The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The paradoxical nature of freedom of speech and hate speech > Comments

The paradoxical nature of freedom of speech and hate speech : Comments

By Rivka Witenberg, published 2/7/2019

How can we guard against harmful or hateful speech when freedom of speech is highly cherished in democratic societies?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Same old same old. Gets us nowhere.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 9:46:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
academics for years have been teaching the arrival of British resulting in 'genocide'. Of course it is complete nonsense nonetheless they are happy to stir ignorant activist to hatred. Amazing how often Issy comes up. Wasn't to many years ago that our Indigenous boxing champion tweetting that homosexuals should be put to death. Not all that much outrage. As shown in America for the leftist academics its all about sides. They know that far more hate and violence is committed by the likes of antifa and other marxist thugs but instead pick up on so called hateful comments from conservatives. The swamp needs draining.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 10:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The racists keep tearing at the scabs of racism & the criminals make insidious use of PC under the guise of Democracy/Socialism !
If it weren't for those deranged, these subjects would not be raised !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 10:53:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can we guard against harmful or hateful speech when freedom of speech is highly cherished in democratic societies?

- Do what our parents did and teach your kids this:
'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.'

"We do not have to think too hard to realise that calling out 'fire' in a crowded theatre cannot be accepted on the basis of freedom of speech."

I really hate people telling me what to do, now I instantly feel like your trying to sell me something.

We do we not have to think too hard about it?
Why not? And who's we?
Maybe YOU want us to not think too hard about it.

Lets think about this seriously.
You wouldn't have a problem with someone calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre if there was an actual fire would you?
So really the argument you used is really an argument against lying, but you've hijacked it to argue that free speech has its limits.

Now you gave us definitions of 'Hate Speech' and 'Free speech', but it may also be helpful to look at the definition of disciminate.

discriminate

1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions"
More
separate, tell apart;
separate the sheep from the goats, separate the wheat from the chaff
"at birth, a baby cannot discriminate between foreground and background in its visual field"
perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
"features that discriminate this species from other gastropods"
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
"existing employment policies discriminate against women"
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:15:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Cont.]
Now what if the 18 - 22 year old in your example said this.

"I don't like asians.
They don't look like me, they eat different food and they're not really from Australia they're from Asian countries."

- Has this 18 - 22 year old not merely recognised a distinction between oneself and others?
Not different than seperating sheep from goats?
On a basis on merit?

Could his statement NOT fair and accurate or NOT be considered an extension of his true beliefs?
- Covered under an exemption in Section 18D Clause C?

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Finally lets talk about harm.
"...the only legitimate ground to interfere with our liberty and coerce us is to prevent harm."

Lets think about this seriously.
'Harm' is a bit of an ambiguous word, and it can be a blanket statement and misused.

Because 'harm' itself is actually essential to the process.
Lets say you have a young kid that like to punch other kids.
You can tell him to stop doing it and treat others nicely but may not stop because there hasn't been any real consequences.
Let's say you smack that kid, or another bigger kid finally punches him.

Only then, from that child himself being harmed can he begin to learn that actions have consequences;
And that it's important to treat others the way you'd like to be treated.

You don't learn that 'fire' (such as in a crowded theatre) is harmful
Unless you've already been HARMED (burned) by it, do you not?
'Harm' therefore is essential to the process of learning.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Cont.]
I myself tend to think or word JS Mills harm principle a little bit differently.
I say 'Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt affect others in an adverse manner.'
In this I'm trying to highlight the bigger picture.

Lets say we're walking along together and you trip (because you're not watching where you're going)
And I laugh and make fun of your mishap as blood streams down your knee.
You may feel as though my response was impolite but was my making fun of you actually harmful?
Because in truth what was harmful was you tripping over;
And my response (whilst not nice) might also be considered a non-violent form of correction.
That me humiliating you serves a bigger purpose to make you learn to pay attention where you walk in future.
- So that you don't hurt yourself again.

Do animals in the animal kingdom not gently bite or nip their young to correct bad behaviour?
For the bigger picture purpose of not been killed and eaten by another predator?
'Harm' is essential.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:16:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy