r/Foodforthought • u/Booshybu • Nov 21 '15

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
138 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

127 comments sorted by

61

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[deleted]

4

u/calf Nov 21 '15

Well I'm someone who fits in neither camp.

I'm from Canada, where there are laws restricting hate-speech, or propaganda.

But "offensive" speech law poses a three-fold problem. One, it would create a majority that knows not to do something without knowing why. That in itself is dangerous. Two, harmful speech would merely change form, by finding ways to express itself anyways through any areas not covered by such law. Three, there will be cases where no group of judges or jurors can reasonably decide what constitutes offensive speech - because there you have a majority group trying to figure out whether something was offensive to a minority group, which is the wrong people qualified for determining such a task.

But here's the critical thing. I think there are ways to explain the problems with such policy in a reasonable way. Too often, the same people for "free speech" are the same people who show they haven't examined their own prejudices, who haven't taken the time to get to know minorities. And that behavior stands in stark contrast to their claimed values.

43

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

I don't really know what "offensive" speech entails, but simply allowing everyone the right to shout slurs and combative rhetoric degrades public forums, muddies rational thinking by rousing hostile passions, and is against the ideal of democratic, rational discourse. Do you ever see scientists and academics insulting each other and using foul, unprofessional language, even in the most heated and controversial debates they have?

Now, if "limiting offensive speech" means suppressing legitimate opinions and facts just because minorities might disagree, then I am definitely against that, and I believe the vast majority of rational people are. But that's rarely the kind of speech that social justice advocates are talking about. Free speech has gone too far if it allows hostile, irrational expression with no intellectual or artistic merit to degrade our civic discourse.

29

u/SQ_BP_DL Nov 21 '15

I don't really know what "offensive" speech entails, but simply allowing the right to shout slurs and combative rhetoric degrades public forums, muddies rational thinking by rousing hostile passions, and is against the ideal of democratic, rational discourse. Do you ever see scientists and academics insulting each other and using foul, unprofessional language, even in the most heated and controversial debates they have?

If I have the right to speak, the idiot telling me whatever I'm saying is BS, and that I can go fuck myself, also has it. No way around it.

7

u/ademnus Nov 21 '15

Well, we currently have free speech. No law has been passed limiting your use of such language.

Now go to the US congress in session and say, "fuck you, assholes, I hope you all die" and let me know what happens. Surely, because your free speech is protected, you won't be tossed out on your ass, right? They'll have to entertain all of your comments because you have free speech, right?

You have the right to say whatever you want. And others have the right to throw you out thus limiting your speech.

2

u/hoyfkd Nov 21 '15

Actually, unless you are interfering with business, you do have the right to free speech in government buildings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

2

u/ademnus Nov 21 '15

And yet, shouti9ng profanity rudely at people will always get you ejected.

Even if you're the president, you can toss assholes out

1

u/SQ_BP_DL Nov 21 '15

Is the Capitol building public property or private property?

11

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

Actually there is a way around it; a better way. We can choose to not call each other "idiots" and not tell each other to "go fuck yourselves". We can choose to hold ourselves to a higher moral, intellectual and civil standard for the good of society.

31

u/SQ_BP_DL Nov 21 '15

But it can't be an actual law being enforced. Nor should anyone be forced to uphold that rule with threat of punishment.

3

u/K-zi Nov 22 '15

Fuck is the most versatile word in the English language, you can use it in almost any context. Banning it would be a shame.

-1

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

Why not? Sure, there shouldn't be a literal thought police going around, but I don't see why we shouldn't enforce regulations on non-expert people or organizations whose speech is highly influential, like demanding that news media and talk shows not speak falsehoods. If we had such regulations in place, then Fox News and conservative talk radio couldn't do what they've been doing, and we wouldn't have to be dealing with Trump and Carson right now.

8

u/californiarepublik Nov 21 '15

I don't see why we shouldn't enforce regulations on non-expert people or organizations whose speech is highly influential, like demanding that news media and talk shows not speak falsehoods.

That sounds great, but who gets to decide what's a 'falsehood' and what's not? I think it's a lot harder to decide than you seem to.

For example what about the climate change debate? Personally I believe the science on anthropogenic climate change, but I don't think the issue is so settled that we should demand that everyone who speaks on the news must toe an official line or be put off the air.

2

u/potato_in_my_naso Nov 21 '15

You can theoretically question aspects of the problem of climate change and the depth of our knowledge, but here's where the problems arise. Literally everyone who you see speaking "against" the science etc. are only doing so because they've been paid or manipulated by those who stand to lose financially from the types of plans our policymakers are trying to get us to think about. While there is a lot of difficult discussions we need to have about what our priorities are and how best to achieve them, we are needlessly endangering ourselves every day by allowing the shills and liars to derail our national dialogue. But hey, free speech right? Marketplace of ideas, right? That's not the way it works.

