• Wittgenstein
    246
    Should all forms of hate speech be allowed, including the racist ones. Should hate speech which instigates violence be allowed ? If we ban a certain type of offensive speeches and usually the arguments are oriented around feelings being hurt. We may also argue against criticizing a religion or an ideology. I know one of the group isn't a choice and the other is but does it matter.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

    I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence.
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    Let's consider the famous case of sharon tate murder.
    Charles Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people. Although the prosecution conceded that Manson never literally ordered the murders, they contended that his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
    Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    It would radically change the world because all it takes is a good orator appealing to a disfranchised people to get to power and commit atrocities.Take Hitler for example.
    It's a slippery slope argument but l believe that an absolute viewpoint can cause havoc in this crazy place we call earth.
  • T Clark
    4.2k
    Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.Wittgenstein

    Ordering killings is completely different than promoting violence in general. I'm sure the first would be considered conspiracy to murder. The second, as long as it directly lead to violent action, should be protected.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.Wittgenstein

    No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime.

    It's your choice, your responsibility, to follow orders or not. There's no way I'd follow an order to kill anyone if I didn't think it was justified to kill them. And then that's on me, because it was my choice.

    If I'm king, there are no conspiracy laws.

    The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc.
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    I think that's a fair point. The devil is in the details as always. The main problem that l see is deciding where the blurry line lies between cause and effect. If a speaker, specifically points out a person and orders his followers to cause harm to the person, that would clearly be a direct cause of any violence. However if a speaker fuels hatred among his followers against a group and resorts to very general marks such as " We wont let them live here ", which can potentially indicate violent intend and effect.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    If a speaker, specifically points out a person and orders his followers to cause harm to the person, that would clearly be a direct cause of any violence.Wittgenstein

    That's not a direct cause because I could just tell him to screw off. I have to decide to do what was asked (well, or "commanded")
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    I don't have any solid evidence of Hitler ordering killings as such that l can present here but it was a general understanding of the holocaust which is likely correct due to the anti-semitic hate speeches of Hitler. This debate on the responsibility of the holocaust is ongoing among historians with bothsides having credible reasoning and evidence behind their stance.
    Considering your argument which states that the burden of act solely lies on the one who carries it out and not the one who motivates it.
    Would you regard fraud as being a crime since the victims at the end of the day are actually the ones who fall for it and carry out the act.Frauds obviously use the freedom of expression to scam people and should they be convicted by law. I would like to see how the world will be if we adopt an absolute position on free speech.
  • Hanover
    5k
    to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone.Terrapin Station

    And yet over 10 million people died who otherwise wouldn't have, yet in your world he would be free to go about his day, watering his daisies and whatnot. Societal objectives are achieved not by slavish adherence to ideology, but by actually looking at what our policies do. Whether you wish it to be the case or not, it is the case that organizers actually organize things, often through meetings, discussions, and motivation, all of which are speech acts. That's why they get credit for great successes and blame for great losses.

    If you're not motivated to change your position based upon the absurd conclusions it leads to, then you're just left with reasserting your position, damn the torpedoes. I guess the question would be what sacred ground is being protected by maintaining your view that causes you to allow people to die and suffer? Should we hold Hitler responsible and stop the deaths, what will be the painful consequence of our transgression from what you deem holy?
  • StreetlightX
    4.4k
    Hate speech must die.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Would you regard fraud as being a crimeWittgenstein

    Yes.

    I'm not saying that people who are murdered are responsible for their own murder because they "fell for it."

    Fraud is a crime not because of speech, but because you're promising something that at some point you have no intention on delivering--it's a contractual issue, not a speech issue.

    Fraud being illegal isn't banning any words. It's banning there being no intention of delivering/making good on something something that one contracted to deliver/make good on.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    Again, in my view, "The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. "

    if we have people who'll follow orders to kill someone just because the orders were given, that's the problem. Having laws against speech isn't going to change that.
  • Baden
    8.9k
    @Hanover

    Clearly, Hitler did nothing wrong. It was all just talk. The world we need is one where psychopaths and killers rather than have to do their dirty work themselves should be given free rein to threaten, coerce, and bribe others into doing it for them. That way, though we'll have much more death and destruction around, at least we can rest assured that we'll have absolutely free speech. Because in the end that's what's really important.
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    Failing to meet a contractual agreement is a form of deception and it falls under the general category of lying.
    If someone lies to you and you fall for it, it will be on you just as you argued in case of murderers who fall for hate speeches and carry out the act of murder.
    The key point of your argument is that , the one who carries out an act is solely responsible for the act, irrespective of anyone who motivates him.
    Applying your principle to fraud implies that the person who is a victim is at fault.
    I'm not saying that people who are murdered are responsible for their own murder because they "fell for it."
    I never implied that, but the murderer is only responsible not the instigator according to you. Similarly in a fraud the person who spreads misinformation is not at fault.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    If someone lies to you and you fall for it, it will be on you just as you argued in case of murderers who fall for hate speeches and carry out the act of murder.Wittgenstein

    I'm not positing anyone "falling for" anything there. That implies it's out of their control. It's not out of their control. They can make a decision to carry the act through or not.

