Taking the Free Speech Argument a Step Further


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

In another thread, I commented that "hate speech" is one step away from "thought crime."  I've been thinking about it over the weekend, and I'd like to take that back.  Instead, I should have said "hate speech" = "thoughtcrime."

They're not a step apart from each other, they're the same thing.  

Disagree?  Show me the difference.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree.  Our deal is we get to say stuff, and folks get to decide whether it's stupid or evil or good or laudable or whatever.   The best way to punish a speaker of evil, is to laugh him out of his comfort zone.

Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.
- Alan Dershowitz

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
- George Washington


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I don't have a well thought out opinion on this either way, but for the sake of discussion (and potentially leading to an opinion)....

How are we defining hate speech? And how are we defining thought crime? 

If we agree they are the same, does it matter if the "hate speech/thought crime" is from an individual or a group?  For example, if one person says "Mormons" are radical lunatics and a danger to society is that different than if there is a group organized to promote that same message?  Does this change if we decide they are not the same? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't have a well thought out opinion on this either way, but for the sake of discussion (and potentially leading to an opinion)....

How are we defining hate speech? And how are we defining thought crime? 

If we agree they are the same, does it matter if the "hate speech/thought crime" is from an individual or a group?  For example, if one person says "Mormons" are radical lunatics and a danger to society is that different than if there is a group organized to promote that same message?  Does this change if we decide they are not the same? 

 

Here’s the current legal standard, FWIW.  I’m inclined to think SCOTUS got this one right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here’s the current legal standard, FWIW.  I’m inclined to think SCOTUS got this one right.

That's very helpful, thank you. I agree with this.  But how do we discern the difference between merely talking about violence and talk of violence that is imminent and likely?  I'm sure sometimes it's very clear, like siblings telling each other, "I'm gonna kill you if you do that again"  And yet, if you're Abel and your brother is Cain.....well, he may be serious, actual violence is pending.  So how do we know?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

How are we defining hate speech? And how are we defining thought crime? 

Well, thoughtcrime is a concept form Orwell's 1984.  From the Wikipedia page on thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime:

"thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party."

How can you tell what people think or believe?

"The citizens of Oceania are watched by the Thought Police through the telescreens. Every movement, reflex, facial expression, and reaction is measured by this system, monitored by the Ministry of Love."

"Hate Speech" is defined differently in different jurisdictions, but broadly speaking it's defended as being a measure to prevent bullying, but in actual practice you can be prosecuted for any expression of an opinion, belief or information that violates the current ideology of the state, as it relates to certain demographics.  People are being arrested every day in the U.K. for things they have said on Twitter... and not even necessarily in a bullying context.  

So one might argue that they're entirely different, based on intent and the specifics of what constitutes "hate crime,"  but I maintain that in actual practice, they're the same thing.  Even in 1984 the Thought Police couldn't literally read minds, but they'd go after people for thoughtcrime based on what they said, their mannerisms, etc. (Or perhaps what they posted on Twitter...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That's very helpful, thank you. I agree with this.  But how do we discern the difference between merely talking about violence and talk of violence that is imminent and likely?  I'm sure sometimes it's very clear, like siblings telling each other, "I'm gonna kill you if you do that again"  And yet, if you're Abel and your brother is Cain.....well, he may be serious, actual violence is pending.  So how do we know?  

My understanding is that there has to be an identifiable victim and a likelihood, under the circumstances, that the phrase will actually provoke violence.  “Shoot all Mormons”, written for an audience of acne-ridden basement dwellers on ILoveNazisAndTheKlan.com = probably constitutionally protected.  “Let’s shoot the Mormons over on that farm”, said to a mob of rednecks wielding torches and shotguns a couple hundred yards from the farm = probably not protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding is that there has to be an identifiable victim and a likelihood, under the circumstances, that the phrase will actually provoke violence.  “Shoot all Mormons”, written for an audience of acne-ridden basement dwellers on ILoveNazisAndTheKlan.com = probably constitutionally protected.  “Let’s shoot the Mormons over on that farm”, said to a mob of rednecks wielding torches and shotguns a couple hundred yards from the farm = probably not protected.

That does make sense. After all, I'm sure if we knew all the details of say the Cain and Abel situation, we would signs that something was not right and a build up of violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That does make sense. After all, I'm sure if we knew all the details of say the Cain and Abel situation, we would signs that something was not right and a build up of violence. 

Well, and there may not always be signs; or a chance for government to meaningfully intervene between the incitement and the action.  The underlying philosophy, I think, contemplated the risk and ultimately viewed that as an acceptable trade-off in light of the alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@unixknight I read 1984...back in 1984 so its been awhile, thank you for refreshing my memory. I should read it again. I like the way Orwell thinks, and agree that we should take his warnings seriously. 

I don't disagree with anything that has been said so far, but now I need to do some research on what the other side has to say...then likely I'll do my Tevia thing, Lol. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, and there may not always be signs; or a chance for government to meaningfully intervene between the incitement and the action.  The underlying philosophy, I think, contemplated the risk and ultimately viewed that as an acceptable trade-off in light of the alternatives.