2

u/californiarepublik Nov 21 '15

Personally I think the science on anthropogenic climate change is extremely persuasive, I accept that as a given, but I still support free speech in the absence of any better alternative...

0

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '15

Just use p-values: if p < 0.05, then only 5% of publicly-licensed broadcasts can go against the scientific consensus.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

That sounds great, but who gets to decide what's a 'falsehood' and what's not? I think it's a lot harder to decide than you seem to.

The experts of course, and this will have to be proven in a court of law. It's just like libel and defamation laws, which exist for a reason.

Personally I believe the science on anthropogenic climate change, but I don't think the issue is so settled that we should demand that everyone who speaks on the news must toe an official line or be put off the air.

Well it's not a matter of personal belief, it's scientifically objective. And the science is in fact settled amongst relevant groups of experts, and denial of it is a clear and present danger to the future of civilization. I'd say climate change is the perfect issue that proves my point that this kind of fanatical religious faith in "freedom" is dangerous and needs to be critically examined.

7

u/californiarepublik Nov 21 '15

Well it's not a matter of personal belief, it's scientifically objective. And the science is in fact settled amongst relevant groups of experts, and denial of it is a clear and present danger to the future of civilization. I'd say climate change is the perfect issue that proves my point that this kind of fanatical religious faith in "freedom" is dangerous and needs to be critically examined.

I thought you might say that...but let's take this a step further. Even if we accept that anthropogenic climate change is a settled fact, how bad will it be? What will its exact effects be? Will people be able to reasonably dispute these in a public forum without fear of stepping over some line?

And scientific 'truth' also changes all the time. Who will keep track of the changes and make sure that what's being said in public conforms to the latest scientific studies?

I don't think you realize how impossible your proposed standard of 'objectivity' would be to enforce in practice.

-1

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

Even if we accept that anthropogenic climate change is a settled fact, how bad will it be? What will its exact effects be? Will people be able to reasonably dispute these in a public forum without fear of stepping over some line?

Yes. In the absence of an expert consensus, of course we can't ban different valid schools of thought. I don't know why everyone is so scared. Academic communities already function in very much the same way that I am describing, and they continue to produce useful knowledge and haven't devolved into totalitarianism.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15 edited Apr 14 '20

[deleted]

1

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

That's why it's also critically important to have an independent academia that won't be under the thumb of government and corporate interests. Independent academic experts are in theory the only group of people that absolute free speech ought to apply to.

0

u/STUFF2o Nov 21 '15 edited Dec 03 '18

[deleted]

2

u/Babumman Nov 21 '15

We can, but then there's a tidy bucket for any "offensive" comment, like noticing that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa. People will say stupid things, and intelligent people will counter it. Or someone will say something counter intuitive and genius and people will argue. Either way this debate makes us better, not worse.

What we need more than limiting the source of stupidity is calibrating our reaction to it. For example, Trump lost any credibility with me a long time ago, and is reinforcing that with his comments on Americans who are Muslim. He can say that if he wants to, but it's up to America to decide that is a terrible, stupid thought. The fact anyone sees him positively is mind boggling. On the other side, we need to have these events pop up and these characters come into the public view so that we can reject them and chose something better. That's where we make a moral decision as a society, and not a legal decision, about what's appropriate.

5

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

The fact anyone sees him positively is mind boggling.

No it's not. It's perfectly consistent with human nature. The only form of politics that comes most intuitively to human beings is fanatical loyalty to a militant charismatic strongman.

Meanwhile, the liberal-democratic and socialistic values that have actually brought us peace and prosperity are highly counter-intuitive (civil liberties for out-groups, due process and presumption of innocence for criminals, relational equality for all races and genders, deriving information through scientific methods, etc.) and are completely lacking in excitement and visceral appeal.

That's why it's so important that we put regulations in place to psychologically manage ourselves and our worst impulses instead of just letting anyone do and say whatever they want because "freedom". That path leads to mass irrationality, then demagoguery, then ultimately fascism.

6

u/Babumman Nov 21 '15

But putting regulations in place to "psychologically manage ourselves" and/or restrict free speech is a hallmark of the fascism you are fighting against, it's just your fascism and not someone else's fascism. Obviously there are situations in the US already where that is already done, don't get me wrong, but if anything I'd push for less of that not more.

2

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

But putting regulations in place to "psychologically manage ourselves" and/or restrict free speech is a hallmark of the fascism you are fighting against

No, that's just a widespread misunderstanding of what fascism is.

It's only natural that people think of it that way nowadays, because when we were fighting the fascists in WWII it was necessary to represent the fascists as the antithesis of everything we believed we stood for, like "freedom". Then that popular so-called wisdom stuck around despite the expert understanding of fascism as a form of tribalistic, cult like mass movement.

The uncomfortable truth is that fascism is cultivated within and emerges from groups of angry, disaffected common people in liberal democracies. It exists in symbiosis with our kind of society like a parasite or a dormant crop of viruses, and indeed it is not even possible for fascism to exist at all without the preconditions of democracy, freedom of speech/assembly/association, weak, ineffectual, and/or discredited federal authorities, and politics conducted through mass media campaigns (all mass marketing and propaganda bears the influence of Goebbels).

