Free Speech, hate speech, and conspiracy to commit murder

how about this, isil should have been stopped from doing what they have started a long time ago,if saddam was left in charge of his country he would not have any more nutters other than himself running around. if the west stopped starting crap abroad we cannot finish,if we stopped causing other people to hate the rest of us then we might be left in peace.if people are found to be preaching hate in a place that says its in the name of religion bulldoze the #ing place and send the gimps back to where they came from,if people come to western countries and hate us then we dont need them here.also the ease to find firearms legal or not ,needs sorting out ,only the military should have them so anyone who wants guns would have to try to get in the army.(sorry yanks)

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Puppylove

At what point, should what a person says, and encourages be considered more than just anger and frustration, and instead more. Where should free speech end? Shouting fire in a crowded theater? Or does people getting together and encouraging each other to kill people who are different count as well? When does hate speech turn to an actual theat that needs to be recognized and dealt with, rather than ignored and allowed under the protections of free speech.

At no point and never should free speech end. The guilty party is always those who act on the speech, and never those who speak it.

So do you believe that radical Islamic preachers of hate against the West have no responsibility for acts of terrorism?

After all they are not the ones pulling the trigger or wearing the suicide vest.

The one committing the act is wholly responsible for committing the act. The lack of free speech in Islam is more of a problem than its hate preachers.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Puppylove

At what point, should what a person says, and encourages be considered more than just anger and frustration, and instead more. Where should free speech end? Shouting fire in a crowded theater? Or does people getting together and encouraging each other to kill people who are different count as well? When does hate speech turn to an actual theat that needs to be recognized and dealt with, rather than ignored and allowed under the protections of free speech.

At no point and never should free speech end. The guilty party is always those who act on the speech, and never those who speak it.

So do you believe that radical Islamic preachers of hate against the West have no responsibility for acts of terrorism?

After all they are not the ones pulling the trigger or wearing the suicide vest.

The one committing the act is wholly responsible for committing the act. The lack of free speech in Islam is more of a problem than its hate preachers.

While I agree that people are responsible for their own actions, I can not agree thay someone promoting violence (by whatever means) has no responsibility for the outcome either legally or morally.

This to me seems no different from saying that even through I came up with plan, recruited the gang and bought the guns I am not responsible for a bank robbery just because I didn't actually enter the bank.

Propaganda works and a constant bombardment of messages of hate will influence peoples thinking and actions. The people of Germany didn't spontaneously decide one day to participate in or allow the mass victimsisation of minority groups. It was the result of years of hate speech and divisive propaganda.

This is particularly true in religious settings where people from a young age have little access to or are told to ignore alternative viewpoints.

And yes I know I Godwined myself.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There was no free speech in Germany. I seem to recall they had hate speech laws before and during the rise of Nazis, whom then only made censorship much much worse. Their actions was the result of silencing dissent, and creating an echo-chamber where no one could criticize their pseudoscience and oppression.

Conspiring to commit crimes is different than hate speech.

Let me ask you. Would a constant stream of anti-Jewish propaganda work on you? Would it turn you into an anti-Semite?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Since the thread is about clarifying the difference between speech and conspiracy, what is the closest thing to speech that you think should be prosecutable. Also, do you see any moral responsibility that comes into play independent of legal responsibility.

For instance, let's say a man calls for a mob to attack a group of people in their presence. Physical violence has been done at his command, but his involvement was limited to words only. Surly you don't think this behavior should be protected by law? Where would you draw the line; when the sentences go from statements to commands?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is there that much difference between hate speech and conspiracy to commit a crime? It depends on the definition of hate speech (the point of the thread). I disagree with your seemingly absolute position that speech should never have moral or legal consequences.

I struggle to see the difference between saying that a group of people should die (either directly or indirectly) and conspiring to kill a group of people. Just how specific does the instruction need to be.

Would a constant stream of anti Jewish propaganda work on me? Probably not but I am fortunate enough to live in modern liberal democracy. Human being are social animals and we know that propaganda and peer pressure do work on us. Pretty much everyone looks back at Germany in the 1930's and believes that it wouldn't have influenced them as if they are somehow intrinsically morally superior or that there was something abnormal about people in Germany at that time.

I remember how kids who were even perceived to be gay were treated at school when I was a kid (and I am not that old), they would have genuine fear for their lives and absolutely no support from teachers or other adults. This wasn't isolated incidents by a few bad kids, but the normal behaviour driven by peer pressure and hate speech (some subtle some not so much) by adults who, often being in positions of power, we perceived as morally correct.