So if I understand correctly...although it can be frustrating we have to do this or we will cross over into though crime as Unixknight suggested. Kind of like when abused women get a restraining order..(even though that's really a joke that offers no real protection), still the police cant just arrest a guy who might be violent, or arrest him again as the case may be. 

Am I understanding correctly? If so I agree. Its maddening and sometimes dangerous, but its part of living in a fallen world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@unixknight I read 1984...back in 1984 so its been awhile, thank you for refreshing my memory. I should read it again. I like the way Orwell thinks, and agree that we should take his warnings seriously. 

I don't disagree with anything that has been said so far, but now I need to do some research on what the other side has to say...then likely I'll do my Tevia thing, Lol. 

Always good to look at both sides.  

The reason I posted this, and am as passionate as I am on the subject, is because I honestly believe we're heading into a future not unlike Orwell's description.  I do believe that much of this stuff is well intentioned, but what people don't understand is that they're forging the very same weapons that will be used against them in the future, and don't realize it.  

It's easy to sympathize with the desire to get rid of media that appears to be bigoted or mean spirited, especially when it's aimed at someone that seems vulnerable, or who has been historically downtrodden.  That's the better angels of our nature wanting to do something to make the world a better place.

There's two problems with that...

  • People aren't always very good at discerning legitimate examples of mean spirited verbal attacks.  We see it all the time.  If I cite a statistic that says more people die in acts of terror by X group as opposed to Y group, you *know* someone is going to accuse me of being hateful and bigoted against group X.  Then they call what I said "hate speech" even if the data I'm citing is factually accurate.  So now, instead of discussing a real problem and coming up with real solutions, we're prevented form discussing it at all, and the problem just gets worse. 
  • What happens when the government, which now has this power to censor and silence, shifts ideology and starts using that power in a wider and wider net?  Or what if it's used against the very same people who pushed for giving it that power to begin with?  It's easy to give greater power to a government that seems to be on your side, ideologically.  But that's never a permanent situation.  Analogy:  A few years ago I was debating with a friend over the question of whether it would be okay for the military to conduct strikes against American citizens.  He was perfectly fine with it, saying that it was a necessary power.  (This was during the Obama administration.)  I asked him if he would still be comfortable with that when there was eventually a Republican in office.  You should have seen his face.  That thought had never even occurred to him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So if I understand correctly...although it can be frustrating we have to do this or we will cross over into though crime as Unixknight suggested. Kind of like when abused women get a restraining order..(even though that's really a joke that offers no real protection), still the police cant just arrest a guy who might be violent, or arrest him again as the case may be. 

Am I understanding correctly? If so I agree. Its maddening and sometimes dangerous, but its part of living in a fallen world.

Yes, but if you’re suggesting that this standard allows a DV perp to make threats against his or her significant other with impunity—I would disagree.  The “incitement” standard may not technically apply, since the perp isn’t inciting a third party to violence.  But a credible threat of violence in conjunction with the immediate ability to carry out that threat, made in such a way that a reasonable person would conclude that violence was imminent—I don’t think the First Amendment protects that sort of thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Always good to look at both sides.  

The reason I posted this, and am as passionate as I am on the subject, is because I honestly believe we're heading into a future not unlike Orwell's description.  I do believe that much of this stuff is well intentioned, but what people don't understand is that they're forging the very same weapons that will be used against them in the future, and don't realize it.  

Excellent points. I totally agree that we have to be very careful not to give the government too much power, which as you said, could be used against us. 

I was just reading The Proper Role of Government by Pres. Benson with my son. Pres. Benson reminds us that we can't give any power to the government that we don't have. So if I, Jane Q. citizen can't tell my neighbor, "Stop threatening me or I'll tie you up in my barn." Then I can't...in a proper government...give the government that power. I can defend myself though if the neighbor actually threatens me, which is similar to what JAG and I are discussing. 

BTW, I don't want the government to conduct strikes against US Citizens, no matter who is in office, yikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually here's another thought...

When you're listening to the news, or political commentary, etc, and you hear the term "hate speech," mentally replace that with "thoughtcrime" and see if that changes the message in any way.

5 will get you 10 it doesn't.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yes, but if you’re suggesting that this standard allows a DV perp to make threats against his or her significant other with impunity—I would disagree.  The “incitement” standard may not technically apply, since the perp isn’t inciting a third party to violence.  But a credible threat of violence in conjunction with the immediate ability to carry out that threat, made in such a way that a reasonable person would conclude that violence was imminent—I don’t think the First Amendment protects that sort of thing. 

No, I didn't mean it that way, though I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I wasn't clear. I was trying to imagine the person crying hate crime, and how they might feel...perhaps unprotected...maybe it was a bad analogy to start with.  :)

 I just mean that the system isn't perfect and that is frustrating, but there is a fine line we must walk so as to not step into a 1984 type of tyranny.  Does that explain better? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Actually here's another thought...

When you're listening to the news, or political commentary, etc, and you hear the term "hate speech," mentally replace that with "thoughtcrime" and see if that changes the message in any way.

5 will get you 10 it doesn't.