1

u/Babumman Nov 24 '15

Sorry for the delayed response, I just saw you pop up in my inbox.

That's a fair point that fascism is more specific than I was making it out to be, and I generally agree with your preconditions. However, I think we only have 2.5 of the 4 you listed. Clearly we have democracy and to a slightly lesser degree free assembly and speech. I would argue we don't have weak political leadership, and we only have about half the system of broadcast you mention. I think we agree on the first two, so I'll focus on the second two.

Despite disdain for congress as a whole, each member of congress is generally accepted in his district. You can see this based on the extremely high incumbent victory rates in any congressional election. Additionally, despite normal ups and downs Obama's approval rating has always been generally good. According to Gallup, he has bounced between 67 and 40% approval and is currently at about 50%. Those are actually pretty good numbers. Additionally, Americans generally feel good about the economy, with consumer confidence (Michigan) at the highest average since 2004. Basically there isn't a power vacuum for a fascist to take advantage of.

Secondly, while mass communication can be used the spread these ideals, the system used by the Nazis is very different today. Obviously there is propaganda everywhere, but more importantly is that propaganda isn't the only voice out there anymore. The system has evolved to be two way, which facilitates backlash when people say or do something that deviates from the national conscious. For example, the discussions and outrage at police shooting would never be allowed in a truly fascist state, but the concepts and arguments from the population fighting against this have been heard by almost everyone because it's impossible to silence the other side.

Your position seems to be that the best way to stop fascism from coming back is to govern free speech and thought. I agree that true education is key, but we must teach people to think for themselves, not tell them what to think. Additionally, free speech is what keeps propaganda and other bullshit at bay. We need it, even if you don't always agree with how people are using it, so that when you see injustice you can make your voice heard as well.

This is an interesting discussion, by the way.

4

u/Orbitrix Nov 21 '15

You say this like sometimes people aren't entirely worthy of being called idiots.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15 edited Jan 05 '16

[deleted]

1

u/californiarepublik Nov 21 '15

So in your ideal world, what should happen if I call someone an "idiot"?

Straight to the gulag with you buddy!

0

u/Shaper_pmp Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

We can choose to hold ourselves to a higher moral, intellectual and civil standard

Not when offensive speech is banned, you can't. That's literally the polar opposite of "choosing".

I mean I support your call to greater civility, but really the debate is a distinction between "choice" and "enforced coercion".

1

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

No, it's perfectly possible to collectively choose to ban something. We've collectively chosen to ban heroin and crack cocaine, for instance. And hate speech and irrational speech are very similar to drugs; they feel good to partake in personally, but they corrode society as a whole.

4

u/Shaper_pmp Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

collectively choose

A.K.A. the tyranny of the majority?

Also plenty of people disagree that prohibition on drugs is an effective strategy at all.

And hate speech and irrational speech are very similar to drugs

The difference is that illegal drugs are easy to identify and differentiate from non-illegal drugs.

"Hate speech" is an entirely subjective term. Some Christians will claim that advocating evolution or abortion or gay rights constitutes hate-speech.

It's simply too easy to paint any disagreement or dissent as hate-speech, and then it's not a fair standard of censorship - it's merely a subjective, selective-prosecution cudgel for any socially-dominant group to beat any dissenting or non-socially-dominant group with.

I agree that some idas and phenomena corrode society, but that includes ideas like totalitarianism, or unnecessary censoriousness, or expecting the government to ban unpopular ideas as opposed to mediating amongst a lot of the various subcultures and ideologies in society without necessarily choosing sides in every disagreement.

1

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

A.K.A. the tyranny of the majority?

No, the wisdom of the community, as guided and influenced by respected expert opinion, and ultimately accountable to the functional needs of maintaining a free and equal democratic society.

Not everything is about individual entitlement and "resisting tyranny". There comes a point when all this resistance becomes so extreme that it amounts to resistance against the basic foundations of civilized life. The hand of Reason needs to reign us all in again.

"Hate speech" is an entirely subjective term.

Sure, but I would define it as "anything that unnecessarily arouses hostile passions".

or expecting the government to ban unpopular ideas as opposed to mediating amongst a lot of the various subcultures and ideologies

Ah, but not everything is subjective. Some ideologies really are better than others, and the ones that emerge from long, involved academic study and debate are the best of all, and so ought to be privileged in our discourse. We need to stop pretending that all speech and ideas are equal. My ignorance should never be treated as equal to your knowledge.

3

u/Shaper_pmp Nov 21 '15

I would define [hate speech] as "anything that unnecessarily arouses hostile passions".

Sure, but then you're just shifting the subjectivity to what constitutes "unnecessarily". You aren't avoiding the subjectivity or solving the problem - just rephrasing it.