Human beings are not rational emotionless calculators, we are influenced by what is said and by whom. There has to be a balance between allowing free speech and preventing speech deliberately designed to provoke violence or other oppressive behaviour.

a reply to: VP740

Since the thread is about clarifying the difference between speech and conspiracy, what is the closest thing to speech that you think should be prosecutable. Also, do you see any moral responsibility that comes into play independent of legal responsibility.

For instance, let's say a man calls for a mob to attack a group of people in their presence. Physical violence has been done at his command, but his involvement was limited to words only. Surly you don't think this behavior should be protected by law? Where would you draw the line; when the sentences go from statements to commands?

I wouldn't draw the line. Speaking isn't a crime. Words coming out of someone's mouth does not necessarily lead people to commit crimes. Words coming out of someone's mouth, no matter what combination those words are in, does not necessitate criminal activity. If people commit crimes because someone told them to, that is their fault and their decision to do so.

If someone called on you to attack a group of people in your presence, would you do it?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Conspiracy to commit crimes, I think, is different than speaking about groups of people in hateful ways. But I'm no legal expert.

No, there does not have to be a balance. If one is provoked by words, or can be ordered around by who he perceives to be authority figures, that is his problem, a result of his own education, upbringing, his own beliefs etc. Anything else is, by definition, superstition. There is no supportive science for that frankly ridiculous idea. Words do not cause people to commit violence. People commit violence by their own volition, by their own choice, not by anyone else's. People are not robots or computers.

Rather, an education that demystified the superstition of language, an education that promoted critical thought as opposed to group think, and more free speech, would I think lessen that superstition.

The Weimar republic had modern hate speech laws. If the Nazis were allowed to speak their ideas and anti-semitism, as opposed to pushing it underground into their echo-chambers, others could have punctured and ridiculed their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas, convincing the general public, before it was too late.

I'm not aware of anyone who has the moral and rational authority to determine what can or cannot be said. Should it be the pope? Should it be the government? Who do you suggest?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You say people are not robots yet you expect them to act free of any emotional reaction or social pressure.

You know that people are influenced by what they see and hear. There are multiple areas of study devoted to exactly this. We can see countless examples around the world today of how people behaviours and beliefs are shaped by wgat they are told.

While I agree that better education is as at least part the answer (although strangely I suspect you are also opposed to public education) education itself is rarely free of cultural bias.

The point of the thread was what is the dividing line between free speech and hate speech. I don't think there is a simple answer but I am confident that the answer lies neither in censorship of opinion or in absolute freedom from consequence of what you say.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It sounds like you are saying a man can manipulate matter with words. That's called sorcery. Emotional reaction and social pressure are wholly different than speech and verbal pressure.

I wouldn't mind perusing these multiple areas of study if you wouldn't mind telling me them.

The only consequence of speech is the expelling of breath, the articulation of guttural sounds, and scribbles on paper. Simple physics.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You will have to remind me where I said anything about manipulating matter. Unless you think peoples opinions and beliefs are physical substance.

What exactly do you think does form social pressure and create emotional reaction if you exclude speech?

A physical description of how people speak dosent really tell us anything about what they are saying.

Oh and as for areas of study I assume a well educated fellow like yourself has heard of psychology, sociology, economics or even rhetoric or hypnosis. Why would you pretend you haven't?

a reply to: ScepticScot

You will have to remind me where I said anything about manipulating matter. Unless you think peoples opinions and beliefs are physical substance.

What exactly do you think does form social pressure and create emotional reaction if you exclude speech?

A physical description of how people speak dosent really tell us anything about what they are saying.

Oh and as for areas of study I assume a well educated fellow like yourself has heard of psychology, sociology, economics or even rhetoric or hypnosis. Why would you pretend you haven't?

Humans are biological animals. Biology is physical.

Society forms social pressure, while biology is where emotional reaction occurs.

What tells us what they are saying is our own understanding of the language. Meaning doesn't float in the air from their mouths to our ears. It is our understanding that provides meaning to words.

I have a formal education in linguistics and philosophy, and have studied rhetoric since childhood. There is nothing in either of these fields (save for Gorgias) that suggest words have the sorts of magical consequences that anti-free speech folks are advocating.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot


Let me ask you. Would a constant stream of anti-Jewish propaganda work on you? Would it turn you into an anti-Semite?

A great deal of work in psychology suggests it would, very probably without the subject knowing it. It's a basic concept in advertising, constant repetition builds a subconscious association.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

A great deal of work in psychology suggests it would, very probably without the subject knowing it. It's a basic concept in advertising, constant repetition builds a subconscious association.

