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?
Who defines "hate speech" and decides how and when it will be silenced or punished? Are the examples you gave "hate speech"?
Motown2Chitown provided a link with this definition.
"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."
Do you agree with the definition or do you have another one?
Some people find the truth offensive. Abridging someone's freedom of speech is more evil than whatever someone ever said, ever.
Here is a novel idea for those advocating the abridging of free speech: Don't listen.
I don't recall the OP suggesting, or even implying, that there should be any abridgment of a person's free speech. Perhaps we read it differently?
But, truth is truth. No one is offended by it. It may disturb their comfort with a personal level of deceit, but it doesn't offend. It can be spoken in a hateful manner which is intended to do so though, and that's not right.
So, you agree with and support hate speech of others who don't share anothers religious beliefs?
And, you think hate speech towards others is the truth?
I believe there is free speech or abridged free speech. What is hateful is subjective and has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong in advocating the limiting of another human beings basic rights. It is more evil to advocate the limitation of another human beings free speech than anything they can possibly say.
Then, you would be first in line to protect Hitler and his speeches about the Jews and anyone who attempts to silence Hitler is evil? And, that anything he said about the Jews was subjective and has no bearing on the rights of Jews?
On the contrary. Censorship is the bastion of every fascist and dictator since, well, forever. Your loaded questions, strawmen and Godwin's law won't change the fact that abridging free speech is more evil than anything anyone can possibly say. Speech is not something some human beings get to dictate to other human beings.
Ah, then you would support and defend Hitler. Thanks.
But, hatred is, according to you.
My personal beliefs align with the Jehovah Witnesses who were persecuted, put in camps and killed in Nazi Germany under Hitler, as well as my close relatives who fought against Hitler in WW2 so your speech offends me. The difference between you and I is I support your right to speak.
I give you my permission to speak.
That would contradict everything you just said about offending speech.
So, now you are saying people need permission to speak?
No I am giving "you" permission to speak. The shoe has changed its position.
Not that you would get the option, but who should decide whether you ever get to speak again?
I think that Wilderness and Beth37 are on the opposite ideological spectrums, but I would feel comfortable with either one of them deciding whether you ever get to speak again. Choose who gets to decide whether you ever get to speak again, because of your egregious insinuations, words and debate skills.
Again, you lost me. What are you even talking about?
I am being facetious. How does it feel if others decided whether you are allowed to talk or not?
Huh? What are you talking about? Where did I make that decision?
Start here, and work your way forward in that thread: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2504277
I understand the context of that conversation involved people suffering for speaking freely in countries that prohibit it. You are standing with the right of those countries to impose those laws and as sovereign nations, I certainly understand the argument. It seems, however, in consideration of other comments you've made in both threads, that it is not just the right to impose the laws that you agree with. It would be hard for one not to get the strong impression you support the suppression of free speech, providing it is in accordance with your views. Can you honestly tell me that conclusion would be incorrect?
Yeah, I thought for sure that was why he was posting on these hubs at the same time. I thought maybe he had a good punchline or something in case someone called him on it. It couldn't be that he missed the irony?
Also in that thread, you have a Christian telling him that because he opposes the message being shared that he is every bit as much these people's adversary as the people that are torturing and killing them. I'm sorry, but speaking out about something or having opinions about it is not the same thing as torturing or killing someone by any imaginable way.
I asked him what he would or wouldn't do in the position of the oppressors. He refused to answer. When I compared the action of supporting their views and conducting the actual actions, he did not deny that they were different, although he certainly could have.
You call them oppressors, your question is based on a false scenario.
You can words in my mouth if you want, but that just shows disingenuous behavior on your part.
Actually, if you read what I wrote, I said that you said nothing... the opposite of putting words in your mouth.
But, I didn't say nothing, did I. Your question was flawed and I corrected it, then you went on to put words in my mouth.
If you say so... or don't say so. It's all there in black and white. I wont argue with you.