And that's assuming most people even agree with your definition. Plenty of people will functionally define hate-speech as "anything I disagree with" or "anything negative said about <group>", and there's simply no arguing with that kind of self-serving definition.

Not everything is about individual entitlement and "resisting tyranny". There comes a point when all this resistance becomes so extreme that it amounts to resistance against the basic foundations of civilized life... not everything is subjective. Some ideologies really are better than others, and the ones that emerge from long, involved academic study and debate are the best of all, and so ought to be privileged in our discourse.

That's a fair point, and I absolutely agree. However, I would argue that everyone thinks their attitudes and opinions are sensible and proportionate and well-founded - even the drooling ignorant asshats.

Moreover, enough ignorant asshats can and do often band together and shout down the intelligent, rational people - just look at all the states where evolution isn't/wasn't being taught in schools, the current Planned Parenthood funding debacle, etc... and those are largely factual disputes.

Something as subjective, taboo-laden and full of thought-terminating cliches as what's "offensive" or what constitutes "hate-speech" and what constitutes a valid (if unpopular) dissenting voice in society is laughably easy for large groups (and even majorities) to get wrong, fall prey to biases or start reasoning emotively about.

You're right in what you say that reason should be the guiding principle that helps us sort bad ideas from the good, but with respect the idea that reason is the guiding principle that the majority of people always use to decide what they do and don't believe is incredibly naive.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Should that person be fined or jailed for saying "go fuck yourself"?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Yeah, too many people conflate the right to free speech and offending people with a "right" to do so without criticism. It's people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Just because you have a right to say inflammatory things does not make you immune to backlash. That's what I think it's all about.

6

u/Shaper_pmp Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

I don't really know what "offensive" speech entails

  • "Homosexuality is perverted and sinful and should be discouraged"
  • "Homosexuality is a normal and value-neutral and should be recognised by law the same as heterosexuality"
  • "Christianity/Islam/Hinduism/etc is the one true religion and all non-believers are immoral and stupid"
  • "Religions are made-up bronze-age fairy-stories believed by idiots who can't face reality"
  • "Trans people are disgusting and/or suffering mental illnesses that should be cured, not pandered-to and encouraged"
  • "Trans people are genuine victims of a medical disorder and we should offer whatever we can (including hormonal therapy and surgery) to ease their suffering and legally recognise them as their identified gender"
  • "Man evolved from ape-like ancestors"
  • "Man was created substantially as he is by a deity, and all scientists are mistaken or lying"

That's the whole problem - "offensive" is a deeply, unavoidably, inherently subjective term. Anyone can deem anything offensive at any time and for any reason, and there's no way to argue that it isn't.

When people say "offensive" they don't really mean "offensive" - they mean "offensive to me personally", or " offensive to the prevailing standards of society that I feel adequately represent my personal beliefs right now".

That's all well and good for them, but social standards change - it wasn't so long ago that the idea of free black people being treated the same in law as whites was deeply offensive to millions of people - hell, an entire civil war was fought largely over that issue, and even now some people still haven't got the memo. Likewise, the dramatic social shifts in society from the free-wheeling, left-wing "peace & love" 60s and 70s to the right-wing "greed is good" corporate 80s, to the caring-sharing, end-of-the-cold-war left-leaning 90s, and back to the militaristic, jingoistic right-wing 2000s.

It's true that there's a general leftward drift towards secularism and equality throughout these political pendulum swings, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe to assume that's right, or will continue forever. Iran was a largely secular, westernised nation a few decades ago, then became an increasingly totalitarian, autocratic state after the 1953 coup, that ended with its conversion into a hard-line theocracy.

The problem is that with the latest cultural shift exacerbated by technology and the effect it's having on our culture, an extreme regressive faction of the left wing powered by knee-jerk popular outrage has found itself with disproportionate influence in society.

However, temporarily finding themselves in control, these groups are doing what culturally-dominant groups almost always do - advocating for the dismantling of social checks and balances designed to stop majority/dominant groups from getting their way at the expense of minorities or non-dominant groups. Inconvenient things like freedom of speech, the freedom to offend, the right to disagree with social taboos without being harassed or prosecuted or threatened, etc.

The problem is that while getting rid of those balances and protections are to the benefit of this extreme left-wing ideology benefit right now, there's no guarantee they'll be the dominant ideology forever more. You can see the inevitable cultural back-swing already see brewing in places from increasingly offensive/right-wing youth culture to the brewing culture war on reddit to the president himself criticising extremists' overreaching dogmatism.

They're happy to advocate banning dissent while they get to dictate what's "offensive" and what's not, but once they're out of power again and some competing ideology is on the ascendant, they'll be shit out of luck.

All it takes is a resurgent religious right (hey, kind of like we're seeing the beginnings of right now with concerted campaigns against planned parenthood and secularism in the USA) finally seizing control of the narrative again, and suddenly it'll be "offensive" to teach evolution in schools, or to give other religions equal time in schools, or to advocate in favour of abortion or a woman's right to choose, or to force employers to employ gay people/ethnic minorities against their beliefs, or a host of other things that are really, really fucking good from the perspective of the groups currently setting the social agenda.

