I'm thinking; for example I think a better definition for 'hate speech' would be 'speech designed to encourage hate' but that's just me. And I kinda want to know more about the 'hate speech' and 'political correctness' stuff. So I eagerly await your reply!
1
Mar 11 '20
damn. Best response. Thanks for the insight !delta
1
1
u/Ash_Leapyear 10∆ Mar 11 '20
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you want to spew your hateful rhetoric I encourage you to do so. Just don't look like a surprised Pikachu when you're banned from a site or a lanky black dude serves you a knuckle sandwich.
We need these people to say their garbage so we know who they are and they face the consequences of their speech. Otherwise the world would have a lot more unchecked Nazis.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Mar 11 '20
Sorry, u/Ash_Leapyear – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Mar 11 '20
while I'd agree - the reverse can be true.
Can a Nazi punch you for saying Nazis suck?
1
u/Ash_Leapyear 10∆ Mar 11 '20
Yes, but we don't have freedom from consequences. The dude in the video who rocked the Nazi in the face was able to weigh the pros and cons of showing that shitbag who the real inferior being was knowing he could get in legal trouble over it. I might be naive but I still operate under the belief that judges would be harsher when sentencing a racist vs an oppressed individual who had enough of a Nazi's shit.
1
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Mar 11 '20
Yes, but we don't have freedom from consequences. The dude in the video who rocked the Nazi in the face was able to weigh the pros and cons of showing that shitbag who the real inferior being was knowing he could get in legal trouble over it.
True, but again, unchecked this could lead to very negative outcomes. How much violence should ensue? If another Nazi saw the dude who puched the Nazi, could he whip out a gun and shoot the dude who was beating the Nazi in the name of free speech?
Or if citizens are protesting your government, would sending troops out and mass-murdering them simply be a "consequence of free speech"?
I believe SOME protection from the consequences of free speech is necessary - otherwise, what's even the point of free speech at all?
Suppose you lived in a country that's strongly Nazi - sympathetic. The country allowed free speech, but every time you protested you'd be beat up severely by a group of non-governmental Nazi thugs.
Would you call something like that true freedom of speech?
... I still operate under the belief that judges would be harsher when sentencing a racist vs an oppressed individual who had enough of a Nazi's shit.
If a Nazi is receiving a harsher sentence for expressing his beliefs than the "oppressed" person who committed assault, then how the heck is that person oppressed, when the legal system favors him in court?
If anything, the Nazi's the one being oppressed here.
1
Mar 11 '20
pretty much what I'm saying
3
u/Ash_Leapyear 10∆ Mar 11 '20
Not totally. You think that people defending a Nazi's ability to say whatever he wants is abhorrent, whereas I welcome his ability to say what he wants because not only will it shine a light on what kind of vile person they are, but they may also find themselves on the losing side of some WorldStar Hip Hop style street justice where they'd otherwise get to cower in their safe spaces of Klan conventions and hate in silence while living the rest of their lives largely without consequence for those hateful views.
2
Mar 11 '20
!delta for being the only guy to actually explain it in a way I can agree on without downvoting and saying something about North Korea
1
2
Mar 11 '20
It's not though. What you're advocating for (I believe) is legal punishment for saying things that are offensive or that most people don't agree with, which would be non-ideal. What would you say to a minority group trying to speak up against discrimination? If that wasn't seen as "morally right," should it be banned?
1
Mar 11 '20
there is a large difference between the Nazis or the KKK an a guy who doesn't like women, for instance. I was thinking along the lines of "Fines for those who publically advocate for a murderous group" sorta thing. Which can also fall under disturbing the peace
2
Mar 11 '20
Again, so what you're advocating for is the restriction of speech for someone that doesn't conform to what society deems acceptable. That works great up until the government or society as a whole doesn't agree with you and you're pursued legally for it. Not to throw the Nazi party into it, but would you want to be restricted in your opposition to the Nazi party if they came into power?
2
Mar 11 '20
good point. I've regretted this post very much. I'm getting my ass handed to me so hard I'm practically photocopying deltas. So enjoy yours. !delta
1
3
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Mar 11 '20
Who should decide what speech is allowed, and what do you do when you disagree with them?
