So you are okay if there isn’t a bar that Nick can go to, without being subjected to rational debates as to whether he is human? So long as no one tries to physically attack him?
This creates a clear dividing line, at least, but I don’t think it goes far enough.
Speech that belittles and dehumanizes people, even if it isn’t inciting violence, creates an environment that allows racism to thrive and creates justification in the minds of those exposed. And then some of those racists will move to violence, since the people they are acting against are less-than.
Limiting action to those who actually do or promote violence doesn’t do anything to fix the underlying problem. It’s like only replacing the fish in your fishbowl whenever they die, instead of taking the bowl off the stove.
This sounds an awful lot like a justification to limit speech. I disagree mainly because the very word bigot is an expression of free speech and up to the interpretation of individuals. The label is liberally applied by certain groups and is often incorrectly applied. Thus with no public forum we are left to the experts to determine what a bigot is and then censor us from hearing those topics.
And to answer your question, no I am not going back to that bar. We are all subject to hateful things being spoken of us. Some more so than others but everyone has been stereotyped and spoken ill against whether its because of gender, race, religious affiliation,sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc.
True True. What you say is true.
It is also protected under the 1st amendment, so such speech cannot be restricted.
1 Like
Instead of an ethnic group, let’s say it’s child rapists, would your viewpoint be different?
I haven’t really made up my mind on this yet, but just trying to find some consistency in the logic here.
I think a debate should be welcome. But when society collectively decides to exclude (and perhaps not in collusion), I think that becomes more than a free speech issue. There seems to be something bigger at play.
2 Likes
Major leftist here.
Any company should be able to control what is on their platform. (Twitter, Facebook being top ones of course.) It feels like Republicans should agree with this, but it very much seems they prefer government regulation nowadays. Intentional disinformation is rampant in the modern digital age, including foreign interference.
Most speech should be free, subject to typical legal constraints of slander/libel. Also hate speech.
Politicians have too much leeway on this in my opinion, regarding recent allegations of some politicians calling others pedophiles on a global stage.
Incitement to violence should be closely monitored, especially when directed at a person or a protected class. That’s a murky one.
Agree and I am thinking of the right to gather peaceably might be being infringed upon in a bar setting restricting speech of a certain type.
My example from growing up was when a Ku Klux Klan rally came to our town. No one wanted it in town, but almost everyone agreed it should be allowed. I am in that same camp.
First amendment written below for reference as. It’s not just about speech.
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.
1 Like
What I think the bar should do and what I think the government should do are not necessarily the same.
Here is a decent article that highlights the line between free speech and hate speech. They give the example that “kill all the Jews” is probably protected but “kill the Jew who gave my kid an F in school” is not.
Me… I’d classify “kill all the Jews” as hate speech too. So I guess I’m more liberal on hate speech than the Constitutional law professor they quote, or even Justice O’Conner who talks about a true threat including communication of an intent to commit an unlawful act against a particular individual or group of individuals. (I’d be curious to know whether she felt that “kill all the Jews” met that criteria, but it kind of sounds like it would be too broad a statement to meet her criteria.)
I certainly don’t like speech that Nick isn’t a human. I wouldn’t patronize a bar where someone was allowed to hang out and loudly say as much. I think people ought to be treated with respect.
But I do believe in free speech. So should the guy saying it be arrested? No, probably not, although it would depend on the circumstances.
Yes, it is absolutely a justification for limiting speech. And I think it’s a completely valid justification.
This suggests to me that you have never actually been in a group that is subject to much abuse. Sorry, but the “some more than others” is so huge and so important that I think you may not actually understand this issue at all.
Such speech can’t be restricted by the government. I can throw you out of my house (or off this message board, for that matter) if I don’t like your speech.
Yes, it would be different. And i agree that we need to be careful in delineating what speech we deem “bigoted”. But I absolutely think that most venues ought to impose limits on acceptable speech within that venue, and those limits ought to be broader than just “calls to violence”.
1 Like
And you might have a first amendment right to say “kill all the Jews” in a rally on the public street. But you don’t have any such right in my home, nor on Twitter, nor on GoActuary. Unless I, or Twitter, or GoActuary decides to allow it.
1 Like
Theres reasoning behind listening to people’s viewpoints that differ radically from you. I will occassionally attempt to see things like that. When 911 happened and there were Palestinians celebrating in the street, I found that detestable. Why would an entire culture be celebrating over the deaths of thousands? I did a bit of mild digging, and now appreciate their viewpoint to some extent - the US is universally loathed, with good reason, in some places. I still disagree with the celebratory response, but get it to some extent.
Similiarly, one time I figured these white nationalists must have a reason they’re full of blind hatred and racism. Maybe it’s their experiences, maybe their background, I dunno. So, I sat down and actually watched an interview with one of them, to see if I could get a handle on ‘why’. Turns out that the why is these people are just plain stupid and angry. Nothing rational, nothing motivating. Just stupid and angry. Listening to them made me stupider.
Point? sometimes talking makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t.
2 Likes
Oh sure. The bar should absolutely be allowed to kick out the guy saying Nick isn’t human, no question.
And IMO the bar should exercise their right to kick the guy out by actually doing so.
The first amendment doesn’t restrict the bar’s ability to do something about it, only the government’s.
1 Like
Of course not. That should go without saying. I don’t know a free speech advocate in the world who would disagree with that. Certainly not me.
Citing the first amendment seems like begging the question to me.
What do you think, if you had to draft the first amendment?
As I mentioned, it seems as though I have a more restrictive view of free speech than the Constitutional law professor cited in the PBS article or Justice O’Conner.
But generally I think that ugly speech should be legal and limits on free speech should be quite sparing.
Still, I’d consider “kill all the Jews” to be hate speech. But “Nick is not human”… probably not unless there was an implied threat.
And again, just to reiterate: legal means that the government does not intervene.
A private business could fire you or kick you out of their establishment (at their discretion) or there could be other consequences.
What if the government is “advising” the private business on which speech the business should allow, forbid, amplify, or diminish?
For instance, in the “Nick” example, what if a police officer visits the bar & “advises” the bartender not to let Nick answer the hate speech directed toward him, even if Nick’s answer is completely fact-based?
Asking for a friend.
IANAL but my guess is that it would hinge on the strength of the statement. If a reasonable person would construe it as an instruction by the police officer, acting in his capacity as a police officer, then Nick’s free speech right has probably been violated.
If the officer is off duty in plain clothes stumbling around drunk and blurts out “if it were my bar I wouldn’t let that Nick guy respond” then that’s probably ok. The officer has the right to make that comment in that situation.
The thing about speech is that there is context and connotations, and it’s ever evolving like predator and prey. So just regulating “speech” seems insufficient.
“Nick is not human” could be code for “kill Nick” for all we know.
Kind of like how “Unalive Jews” has replaced “Kill Jews” on tiktok and it would be inconsistent to allow one but not the other.
1 Like
Yeah, agree, that’s why I’ve been trying to couch my language with words like “probably” and “depending on the context”. Because little details like that definitely matter.