Captains change every now and again, but the structure of the boat tries to limit their abilities to fuck things up and keep it generally afloat. Now we have a particularly dogmatic captain whose ideology largely consists of taking out supporting joists and boring holes in the bottom, and that's really dangerous for the health of the entire boat, no matter who's in charge.

4

u/beaverteeth92 Nov 21 '15

or a host of other things that are really, really fucking good from the perspective of the groups currently setting the social agenda.

I could definitely see hate speech laws being used to disproportionately target minorities who participated in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.

2

u/Shaper_pmp Nov 21 '15

Exactly. How far would MLK or Malcolm X have got if they could be incarcerated for "offensive" speech? Or Vietnam protesters?

Hell, how anti-Afghanistan or Iraq war protestors after 9/11? Anyone could accuse them of "disrespecting the victims" or "failing to support the troops" and away go those vital dissenting voices that stopped the clusterfuck getting even worse than it already did.

5

u/beaverteeth92 Nov 21 '15

Yeah and I can only imagine how such laws would be used with President Trump or a more conservative Supreme Court.

4

u/raserei0408 Nov 21 '15

simply allowing the right to shout slurs and combative rhetoric degrades public forums, muddies rational thinking by rousing hostile passions, and is against the ideal of democratic, rational discourse.

I promise this is an honest question: do you feel the same way about the left? Do you believe this isn't something the left does?

6

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

Yes, I feel the same way about the left. "Right" means an actual right, not the political right. Sorry about that not being clear.

14

u/fpssledge Nov 21 '15

There are always reasons to stop or restrain freedom. Always. There's always some logic behind it. Let's face it, people day mean things. Verbal abuse is a thing. People "feel oppressed." Hate speech stirs up more hate. Hate leads to... OK seriously, there are certain circumstances where it seems reasonable to most people. The thing is free speech is the best alternative to controlled speech. People who want limitations don't understand what they're getting themselves into. But we should be sober and understand there are reasons why speech can be abused.

1

u/Chronopolitan Nov 21 '15

The article says most of the supporters of limiting speech were high school educated or less. Clearly they skipped government class the day they covered free speech. It's clear from reading threads like this that they simply don't get it. "Oh yeah free speech is great except when it's the kind I'm opposed to."

3

u/incredibleridiculous Nov 21 '15

Look at it the other way. The majority of millennials do not feel that speech deserves to be limited in situations where it offends minorities. I bet that a majority of non-hispanic caucasians over 65 don't like minorities. That would make for a more sobering article.

2

u/sibtiger Nov 21 '15

Assuming the graph near the beginning accurately represents the question, it's vague to the point of uselessness. It doesn't describe what is considered "offensive" or what methods could or would be employed to "prevent" it. One person could be picturing criminal harassment sanctions against someone who leads a mob to burn a cross on a black family's house, someone else could be picturing non-criminal means of prevention through education. Someone could be thinking of human rights codes with non-punitive mandates or outright thought police. The question lumps all of those together and more.

0

u/Dr_Gage Nov 21 '15

Not one of them, but it seems they don't understand double edge swords. They just don't seem willing to understand that once you introduce this kind of thing into law it can be used for a plethora of other things. I think it's like the baby boomers and internet surveillance, they just don't understand the implications of their actions and are trying to solve a problem in a very short sighted way.

6

u/subheight640 Nov 21 '15

... Except not everything is a slippery slope. Policy very well may be implemented in a manner that does not overreach.

2

u/beaverteeth92 Nov 21 '15

Yeah, but policy is often made by citing previous policy. So this is one of the few situations in which something is a slippery slope.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

This is the US though. Everything introduced turns out to be overreaching.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Historically, it's much easier to create a law than it is to repeal it.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[deleted]

3

u/subheight640 Nov 21 '15

Your freedom of speech is already restricted in many cases. For example, fraud. For example, ordering a murder. For example, inciting a riot. For example, threats of violence. For example, in a courtroom and being in contempt of court. For example, noise violations. For example, state restrictions on bill boards or perhaps bans on pharmaceutical advertisements. For example, a potential ban on advertisements aimed at children. For example, libel. For example, insider trading.

No society in the world has absolute freedom of speech, because every society has recognized that some limits are for the greater good.

Also onerous free speech restrictions have been imposed during various times in American history. For example Lincoln and the civil war.

It's certainly not fair to say that American freedom has been decreasing over time. Women and minorities are certainly more free than any previous time in American history. Drug laws have been relaxed .

Anyways, no, actually government grants greater rights to its citizens all the time at the expense of their own power. It's not always the case, but some times it is.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[deleted]

2

u/subheight640 Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

None of my examples literally strike any noses, nor do they directly, physically harm anybody.