    Since I'm having to repeat this, I want to get that part straight first.
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    By falling l never meant out of their control, l meant being influenced to a significant effect.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    By falling l never meant out of their control, l meant being influenced to a significant effect.Wittgenstein

    Okay, but the issue is that they're deciding to do something that should be illegal in my view.

    It's the same thing with fraud. Contracting to deliver something you don't deliver should be illegal in my view. The person who decides to do that is the person doing something wrong. The problem isn't with "lying" per se. It's contracting to deliver something you don't deliver.
  • Hanover
    5k
    Again, in my view, "The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. "Terrapin Station

    We don't have a world like that. We hold both the organizer and the person who followed the order responsible for the act. The "I was just following orders" rationale is not an accepted excuse.

    if we have people who'll follow orders to kill someone just because the orders were given, that's the problem. Having laws against speech isn't going to change that.Terrapin Station

    Again, you're not absolved of responsibility because you were following orders. You're held just as fully responsible as if you came up with idea, but there's no value in absolving the person who organized the massacre just so he can go and organize another massacre.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    We don't have a world like that.Hanover

    Right. But it's what we need in my view. And we're not going to get it by keeping some speech illegal.

    We'll better have a world where people can't organize a massacre just because of speech if no speech is illegal and we foster an environment of people not following any speech just because it's uttered. Make the people who carry out the actions in question solely responsible.

    Speech can't literally cause anyone to do anything. Speech isn't the problem.
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    I think that's a fair point. How about if a leader is in a position of authority where he uses those below his rank for heinous crimes. Do they really decide and have a free will. Let's say you are a nazi soldier who is ordered to kill an innocent Jewish women and if you refuse to obey the orders, you could get yourself executed. When a person of authority commands you to do a certain act, he is using you as a tool for his crime like a murderer using a gun to kill someone. Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Do they really decide and have a free will.Wittgenstein

    Yes, of course.

    . Let's say you are a nazi soldier who is ordered to kill an innocent Jewish women and if you refuse to obey the orders, you could get yourself executed.Wittgenstein

    Sure. And I'd not only get myself executed in that situation, I'd get myself executed if I were ordered to torture a cat or something like that.

    When a person of authority commands you to do a certain act, he is using you as a tool for his crime like a murderer using a gun to commit a kill someone. Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ?Wittgenstein

    Yes. I've already said a couple times that people shouldn't follow orders just because they're given. That we have a culture like that is a big part of the problem.
  • Hanover
    5k
    Fraud is a crime not because of speech, but because you're promising something that at some point you have no intention on delivering--it's a contractual issue, not a speech issue.Terrapin Station

    A contract isn't a speech act? Sounds like an ad hoc exception to the absolutist free speech rule you advocated. If I ask you to murder someone for $100 and you do it, am I guilty of contract for murder for which I can be punished? If instead of money being the consideration, I tell you I'll let you into my gang if you murder, am I now guilty of contract for murder? Is this just going to be a game of trying to characterize speech as not speech so that we can punish people the way we always did? I'd assume Hitler's henchmen got something in return for their misdeeds (fame, honor, joy, national pride). If these things were offered in the exchange for their evil deeds, can we now pull Hitler from his petunias and lock him away?

    We could go about creating exceptions to your rule, or we could just scrap your rule as being maybe not completely thought through.
  • Hanover
    5k
    Make the people who carry out the actions in question solely responsible.Terrapin Station

    Why does making them solely responsible make them less likely to do it? I'm up for giving both the organizer and the trigger man the maximum sentence. It's not like if I hold the trigger man and brains behind the murder equally responsible, I have to divide their 20 year sentence in half
  • Wittgenstein
    246

    Yes. I've already said a couple times that people shouldn't follow orders just because they're given. That we have a culture like that is a big part of the problem.
    I am really glad that you are willing to die for others and save their lives but everyone isn't. Even if you want the world to be like that, it is not possible simply due to the way power works. If people could simply overcome orders,there would be no authority in this world. Is the world like that now, No. I think we have to be pragmatic when we take a stance. There will always be a hierarchy of power due to uneven distribution of resources.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    A contract isn't a speech act?Hanover

    I explained this already above. Why am I having to repeat it? You're not prohibiting any speech. The issue is with someone promising to deliver something they're not delivering. The issue is with not delivering what was promised. The issue isn't speech qua speech.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Why does making them solely responsible make them less likely to do it?Hanover

    It's a step in changing the culture.
    I'm up for giving both the organizer and the trigger man the maximum sentence.Hanover

    Okay, but I'll fight you (literally) to avoid that. ;-)
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    If people could simply overcome orders,there would be no authority in this world. Is the world like that now, No.Wittgenstein

    Right. No. But we should try to make the world better.
  • T Clark
    4.2k
    Hate speech must die.StreetlightX

    I don't know how it is in Australia, but the UK is more willing to censor speech than the US is, even what we would consider fairly innocent. I don't have any particular criticism. Different societies have different traditions.
  • T Clark
    4.2k
    Take Hitler for example.Wittgenstein

    Take Jefferson. Take Mandela. Take Walesa. Take Aquino. Take Havel.
  • T Clark
    4.2k
    Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ?Wittgenstein

    Free speech rights are rights granted to people as protection against government restrictions. The government does not need such protection. They have the power.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.