When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
Robert A. Heinlein
Rah, rah, RAH!
Shaping my opinions for fifty-plus years, making me the odd duck that I am today.
His characters are most typically rationalists, contrarians, and above all *competent*. Not bad role models when all is said and done.
“no matter how holy the motives” Those are key words.
We all know where good intentions lead all too often. 😉
Sadder when people CAN read anything they want – and don’t bother.
This is exactly the reason why “hate speech” shouldn’t be restricted. In any form.
nailed it. already going on in Europe, and ramping up here in the good ol USA with FB and Twitter moderators.
+1
There’s an inherent problem when the government says that everyone has freedom of speech, but then says that “hate speech” is not covered by that and can be considered a crime. All it takes is a bunch of people to come along armed with outrage and determine that “hate speech” is anything that they don’t like or agree with. At this point, freedom of speech in America amounts to “You can say anything you want as long as no one can find any way to get offended by it” (which of course is impossible). Shouldn’t be long now before they start imprisoning people for it, regardless of what our Constitution says.
I disagree. The definition of hate speech is determined by legislatures and the courts, not public opinion or who is offended. There is no contradiction between freedom of speech and criminalization of hate speech as long as hate speech is defined by law, not public opinion or who spoke loudest last.
One of the wonders of this age is how much we know of other people’s opinions and how often other people vehemently disagree with positions that may seem obvious and unquestionable. We all have to learn to cope with this. Respect for the rule of law makes this work.
There is no contradiction between freedom of speech and criminalization of hate speech as long as hate speech is defined by law, not public opinion or who spoke loudest last.
Of course there is a contradiction. The purpose of the First Amendment is to prohibit government from doing exactly that. Defining a class of speech, and criminalizing it, is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
It is a function of neither public opinion nor legislatures. It’s in the constitution, and it doesn’t matter what legislatures like. They can define hate speech any way they want, but they can’t criminalize it.
Freedom of speech is an absolute: you either have it or you don’t. If you only have it for certain ideas and thoughts and not for others then you don’t have it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Note how precise and broad a term they use, “abridging”.
Any restriction of speech in any form is forbidden.
The courts have since interpreted it as covering everything except actions and most specifically criminal actions like incitement, threatening, or libel, cases where it isn’t the opinion but the associated action that is at fault.
Hate speech laws go beyond actual action or intent to criminalize the idea and are thus unconstitutional.
Nothing should be unmentionable.
Nothing should be beyond analysis or discussion by adults.
“public opinion or who spoke loudest last.”
Many times, the content of hate speech laws (among others) are determined by “public opinion or who spoke loudest last.”
I am sure we will never agree on this, because I do not equate the abridgement of freedom of speech to abridgement of speech. For me, freedom requires responsibility and accountability. Occasionally, legislatures get carried away by the moment, but I have faith that the other branches of government and democracy itself brings back balance.
It’s not the legislatures we need to worry about in this arena. It’s the freelancers and shakedown specialists that are messing things up.
For me, freedom requires responsibility and accountability.
Could be. But that’s not what the Constitution says. Irresponsible and unaccountable hate speech is allowed under the First Amendment.
We don’t agree on the meaning the words of the amendment.
“Irresponsible and unaccountable hate speech is allowed under the First Amendment.” is your interpretation, but it is not mine.
Where do you see your interpretation written in the Constitution?
Where is hate speech specifically mentioned in the First Amendment?
Where does it say that hate speech, which is solely in the eyes of the beholder, even exists?
Where does it say that “hate speech” is to be regulated?
Who does it say should do this regulating? It can’t be Congress, which is expressly forbidden to regulate speech, period.
“Hate speech” accusations are simply another attempt to suppress opinions the accuser does not like, which is exactly the outcome the first amendment is designed to prevent. It’s not a question of disagreeing, it’s a question of what the law plainly says and what you wish it says.
““Irresponsible and unaccountable hate speech is allowed under the First Amendment.” is your interpretation, but it is not mine.”
It’s not just his interpretation, but the Supreme Courts as well. Now, they have been wrong before, but your going to need more than just “I don’t feel that way” to change their minds…
“Irresponsible and unaccountable hate speech is allowed under the First Amendment.” is your interpretation, but it is not mine.
It is indeed my interpretation. It is also the interpretation of the US Supreme Court.
The First Amendment allows us all to freely engage in irresponsible and unaccountable hate speech.
It also protects us from Social Justice Warriors.
I don’t see the share buttons today, so hopefully you won’t mind if I copy and paste.
Not at all, Louis.