Sure. But that does not suggest words have consequences.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If someone called on you to attack a group of people in your presence, would you do it?

No, I would't. This doesn't mitigate the responsibility of the instigators where this actually occurs though. For instance, during the Rwandan genocide targets and locations were called on the radio, some of the victims might have escaped and survived had it not been for this. People's lives were called for, with the expectation that the instructions would be followed. This in no way lessons the responsibility of the men on the ground who actually committed the murders; but I can't agree that the one on the radio must be held unaccountable for aiding and abetting the genocide.

As for my own answer to the OP:
There should be no laws for hate speech or hate crime. A government giving special treatment to allied groups; and having special laws and penalties for those who's motivations and beliefs mark them for persecution; is as much, or more of a threat to it's subjects than any other danger. Whatever you fear coming from speech should be defended with speech. The alternative is to demand tyranny. Once you demand and end to disagreement, expect no consideration or mercy from the power established to force everyone into agreement. They are indisputable, and your objections are to be met with force.

Where should speech be penalized by law? When a factual cause and effect resulting in harm can be established; and the harm inflicted is comparable to what would be accomplished by any other criminal act (theft, assault, murder etc...). If one uses slander to destroy another's business; their statements can be demonstrated as factually incorrect, and the result is a loss of wages just as if stolen by theft, then the law should defend the rights of the victim just as they would defend them from a thief.

If someone speaks their opinion and it infuriates those in accord, or hurts the feelings of those who disagree; this must be dealt with through reasoned discussion or passionate argument. Force of law is not a weapon to be wielded lightly, and may easily create bigger problems than it solves.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I find it strange that someone who has studied as you say would believe that words really have so little power or effect.

I find the world you seem to be describing of calculating rational emotionless people to be quite alien to one I see round me daily (thankfully).

Our understanding of words and the intent behind them is shaped by society and context. People are manipulated by what others say. It doesn't make them weaker or ignorant it just makes the human.

I will say that the belief speech is not an absolute is not the same as being anti free speech. It seems a rather odd believe that it is. Nothing in life is ever an absolute (poor joke intended).

a reply to: VP740

No, I would't. This doesn't mitigate the responsibility of the instigators where this actually occurs though. For instance, during the Rwandan genocide targets and locations were called on the radio, some of the victims might have escaped and survived had it not been for this. People's lives were called for, with the expectation that the instructions would be followed. This in no way lessons the responsibility of the men on the ground who actually committed the murders; but I can't agree that the one on the radio must be held unaccountable for aiding and abetting the genocide.

Good point, but my main contention is regarding the limiting of what can be expressed. Contributing to violating another's rights is, in my opinion, enough to warrant punishment. Imparting information that leads to those violations is indeed reprehensible, for the reasons you mentioned. I think after the fact, the imparting of information that has led to genocide, murder, crime etc. can be said to be a contributing factor, as long as it can be shown to be a contributing factor to said atrocities. The person on the radio should be held accountable for imparting that information.

Still, the slippery slope of limiting what can or cannot be expressed before the fact is dangerous. To limit expression because it might lead to this or that crime, whether it actually does or not, puts dissidents, whistle-blowers, and those who think differently at great risk.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I find it strange that someone who has studied as you say would believe that words really have so little power or effect.

Granted, it is strange. So far, I am still the only one I've known to argue the point that words have little power or effect; and unless someone can show me the causal sequence between words and their perceived effects in other human beings, I will continue to do so.

Our understanding of words and the intent behind them is shaped by society and context. People are manipulated by what others say. It doesn't make them weaker or ignorant it just makes the human.

Humans are material and organic beings. To say people are manipulated by what others say is to say we can manipulate matter with words. It's to believe in sorcery and magic. It's superstition.

Power is the rate at which work is done upon an object. Does a notebook with writting in it have more power than an empty notebook? Could one prove that articulated words has more energy or more power than an unarticulated sound?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I doubt an empty notebook has ever inspired anyone to climb a mountain, study a new subject or try and change the world (for better or worse).

Words themselves may have no power but they are a catalyst for our emotions, reactions and beliefs. To deny that seems to me to be denying our humanity.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I doubt an empty notebook has ever inspired anyone to climb a mountain, study a new subject or try and change the world (for better or worse).

Words themselves may have no power but they are a catalyst for our emotions, reactions and beliefs. To deny that seems to me to be denying our humanity.

I think to deny our humanity would be to attribute supernatural causes to human nature, but I'm fine with disagreeing for now.