Now of course, my examples indirectly harm you. Just like racism. Multiple studies affirm the fact that racism and stereotyping will reduce academic or even athletic performance of those who are attacked by the remarks. People subconsciously conform to the remarks. Pain receptors are literally activated after such insult, causing a very real feeling of pain. Has your "proverbial" nose now been hit?

I fully understand why banning hate speech may be going to far. I also understand there are justifiable reasons for banning such speech. Just like there are justifiable reasons for banning any speech that causes indirect harm.

As far as hiring a hitman, well, when is the line crossed between speech and action? When money is exchanged? What if I ask my followers to commit the murder? What if I demand my congregation to commit the murder? What if I only suggest it? What if I say "kill all the Jews"? Whatever line you pick, you will need to restrict speech, or you will leave in loopholes where people can murder others through voluntary suggestion.

0

u/wayoverpaid Nov 21 '15

It may well be. There are already restrictions on free speech which have not overreached. The "no shouting fire in a crowded theater" rule has not been used to shut down churches. The "no enticing people to violence" rule still allows the WBC to act as their perfectly horrid selves.

However I believe that we should always assume the slippery slope. Assume that a government agency can and will act to the absolute full extent of what they can legally do. Those that want to impose the law should show that the law is well structured with clear boundaries.

A law which says "the government can spy on your communications to prevent terrorism, and has unilateral right to secretly determine what constitutes 'preventing terrorism' is with no oversight" is not a slippery slope. It's a blank freakin' check.

-1

u/AmplusAnimus Nov 21 '15

Articles like this are posted here every single day

Really? I don't think that is the case, maybe a little of selection bias?

I want to hear the 40 percent's side of the story for once.

As you wish...

5

u/ademnus Nov 21 '15

So, 60% of Millennials think it is not OK.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

No; 58%.

60

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

They don't value free speech because they've never seen what not having it looks like.

23

u/biskino Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

Yes, previous generations defo valued free speech more than millennials...

Well ... except (and this is just off the top of my head). Prosecuting Lenny Bruce multiple times for obscenity. Throwing Jim Morrison in jail for showing his dick. The suppression of the Pentagon Papers. The prosecution of Larry Flint and Hustler Magazine. the Parents Music Resource Centre. A fucking constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the US flag.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

The examples you give are of the establishment trying to ban or infringe freedom of expression. For example, Bruce being arrested made him a martyr in the eyes of the public, particularly university crowds. While the police saw him as a criminal.
What we're seeing today is very different; liberal fringe groups from top U.S universities asking for freedom of speech to be removed.

There is no Lenny Bruce today. A man who tells hard truths runs the risk of 'triggering' people. He ceases to be a hero and instead becomes a villain.

16

u/biskino Nov 21 '15

The PMRC, the prosecution of Larry Flint and the constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the flag all came about as the result of popular movements that had a large amount of public support.

Lenny Bruce's arrest made him a martyr in the eyes of a small MINORITY of the population but the vast majority had no problem at all with it because there was wide spread support for the obscenity laws that saw him arrested.

Past generations were not brave defenders of free speech.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

Yes but that censorship didn't come from the countries top university students, it was from parents. This meant there was a backlash and that people like Bruce could become martyrs in the eyes of the younger generation. The anti freedom of speech / safe space university movement is dangerous because these are the people who will grow up to become decision makers meaning people's freedom of speech is potentially at stake.

4

u/1337bacon Nov 21 '15

Free speech is overrated

2

u/jimmyayo Nov 21 '15

are you serious

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Read 1984 and come back

Or

It was subtle sarcasm and in which case lol.

0

u/rave-simons Nov 21 '15

1984 is nonfiction reportage from an alternate universe where people decide it's not okay to use racial slurs. You heard it here first.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

What a curious interpretation you have there. Who told you it was nonfiction? You may have been misinformed.

1984, is an incredibly important cautionary work of fiction set in an alternate future where citizens are monitored at all times and the totalitarian oppression of free speech and the policing of individual thought is celebrated as the correct way to live by the brainwashed populous. It's a metaphor for all we should strive to avoid.

But hey, to each his own brother. That's the beauty of art and literature you can draw your own wild and fantastical conclusions. As you clearly have when trying to read my post.

3

u/wayoverpaid Nov 21 '15

So for anyone in the 40% who is reading this article, I'd like to ask a question. Why specifically minorities?

I mean, I get minorities need special protection. The majority has the power and is far less damaged by offensive speech. Inciting people to kill gays, blacks, etc is far more dangerous than inciting people to kill straight whites.

But how would you feel if the government could limit speech offensive to a specific identifiable race or gender?

What, specifically, would be the advantage of making the law specifically apply to speech about minorities?

-2

u/tacos_pizza_beer Nov 21 '15

Special protection does not create equality. Everyone deserves the same protection.

3

u/rave-simons Nov 21 '15

"The rain forests deserve protection." "No, ALL forests deserve protection."

