European Politics

Certainly, but the problem is that when you can reduce some speech, you can reduce all speech and I am not to thrilled with a small group of people doing this. It may seem obvious to stop someone from calling someone a name, but it gets less clear if someone were to say something like Jimmy the Greek did .. which did get him fired, but there was some element to truth to what he said .. but could also be construed as racist.
 
I accept this (--although you're perhaps conflating race & nationality in your example.) But what alternative are you suggesting? Surely you accept that "racism" has to be defined? And that it's within our intellectual nous to do so. And if defined (& fairly) --should there not be consequences to someone exhibiting racism? (--beyond verbal disagreement.) You say you're not thrilled, but surely you wouldn't be too thrilled at the alternative?
 
I am saying I would lean heavily on the side of free speech even if it means some less than ideal speech makes its way public. I do not think there should be any consequences for racist speech ... again some is clear, some is less well defined and I am not happy with a board or some group deciding what falls into what category.
 
I tend to agree, I think; certainly with your first sentence. (Not so sure about your "no consequences" for racist speech though.) However, it does make me uncomfortable. If not "a board or some group" (not sure why you don't just say government; is this not what you refer to?) --who should define then, if define at all? The masses? I don't think I have as much faith in the general public as you do.
 
Some are using their freedom of speech in a quite questionable way, if I may say so:

Anti-Jewish rally in Budapest

These people illustrate the point I made in the death penalty discussion yesterday: Basic rights - in this case the right to free speech - is something you should have because a society without it is worse, not because you deserve it. This lot definitely does not deserve free speech. Morons.
 
It's a tricky balance. But, I think I agree; & with bearfan, who is basically saying the same thing. Yes, with free speech you'll get this nonsense; & this is damaging. But ideally you'd hope people (I didn't actually look at the link above) just didn't think/do these things. But the alternative is restricting freedom of speech (in some manner), which doesn't seem much better.
 
The past has proven that hateful speeches and rallies vs (ethnical/religious) groups can cause trouble. Lots of trouble. At some point, the majority of a whole nation could even be infected. Infested with crazy ideas that certain people are to blame for problems.

Could you give an example of how the case of Wingman will lead to bigger problems if you restrict such hateful rallies?
 
I think I did earlier, there was a similar anti-Jewish rally/march in Skokie, Illinois where at the time was a heavily Jewish community with many Holocaust survivors there. The ACLU, with many Jewish members on it's board, fought for the right of the Nazis to march there. The end result was a revulsion of the vast majority of the population and the Illinois Nazi movement essentially went underground and they became a joke (see Blues Brothers "I hate Illinois Nazis".
 
Indeed Forostar. I've modified slightly what I said above.

I think where I disagree (with some of what's been said) is in there being no consequences. I do agree that you should, in the first instance, be able to say what you want i.e. freedom of speech, without restrictions. I think. I just don't accept that freedom of speech both is, or should be, without consequence. Words are powerful stuff. I think others have slightly more faith, than you Forostar, that common sense will prevail in these circumstances i.e. that people will see "hateful rallies" & think that these people are nutcases. I'm not so sure...

EDIT: Although, I just read what bearfan said --& that's pretty good to hear. That's the point he, & others, have made.
 
It's not just lacking faith. It's trying to be realistic about it, and notice what happens.
I have seen such rallies in Moscow (on TV) vs demonstrating gays. And it wasn't just words. Some gays got a beating. There's a line between words and violence, especially when we're talking about radical nutcases.

Also in Hungary the government discriminates minorities. It starts with words, and it changes to discrimination.
 
There is certainly a line between words and actions ... actions should be prosecuted if they are illegal
 
States may not prosecute themselves when they don't think/admit they do something wrong. But in Hungary's case it's up to the EU.
 
But if a state is starting to go down a bad path, that is where having a society embraced free speech is even more important.
 
I don't have utmost faith in all populations or smaller communities to openly contest (or indeed pointedly ignore and shun) publicly spoken views that in themselves could have a serious impact on the basic rights and quality of life of a particular racial group or other social minority, I'm afraid. A widespread ethical and publicly acknowledged answering viewpoint is an absolute must for freedom of speech to be completely beneficial to society at large.

Speech and spoken opinion in itself can usually be separated from actual threats and violence directed at individuals, but if uncontested speech which disparages a particular section of society dominates a public arena, then it moves into the realm of actual bullying and harrassment as opposed to giving rise to casual offence.
 
But what is the option .. tell people they cannot say anything perceived as anti-gay in public and force all this underground. Also, what is anti-gay? Things like "they should all die" seem obvious,

But what about "my religious beliefs make me think this is not right" or "being gay is a lifestyle choice"? or just someone using what could be considered an anti gay term in jest with some friends in a bar or while playing soccer (yes, I said soccer!)

Who determines that? and do you really want people to determine what can be said in public. It is not clear cut by any means and the danger in trying to limit speech is massive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top