Where do we draw the line between free speech and hate speech for text we print on Facebook?
As with all our freedoms: your freedom stops at the point it infringes on someone else's. If only we'd remember that, half the lawyers in America would be instantly unemployed.
There is no such thing as "hate speech," there is only speech. Either speech is free or it is not. When speech is not free you live in tyranny. Speech codes are tyranny.
This may not have happened to you yet. I once spent (wasted) time composing my thoughts to make a contribution to HubPages that I thought was worthwhile. In no way could it be considered hate speech or spammy, but HP hid it because it was unpopular.
We are not guaranteed an audience for our free speech, we are merely free to speak.
I would suggest that if someone has curtailed my audience's right to hear me, then they have curtailed my right to speak.
No, it is that no one is compelled to be your audience. You are correct that if one is forced not to listen it is as much an affront to freedom as gagging a speaker.
It's colonial America. You hear talk of a "free press". Thomas Paine prints 1000 pamphlets and drops them on the sidewalk. When you say "we are not guaranteed an audience" what are you talking about? And how does that work with "The Interview"?
In different places... your line is probably not on the same spot as mine!
Hate speech writers should be banned from any publication... period. That's one of the things editors are supposed to do...
in the United States, The First Amendment of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, requires that speech and the press cannot be limited by government. There is no "hate speech" only speech.
Craig, are we to believe by your words that you are against the First Amendment?
Horsepuckies. That is only true in general. So I can come to your house and badmouth you all day huh? I don't think so...Either do you.....
"Are we to believe by your words that you are against the First Amendment?" That is not an honest question, since it presumes the answer should be "yes" or "no". Grownups understand that INTERPRETATIONS of the First Amendment always change.
Who gets to define "hate speech?" The government? Well, if you know history and current events you know how that ends up. (Nazi Germany book burnings, Chinese censure of media, etc...)
"Who gets to define hate speech?" I don't know, but I would hope it would not be decided in the top echelons. I would hope there would be some public discussion about it. We have a right to discuss it. And I think a responsibility, too.
KU, there is no hate speech. There are hateful actions. Speech is just speech. If someone comes to my home and shouts obscenities at me all day from the sidewalk in front of my home, it becomes harassment - an action. The words do not matter.
retief2000, In Germany there are laws (I hasten to add that I am not antisemitic and also I disagree with the laws) that make it punishable to deny the holocaust. It does not matter how brash your rhetoric, or whether it incites to violence.
How sad, thank goodness I live where speech is not formally restricted by law.
retief2000, I share your opinions about lawyers. But wake up. I beg you to wake up. I assure you that you live in a VERY REAL world where YOUR speech is informally restricted terms and conditions of use and ever-changing GLOBAL social norms.
The Muslim terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo demonstrates that the French still understand free speech. The freedom requires courage. A GLOBAL tyranny is impossible, even if it disguises itself as "tolerance."
Any honest discussion of Charlie Hebdo defies the tiny character limit allowed here on this "Q&A". See forums "Paris attack 1/7/15", and "Je Suis Charlie - Is HubPages In Danger?"
One can not control another. No matter how hard one tries one can not crawl inside another to control their thoughts, actions, or speech. The best that can be done is to punish after the fact. And who will apply the punishment? Another man of course. One who thinks he is better than another man. One who thinks he can protect another. And just like one can not control another, one can not protect another.
Given the reality of the situation the only correct answer is - every one is truly free to express themselves. How we take it is up to us.
One can not talk of free speech then talk of limiting it. It does not make sense or is it logical. That is if you think about it honestly.
So the question has come full circle Do you want to be punished for what you say. And do you want what you say to be defined by another. Is there another better than you that you will be subservient to?
I think "hate speech" exists. Both legally, in many countries, and in a general sense. It is a question of where you draw the line, and also who your intended audience is. I think it interesting that your question specifies "for text". Images are an even more difficult question. With Facebook, as well as HubPages, it's not always clear who our intended audience is, as they cross national boundaries. I don't know anything about international laws on this, but I know that hate speech laws vary WIDELY between different Western democracies. I think we need to be aware of two things. First, might something we publish on FB or HP be considered hate speech to someone around the world? Second, are the norms of free speech contracting without us paying any attention or even being aware of it?
The 21th century man has made many advances in technology, in the medical field and so many aspect of physical existence but, he is lost spiritually. He calls himself an individual without understanding that he is a product of his ancestors, his culture and his country. While individuality is important to acknowledge, it is more important to understand that man is a social being. This means what you do and say affect others. If you drop a needle on the floor and don't pick it up and it later hurts someone then your individual action affected someone. If you say hurtful things about someone regardless of the arena, your "free speech" your individual express will affect others. The true question becomes does 21th century man care about how he affects others? Not because he can yell "fire" in public means that he should.
by EncephaloiDead4 years ago
We know that freedom of speech often allows hate speech and we know that more reasonable and rational speech combats hate speech. Should freedom of religion provide protection for religious hate speech in the same way?
by weholdthesetruths6 years ago
is a right mentioned in the 1st amendment. Quoted here: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the...
by RealityTalk4 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles...
by Michael Collins4 years ago
Today we are seeing a movement toward tolerance or at least what we think as tolerance. Bulling has become a hot button issue in the public (as if it didn’t happen anytime before) with many different groups against...
by Amanda Littlejohn3 years ago
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me...
by Earl S. Wynn6 years ago
Is it violating a person's right to free speech if I delete vicious hate comments?Is it violating a person's right to free speech if I delete vicious hate comments posted on my articles, youtube videos, blog posts, etc?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.