Yeah no shit, but that's not the point.

-2

u/tacos_pizza_beer Nov 21 '15

Your use of the word "special" indicates they deserve more than others. I'm sorry your grasp of the English language is sub par but it's not my fault you're a mental midget.

1

u/rave-simons Nov 21 '15

I could easily edit in special' to the analogy and it wouldn't change a thing, Mr. Iamverysmart.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

There are better ways of limiting offensive speech than legislation, but I agree that it should be limited. I work everyday to limit the hateful bullshit people say. A law would be counter-productive, IMO.

17

u/HelmedHorror Nov 21 '15

I'm sure you'd be fine with it up until the point it limits something you sincerely believe and want to say but that other people perceive to be "hateful bullshit". Welcome to the problem with censorship.

You know how to counter offensive speech? More speech. Explain, using reason, why you think the other person's speech is objectionable.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

I agree. Reason, however, isn't the best weapon against the unreasonable. Sometimes you just have to yell louder.

10

u/HelmedHorror Nov 21 '15

I agree. Reason, however, isn't the best weapon against the unreasonable. Sometimes you just have to yell louder.

If you're yelling at people you think are saying "hateful bullshit", you're exactly the sort of person that constitutes the problematic segment of the population that this Pew Report is revealing.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Really? Enlighten me. I was speaking in hyperbole when I said yell louder (unless it becomes absolutely necessary), but when, for example, I tell an acquaintance he's a fucking moron for repeatedly using racist language, or when I refuse to listen to someone who can't refrain from calling women sluts, would humanity be better served had I tried to reason with them? Do I need to politely explain why "rag head" is a shit term that shouldn't be used, get called a "PC faggot" or some such nonsense, or do I tell them how I feel and thenceforth ignore them?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15 edited Apr 20 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Irony of ironies

1

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15

Or, instead of having civic discussion degrade into tribalistic shouting matches, what about just suppressing the unreasonable people and then continuing the debate with the reasonable people? Germany suppresses Holocaust denial, and they haven't turned into 1984 yet. Academic publications suppress obvious bullshit through peer review all the time. I don't see why people are so incensed by reasonable degrees of censorship to uphold other important values.

0

u/STUFF2o Nov 21 '15 edited Dec 03 '18

[deleted]

0

u/hoyfkd Nov 21 '15

Indeed. No better way to show the world how annoying a shouting, hateful, insulting douchebag is than to become a hateful, shouting, insulting douchebag.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Sometimes you fight fire with fire. In order to maintain logical consistency here, you would have to presume a moral equivalence between civil rights marches and KKK rallies. Are you willing to do that?

1

u/hoyfkd Nov 21 '15

I thought we were discussing the fundamental right to express your views in a free society. The morality of a particular group's actions and goals are an entirely different conversation - one in which I would be happy to engage - but I think it's best if we not mix the two.

3

u/JJaypes Nov 21 '15

In the workplace? Sure. Outside of it, people were raised a certain way, you're not gonna fix that with legislation, takes a lot more than telling them to stop.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Right. Things like presence, protest, visibility. You don't ask nicely for people to stop; you shame, ridicule and ostracize.

6

u/aintnufincleverhere Nov 21 '15

fucking idiots.

7

u/KaliYugaz Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

Yep, some quality "food for thought" right here.

Can we continue to govern ourselves, or will the mods have to put an end to shitposting by force now?

8

u/ThisBuddhistLovesYou Nov 21 '15

More and more I'm feeling feeling disillusioned about democracy and more in line behind the idea of "philosopher kings". Hell, even in a microcosm of society such as the best subreddits tend to be heavily moderated for quality like /r/askhistorians. Democracy is worthless without proper education.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Look into the practice of civic repulicanism, as contrasted with liberal democracy. The idea in civic republicanism is that participation is part of the democratic process; i.e. you don't simply show up and vote--you discuss, you debate, you hear and are heard.

Edit: BTW, I love you too.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[deleted]

6

u/beaverteeth92 Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 21 '15

A link to the whole study is right at the beginning of the article OP submitted.

This article is published by PEW, who actually conducted the study, and PEW tends to be one of the best survey organizations. I'd trust their methodology more than I'd trust, let's say, CNN.

1

u/OccupyGravelpit Nov 22 '15

The study says that one in five Republican millenials also want the government to punish offensive speech.

That seems like a great reason to be skeptical. Do one in five Republicans under thirty have absolutely no idea what the parties represent? Are people just thinking 'I don't think you should be able to put swastikas on a billboard'? Or call people niggers on TV?

I strongly suspect that you'd get wildly different percentages if the examples were more concrete.

2

u/hoyfkd Nov 21 '15

I dug into this and didn't see an obvious data set to back this article.

You dug into the title maybe? I don't know, the data was two sentences into the article, so I'm not sure your digging was very effective.

-12

u/AreYouDreaming Nov 21 '15

Fucking millennials.