Yes, it is all there in black and white for all to read. But, it would appear it is more important for you to spread the word of the gospel and get people hurt to cry oppression rather than stop spreading the word and not getting people hurt.
Is that your new argument?
These ppl are compelled to do their good work and make their amazing sacrifices whether I say they are amazing brave souls on an internet forum or not. They do this for God, in hopes to let those who are lost know that God loves them.
That is the same argument JMcFarland is posing in regards to the Westboro group, the Inquisitions and Crusades...
"They do this for God, in hopes to let those who are lost know that God loves them"
That would be an admittance that you care more about evangelizing than you do about the people getting hurt by it.
Well I fully support the Westboro folks as stated earlier in this thread.
Disclaimer: I do not fully support the Westboro folks as stated earlier in this thread.
It's always a good ideas to not break the laws or speed hate speech.
So to you it did not appear he/she condoned as just rewards whatever those who dared defy local laws by preaching, received?
let me put it in a different way.
Since a lot of Christians oppose homosexuality and equal rights due to their interpretations of the scriptures, do you think it's fair to say that all Christians are equal to the Westboro baptist church? Should every Christian be held in the same category as people who torture and murder gay people because they are equally adversarial about it? Would you like to be lumped in with murderers because you believe that what someone else is doing is wrong? Would you like me to hold you personally accountable for the assault and battery done on me by a pastoral studies major in college (who is now a pastor, incidentally) because I came out of the closet and it landed me in the hospital? Do you want to be equal to him? Do you like being looked at that way? It seems like it's a little different when the shoe is on the other foot.
Are you genuinely condoning the statement that someone who opposes the christian message in areas where spreading that message is against the law is no different than a torturer or murderer?
Obviously Julie, my answer to all those questions would be no. Thinking, by asking them, you are showing me how " It seems like it's a little different when the shoe is on the other foot," tells me there may be a misunderstanding of what took place in the other thread. Using your analogy, I would quickly take or make the opportunity to clarify my position and distance myself from your examples.
That comment was given in response to the party in question making no effort to distance themselves from those actions or that conclusion. I could see that charge being fairly levied if I avoided and declined the opportunity to distance myself from the actions depticted, yes. Would you not agree that refusing to denounce those behaviors is tantamount to condoning, if not outright endorsing them?
not necessarily. Silence does not equate to consent, and I imagine that I would be rather shocked if I was told that my opposition to the Christian message was tantamount to becoming a torturer or murderer, and I probably wouldn't respond (especially given the source) to the accusation either I've seen christians defend the idea that gay people can be arrested and tried for being gay in certain states where it's a blue law and a crime. They're breaking the law, see.
It's like an atheist bringing up the inquisition. It's almost comical to see christians today scramble to make excuses like "well they weren't really true christians that did those things - christians would never act like that" but they don't deny the message or the intent to save souls that existed behind those horrible actions by their predecessors.
They do not just oppose the message, despite the dishonest portrayal. They think they should endure the consequences. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of movement are basic human rights. He who passively accepts human rights violations is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts human rights violations without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. They seem to actually support it. A paraphrasing of MLK there.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. It's odd that adults cannot figure out what even children know.
I offered the solution of having those evangelists go home and stop evangelizing, which is not passively accepting human rights violations, but is in fact a solution for those people to stop getting hurt. Dealing with human rights in countries that don't offer the same rights you expect can be done without breaking their laws and getting people hurt.
I would ask you the same question, do you think it's more important those people continue to evangelize and break the laws getting people hurt?
Interesting, we differ in this regard then, as I would certainly clarify the misrepresentation of my position, or at least distance myself from the accusation. Example in point:
Not going for the bait. Anyone who seriously thinks Constantine's church represents the teachings of Christ and/or that the inquisitions were acting upon that teaching, is either willingly ignorant, disingenuous, or has far too much to learn for this venue.