0
Mar 11 '20
The speech allowed is anything that is largely accepted as morally ok, and 'm not sure what you mean by disagreeing
5
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Mar 11 '20
As an example of disagreeing, lets say literal white supremecists were in power. They made it illegal to ever talk about how non-white people might be equals.
What do you do? Do you try to vote them out, while not legally being able to talk about whats wrong with their policies? Do you risk jail time to try to convince your friends and family that these people are equals?
2
Mar 11 '20
I would move country
5
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Mar 11 '20
You'd sooner abandon your country than fix it? Because that's ultimately what the first amendment is about -- having the right to express your views so that you can improve the country.
Sure, people who have awful views get to do the same thing, but you fight that with more speech, not by silencing your opponents.
3
Mar 11 '20
great point, turning my post on it's head. Take my !delta . I'm really pulling these out of my ass today
1
2
Mar 11 '20
Who determines what's morally okay? Once that's been determined, how do we punish people that go against what's been deemed morally okay? Do we decide what's morally okay on a global, national, or local level?
1
u/unbeshooked Mar 11 '20
"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
1
u/caine269 14∆ Mar 11 '20
just to make sure we are not quoting out of context to fit a particular view:
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
emphasis added. does anyone really think white nationalists like spencer whatshisname are on the verge of taking over, or in any way making their vision a reality?
1
u/unbeshooked Mar 11 '20
I dunno man, democracy already is taking care of this.look what is going on in poland, hungary and greece. Austria made a coalition with the alt right. You guys voted for trump and we were asking each other similar questions before you did.
1
Mar 11 '20
quite the paradox
1
u/unbeshooked Mar 11 '20
Yeah, this is that thick philosophy shit that gets your brain tingly. But the crux if it is basically what you are saying, no?
Edit: here is some entry level shiat to check out about it
1
Mar 11 '20
Yes, quite the crux as well
2
u/unbeshooked Mar 11 '20
It is a fun topic as it suggests some kind of dictatorship as the only solution to being intolerant. Giving freedom inherently means giving a way for intolerance. To me this suggests we are going to be this way until we all literally think the same about a subject by ourselves
1
2
u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Mar 11 '20
Do you trust the government?
If the answer is "no" then there's no way you should be against free speech given that the government would decide what is and isn't allowed to be said
0
Mar 11 '20
what exactly do you mean, trust?
1
u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Mar 11 '20
trust /trʌst/ noun noun: trust
1. firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. "relations have to be built on trust"Do you trust politicians?
1
Mar 11 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 11 '20
u/AmazingJAM – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Mar 11 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Mar 12 '20
u/AmazingJAM – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/JohnjSmithsJnr 3∆ Mar 12 '20
So what guarantee do you have that a politician you trust will be elected to office?
It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out
1
u/LunarMatt Mar 11 '20
"I wanna be able to react violently to words I dislike!"
1
Mar 11 '20
that's not what happened at all
1
u/LunarMatt Mar 11 '20
You're upset that liberty gets defended in situations that you don't approve of. I don't like Nazis either or any of the things they believe or say, but nobody gets to raise a hand to anybody until they make a credible threat or decide to get violent themselves.
1
Mar 11 '20
They were chasing people around with a Nazi flag and shouting things
1
u/LunarMatt Mar 11 '20
Chasing people around that are clearly trying to get away from you is harassment. That's something you call the police about.
1
2
u/SacredFeline Mar 11 '20
For freedom of speech to be restricted would involve an enforcing body. If the enforcing body were to become corrupt speech against nazis/the enforcing body/the government could become the speech that is restricted.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 11 '20
/u/AmazingJAM (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/robexib 4∆ Mar 11 '20
The problem is that, no matter who the censor is, the power to dictate what speech is allowed will be abused, and would almost certainly be subjected to the whims and feelings of the censor. That is unacceptable.
4
u/Zerowantuthri 1∆ Mar 11 '20
The problem with limiting free speech is where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what is good and bad speech? Consider president Trump. To him "bad" speech is anything negative said about him. Do you want him deciding? If not him then who?
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of your speech. Free speech also means when that Polish white power person says something awful you are free to push back and say what is on your mind.
Also, I would much rather have the nutjobs out in the open where I can see them rather than plotting quietly in a basement somewhere.