"Free Speech" vs "Hate Speech"|

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Also, Mr.Davis is a black man helping members of the kkk to find common ground with him...someone from a group they hate. That’s commendable, and an exceptional thing to do.


I have tried to explain why the medical aid in dying law, as written, is seen by people in the disability community at large, to be ableist. I gave all the facts as to why and was met with vitriol. So, in a way I feel like I am a friend among people who see my life as less valid than theirs even if I can be somewhat accepted in the group...I am in the minority, allowed to exist.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Btw...I have throughout my whole life worked very hard to change people’s views about disabled people by finding common ground so they see me as an equal and eventually don’t see the disability first, but the human first. Mostly this was not as a mission, or a job, but as a necessity, a survival instinct. Sometimes it works, sometimes there is nothing that can be done about other peoples’ bigotry , except to enforce rules that help ensure that their bigotry cannot interfere with others’ lives. People being allowed to use ableist slurs in public speech, encourages the innate bigotry to come out rather than be kept at bay, which eventually leads to ableist behaviour being thought of as okay, or minimization of real actions being taken for equality being acceptable...it changes minds in the wrong direction.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

*Westboro, sorry. Autocorrect did that.

 

[Waterfall]

How do we have laws against it if we don't label it? I don't think we can have a law that would actually be useful about 'hate' in general.

I beg to differ. When hate is expressed it is usually followed or includes an action towards others. It is a crime not a freedom IMO.

 

[revjohn]

Weigh in if you dare. It's very divisive and I'm sorry, but I'm trying to find a way through this issue that resonates with me.

I think the problem with "free speech" is the understanding that it is an absolute freedom meaning anyone can say anything and there can be no consequences.

I suggest that kind of thinking is an abomination to those who truly champion freedom of speech.

I also suggest that the spectra suggested in the OP running from free speech to hate speech erects a false comparison. That one cannot hate and still speak freely.

I prefer to think in terms of "responsible speech" and by that what contributes to the common good. I think responsible speech is what those who framed freedom of speech took for granted. That individuals engaging in public discourse would do so honestly and respectfully. Irresponsible speech does not consider what promotes the common good. More often than not it only progresses a limited selfishness that few can qualify as being good.

I hate some things.

I may even not care much for some people.

None of that should free me to say whatever I choose about the things I hate or the people I do not care about. I should still be concerned to speak honestly and respectfully bearing in mind that respectful stretches far more easily than honesty does.

Here is where arguments of position need to be separated from arguments of person. Though as time progresses society as a whole appears to find that differentiation exceedingly difficult to accept.

 

[Mendalla]

i’m glad we have no Westbrook Baptists in Canada doing their thing, because they are not allowed to...for example.

We don't? Perhaps not as extreme, but those demonstrators outside the hospital with aborted fetuses on their signs come damn close at times from what I hear. And the ones who used to harass women outside abortion clinics before the government (in Ontario, at least) created safe zones around them.

Actually, there's a good example of a reasonable boundary. They can protest, but only a certain distance away and they cannot interact with the women going in. They get their freedom of speech, the women and employees get some safety from harassment.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@revjohn what do you mean by arguments of position vs arguments of person?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

We don't? Perhaps not as extreme, but those demonstrators outside the hospital with aborted fetuses on their signs come damn close at times from what I hear. And the ones who used to harass women outside abortion clinics before the government (in Ontario, at least) created safe zones around them.

Actually, there's a good example of a reasonable boundary. They can protest, but only a certain distance away and they cannot interact with the women going in. They get their freedom of speech, the women and employees get some safety from harassment.

they don't get to carry placards and yell about who God supposedly hates, though.

 

[Mendalla]

they don't get to carry placards and yell about who God supposedly hates, though.

Um, yes they do. We've certainly had protests like that in London and Council had to tread very carefully in dealing with them to avoid constitutional problems. That wouldn't even violate the Criminal Code hate speech provisions, IIRC. Our "peace, order, and good government" principle gives our governments more leeway in dealing with these things, but free speech is still the default. The government has to specifically act to abridge it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Really? Placards that said "God hates __?" I am surprised. Because that man who spread similar sentiments on pamphlets at a pride parade was charged. I couldn't see that being tolerated out here.

 

[Mendalla]

Really? Placards that said "God hates __?" I am surprised. Because that man who spread similar sentiments at a pride parade was charged. I couldn't see that being tolerated out here.

Not the placards, but they were yelling at women on the street, calling them "whores" and telling them God would punish them. The most they could charge them with was being a public nuisance. Council was going to pass some new by-laws about street protests but I'm not sure if those have been enacted yet.

 

[revjohn]

@rejohn what do you mean by arguments of position vs arguments of person?

arguments of person are typically ad hominem arguments. They are logically fallacious and can lead into errors of genetic fallacy which are also logically fallacious.

For example, "Oh him he is from the left/right side of the spectrum so you can/cannot trust what he is saying." This line of reasoning presumes that because of a political preference the individual is incapable of being truthful or even helpful.

arguments of position are typically logical arguments where what is confronted and contested is more the ideas advanced than it is the individuals advancing them.