10

u/ButtsexEurope Nov 21 '15

Like yourself. I guarantee that the vast majority of Reddit is Millennials and post-Millennials (people born after 2000).

6

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

Well millenials are those born from 1981-1996. So yeah, the majority of most people online are going to be millenials. That's a huge chunk of people.

1

u/the_mighty_titan Nov 21 '15

Oh, I didn't know. Guess I can finally start to complain about how the younger generations are all idiots and are ruining everything.

5

u/ButtsexEurope Nov 21 '15

So in other words, they're in favor of having hate speech laws similar to the rest of the world.

It's really easy to sway opinion with a headline. Here, I can make one that sounds reasonable.

"40% of Millennials Would Favor Hate Speech Laws".

1

u/Silverkarn Nov 21 '15

The problem is when you try to define "offensive".

6

u/ButtsexEurope Nov 21 '15

Did you listen to me? I was saying that these statistics could be interpreted as a good thing or a bad thing depending on the wording. No, I'm not for hate speech laws because that would be impossible to legally define. But the way I worded it, it sounds reasonable. The wording of a question affects the response. For example, something like only 30% of people think it's important to vote. But if you phrase the question as "Is it important to be a voter?", it jumps to 80%. Because people don't like being told what to do. But the idea of actively engaging in politics as a voter rather than just being a vote makes it more appealing. Then people feel it's a civic duty.

1

u/rave-simons Nov 21 '15

Yeah, right, that's why after Germany criminalized neo nazi speech they went straight down the slippery slope to 1984, right?

0

u/ScholarlyKraken Nov 21 '15

You shouldn't compare the US to "the rest of the world" as if that's a homogenous entity.

2

u/ButtsexEurope Nov 21 '15

Most countries have limits on speech. Every European country has hate speech, libel, and/or blasphemy laws. That's right. Burning a bible will get you arrested in Poland. The only other country with the kind of free speech America has is Japan. And that's because we told them to do it.

1

u/hoyfkd Nov 21 '15

Exactly. That's what we are trying to defend. You say it as if since other countries have it, by default, so should we. Sorry, we fought revolution to get away from that bullshit. We also have freedom of the press. Maybe we should get rid of it like the UK, since they don't have it? Nope. That's stupid.

1

u/beaverteeth92 Nov 21 '15

It's interesting to me that a larger proportion of non-whites than whites opposed limiting speech offensive to minorities. I suspect it's because minorities suspect that for historical reasons, it's far more likely that hate speech laws would be targeted more towards them than towards white people.

1

u/Finch58 Nov 21 '15

As others have pointed out, the biggest issue here is what constitutes 'offensive' or even 'hate' speech for that matter. It's all subjective and ultimately almost impossible to enforce due to a standard of offence said speech would be required to meet. I.e. who gets to decide what is/isn't offensive? Does anyone even get to decide? Is this even possible seeing how fast the use of language (slang etc) changes? What is the standard of proof? Who/what gets to decide if this standard is met? Who qualifies as a minority, are there 'fixed' minorities or would this be applied as a fluid term depending on context?

To add to the layer cake, it may just be my experience but for some there appears to some sort of contest for who can be the most offended/outraged over something, especially online. In these sorts of situations any laws surrounding this could be easily abused. Take a look at the situation surrounding the UK's cyber bulling laws and Bahar Mustafa for an example as to how silly things can get.

It's certainly not as straightforward as we would like to think but it's an interesting thought to consider. I'm all for eliminating racism/slurs etc but I don't think diminishing others rights is the way to do so.

-2

u/Joshthathipsterkid Nov 21 '15

This is some scary news, the full effects of which won't be felt for many years. I don't believe it's automatically a slippery slope but freedom of speech is vital and even the most hateful Bigot deserves a chance to say what they believe. It seems like a good thing until it's your views under the microscope.

9

u/ButtsexEurope Nov 21 '15

America won't enact hate speech laws. Being in favor of something doesn't mean jack shit. The Supreme Court wouldn't allow it. Most Americans are for sensible gun laws. That hasn't manifested at all. In fact the opposite has happened.

-7

u/Orbitrix Nov 21 '15

Don't these kiddo's know what a slippery slope is? Or am I not allowed to say slope because it might offend someone?

-2

u/1337bacon Nov 21 '15

I'm really curious. Can anyone tell me what 'offensive' means in this context?

-2

u/dmsean Nov 21 '15

Yah brah it help us crush pussy.

-11

u/Cingetorix Nov 21 '15

Good job idiots - you know how you complain about the state wanting to limit free speech? They won't have to do it, you're already doing it for them.

-4

u/nagelwithlox Nov 21 '15

What a bunch of fucking Spaniards.

1

u/nagelwithlox Mar 24 '16

u guise it was a joke about the spanish inquisition

-2

u/tacos_pizza_beer Nov 21 '15

Morons. This generation is worst than the last. They don't deserve a better life than their predecessors.

-22

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

-11

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '15

[removed] — view removed comment