When I get a minute, I will do some research and try that experiment.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here’s the current legal standard, FWIW.  I’m inclined to think SCOTUS got this one right.

 I agree with this take.

The problem that the left has with it is the purpored "dog whistle".  They believe that conservatives somehow have this secret code that when we say certain Constitutionally protected speech, the subtext is actually inciting violence in a "clear and present" manner.

I guess I didn't get a copy of my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 hour ago, Mores said:

 I agree with this take.

The problem that the left has with it is the purpored "dog whistle".  They believe that conservatives somehow have this secret code that when we say certain Constitutionally protected speech, the subtext is actually inciting violence in a "clear and present" manner.

I guess I didn't get a copy of my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.

You might be interested  to know that my very Conservative BYUI Family Advocacy teacher said that code words are used at the UN to disguise an agenda to destroy families.

You might not personally use code words, but that doesn't mean that crooked politicians don't...whether it's to destroy the family or demean minorities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is said that the pen is more powerful than the sword.  There are many problems - free speech is also freedom to lie.  Jesus said that thoughts are the gateway to sin.  I believe we will be judged by our thoughts and actions - but the problem is:  What are actual thoughts that belong to us and what are temptations that are disguised as thought?

We should control our thoughts and our behavior.   Jesus said that the children of darkness fear the light because the light makes their thoughts and deeds known.

The problem I have with any freedom is that so many think freedoms are free.  They are not – we have every right to be free and that includes the consequences for our exercising our freedoms.  But we also must recognize that laws are based on morals.  We legislate morals.  We are not free form the morals of society but rather subject to them.

No government can free anyone.  Only Christ.  Without religious morals there are no freedoms nor are there laws – only anarchy and chaos.   But only the morals of Christ bring liberty – all other morals will end in bondage.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You might be interested  to know that my very Conservative BYUI Family Advocacy teacher said that code words are used at the UN to disguise an agenda to destroy families.

You might not personally use code words, but that doesn't mean that crooked politicians don't...whether it's to destroy the family or demean minorities. 

I have no doubt that such things exist.  But there needs to be some evidence of their use and meaning before ANYthing becomes the automatic justification to call someone racist or whatever other accusation is made.

Most of the time I hear it, I see zero justification.  It wouldn't make much sense to use such code words with the masses (or else everyone would know about them).  The more likely scenario is that they are only used for small groups of people (to secure their secrecy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
9 minutes ago, Mores said:

I have no doubt that such things exist.  But there needs to be some evidence of their use and meaning before ANYthing becomes the automatic justification to call someone racist or whatever other accusation is made.

Most of the time I hear it, I see zero justification.  It wouldn't make much sense to use such code words with the masses (or else everyone would know about them).  The more likely scenario is that they are only used for small groups of people (to secure their secrecy).

I both agree and disagree with your statement. I agree there should be some evidence, and yet who is best qualified to determine that evidence?  In the case of the UN, the people who are doing it would say it isn't so, and people on the outside might think the family advocates are imagining it. But I trust the family advocates on this. Likewise, I have read a bit about dog whistle politics, I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I read I felt the author made a good case. I don't doubt that you don't see it. Whether you do or don't you have nothing to lose. I trust those who are in the game so to speak.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most precious freedoms, so precious yet so overlooked that the Constitution missed it completely- the freedom of thought...now endangered.

If they can control your thoughts, they can control your life.  If they can control your life, who are you then, but a simple machine?  So easy, to turn on and turn off.  No longer a sentient being, so many rights you would now no longer deserve.  If they don't need you, they just throw you away.  You are, after all, just a simple machine.

And when you start looking at things that way, when you look at population control, it makes it so much easier to stomach the crimes Hitler violated.  You know....gas chambers...ovens...you name it.  Because you are just a simple machine with no life and no rights.

CNN thought police.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I both agree and disagree with your statement. I agree there should be some evidence,

With you so far.

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

and yet who is best qualified to determine that evidence? 

A fair question.

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

In the case of the UN, the people who are doing it would say it isn't so, and people on the outside might think the family advocates are imagining it.

Basically, water is wet.  Got it.

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But I trust the family advocates on this.

As would I.  I never said they didn't exist.

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Likewise, I have read a bit about dog whistle politics, I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I read I felt the author made a good case.

Again, I never said it didn't exist.

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't doubt that you don't see it. Whether you do or don't you have nothing to lose. I trust those who are in the game so to speak.  

You can trust whomever you wish.  But when accusing someone of evil behavior, you have three choices:

1) Clear and Convincing.
2) Preponderance of evidence.
3) Parrot whatever the pundits say.

My gripe is that the left seems to take route #3 all too often.  The right does it at a much lower rate and looks for evidence (real evidence) to back up the suspicion of dog whistles.  The biggest issue is that when there are actual dog whistles, we have to admit, that the average person is just as likely to say very similar things without even knowing they're using them.  They don't mean anything other than what they're actually saying.  They have no hidden message.  But people will simply blame them anyway.

Just look at both Obama's and Hillary's comment on the Sri-Lanka attacks vs. the "OK" sign being a white supremacy thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share