For example, "Bigotry is harmful to the common good."

When we start to equate ideas (Bigotry) with persons (Bigots) we lose sight of the fact that Bigotry will never not be bigotry even if Bigots can leave bigotry behind.

It is very much a love the sinner and hate the sin distinction. Which is why it isn't easy to make and track records are less than spectacular.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Not the placards, but they were yelling at women on the street, calling them "whores" and telling them God would punish them.

Wow. I am surprised that was allowed without consequence. Opposing abortion itself is one thing, but that is another.

 

[Mendalla]

Wow. I am surprised that was allowed without consequence. Opposing abortion itself is one thing, but that is another.

As I said, Council was looking at restricting their ability to do so but I'm not sure of the status. However, they were evidently quite good at staying under the line where the police could act beyond fairly minor charges.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

arguments of person are typically ad hominem arguments. They are logically fallacious and can lead into errors of genetic fallacy which are also logically fallacious.

For example, "Oh him he is from the left/right side of the spectrum so you can/cannot trust what he is saying." This line of reasoning presumes that because of a political preference the individual is incapable of being truthful or even helpful.

arguments of position are typically logical arguments where what is confronted and contested is more the ideas advanced than it is the individuals advancing them.

For example, "Bigotry is harmful to the common good."

When we start to equate ideas (Bigotry) with persons (Bigots) we lose sight of the fact that Bigotry will never not be bigotry even if Bigots can leave bigotry behind.

It is very much a love the sinner and hate the sin distinction. Which is why it isn't easy to make and track records are less than spectacular.

Interesting you identify people's political leanings, and saying they cannot be trusted as hateful. If I say i can't trust far right neo nazis with power, that is not hateful. There is reason for it - it has nothing to do with genetic fallacy. Even if I say I can't trust people on the right - it is not because of some innate characteristic, but because of policies they may support that I believe are harmful, especially if I am in a lesser position - like criticizing right wing politicians, saying I cannot trust them. That's not hate for people but for policies. Policies are not people. Though, if, say, people with neo nazi views held political power - and they and their followers say "___minority group cannot be trusted." That is hateful. For it to be hate speech rather than just an insult (there is no law against common insults) it must be against a protected group and usually involves a power differential.

When JP says "leftist SJWs are tyrannical" or something to that effect - that is not hateful. He's wrong, but it is not hate speech. It's just jerkish. When he starts saying stuff about women and trans people, that gets a little closer to hate speech. To say he is sexist is not hate. It's just adding up the facts from what he himself has expressed.

 

[revjohn]

Interesting you identify people's political leanings, and saying they cannot be trusted as hateful.

I gave a common example of genetic fallacy.

If I say i can't trust far right neo nazis with power, that is not hateful. There is reason for it

Depending upon the rationale you will either be arguing against the position or against the person. If your argument is against the person then you are committing a genetic fallacy. If your argument is against the position you are not making a genetic fallacy.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

A person cannot be a neo nazi without taking neo nazi positions. So, I don't understand.

 

[revjohn]

A person cannot be a neo nazi without taking neo nazi positions. So, I don't understand.

True.

Neo nazis can be transformed.

Neo naziism cannot.

The quickest way to end neo naziism is to find ways to transform neo nazis.

The ideology won't go away. It can be moth-balled, rolled into the dust-bin of history and ignored.

Neo naziism becomes a relic of antiquity if there are no more neo nazis around.

Hateful ideology cannot be redeemed.

Hateful people can be redeemed though they may not be enthralled about the prospect of needing to be redeemed.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I had a friend whom I had known for many years, who started giving into fear based sentiment against a certain ethnic-religious group and immigration. I explained that her positions were racist. But she persisted in her beliefs - mostly fed by right wing conspiracies propagated by right wing media. And she insisted her views were not racist. When I insisted they were she became very offended at being called a racist. It got to the point, though we had some common ground in other ways, that I could not be friends with her anymore. Plus, me as a white Christian, is not in the same position to convince her - as someone from the group she is bigoted against would be. The thing is, we grew up in the same place and have both known people from that group whom there was no reason to fear - so I don't know what can be done if she's chosen to unlearn what she already knew.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I was just reading mainstream news about our PM, that didn't make me very happy but at least it was factual. Then I clicked on a video by Ezra Levant, unfortunately...and although this interview included thinly veiled bias, he chose his words carefully - but what was concerning was how it elicited some outright lies - the same kinds of lies that were propagated about Obama's religion - and serious hate from the commenters. Shocking comments, not simply insults about policy positions, or typical ad hominems. Obviously the same kind of hate that is plaguing down south is also plaguing us. And I think he and those comments should be censored. They are bold faced conspiratorial lies and racist dog-whistle remarks, as well as outright racist against specific groups.

One thing I have noticed is that public figures who are also right wing pundits or influencers, never denounce their hateful following, though they deny they encourage it - they are far more keen on insulting "the left" and catering to the base that pays them.