Are you seriously purporting that, Julie? You have just spoken against representing someone as a murderer for not denouncing murder, are you now going to tell me the Baptists you were raised by are the same as the Inquisitors because they both claim to follow Christ?
to say that the Catholic inquisitors were not Christians because you don't agree with their specific beliefs or their ideology or political maneuvers is a bit disingenuous. Whether genuine or not, the priests honestly believed that they were saving souls from eternal damnation for those who recanted before death - and a visual preview of hell for those burned alive who didn't. Do you genuinely believe that the Catholic church didn't at the time believe that they were doing what god wanted them to do? Do you think that you're in a position to judge their beliefs because you don't like or agree with their actions? Were it not for the catholic church, there would not be a church left today. There would not have been a church for Martin Luther to rebel against and spark reform. There would not be a bible for you to read, since the catholic church preserved and dutifully copied it throughout the centuries.
Are you really positing that you can travel back in time and make the determination that these people were not Christians? Isn't that kind of up to god? Or are you saying that you are able to judge them better than he does?
I've heard several evangelical protestants make some very disturbing statements lately about homosexuals - including rounding them all up and isolating them so that they all die off - since they can't breed and all. But maybe those people, protestants mind you, aren't "true" christians either.
Or maybe you're just being general and asserting that Catholics in general (ya know, the whole church of Constantine thing) are not true Christians. Hello, Scotsman.
Julie, it appears you didn't feel my questions merited answering, so I hope you will understand when I consider your entire last post as nonsense and baiting. If you consider that fodder for a serious discussion, perhaps someone will bite, but I have far too little time to spend here to go down those bunny trails with you. It is not my intent to be disrespectful, I am just being sincere, and since we have a similar preclusion to sarcasm, it is my hope you not be offended at the delivery of my assessment.
If you were being serious, we are so far apart I would hardly know where to begin. I actually went back and forth about posting this response, but the more I waited, the more you added, and the more I felt it appropriate.
Mo's right about one thing..., and so let me just say I'm for free speech.
I'm right about a lot of things...lol. Thanks for noticing.
Fine. I guess we just have more fundamental differences than I thought. If someone told me that I was a murderer, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them when I'm not - especially a complete stranger on the internet. I don't care if people believe me or like me for the most part, and I don't give a rat's ass if they believe what I've said about my past. I don't feel the need or the desire to prove or justify myself to others that are meaningless to me. The people I care for that matter know the truth, and I'm happy with that.
I don't believe anyone said they were the same, but they are in fact both Christians. It's not you who gets to decide who gets to call themselves Christians. You can however claim to be a different kind of Christians if that makes you feel better.
That is an organization breaking laws and getting people hurt because they want to evangelize. The simple solutions to that are provided.
That is not free speech, that is evangelism in countries that don't want it. I am not standing with the right of those countries, I am simply offering a solution that would stop people from getting hurt.
Do you care more about evangelism than people getting hurt?
I would support Hitler's right to free speech. I have always questioned how the German people allowed his atrocities to happen and supported it. They bore the brunt of the blame. All they had to do was not follow.
That's the thing about hate speech, you will always find people who follow.
Because, the vast majority of Germans didn't know what was going on until it was all over.
Many bore no blame at all, look at Hugo Boss, he was a member of the Nazi party who made the uniforms for the German army.
Actually my father in-law is an 80 year old Italian who lived through the propaganda of WW2 and I've know many more second generation Italians who will tell you how much those people subjected to the propaganda hated Jews.
Sorry. No free passes by my estimation. They had an obligation to know. Anyway, enough people participated to question what the hell they were thinking.
Edit. As a side note, i find it interesting that the word hell isn't rearranged. If i use the word shit, notice how it automatically gets several asterisks inserted. Interesting.
So you agree with being evil and limiting other peoples free speech?
The abridgement of free speech is always advocated by people that ironically are using "their" free speech. Yet they cannot seem to fathom that contradiction or the hypocrisy and the latter; hypocrisy: is a synonym of bigotry.
I happen to live in a country that doesn't tolerate hate speech. A few years back the westboro guy came here and tried to set up shop in a public place and was upset when he was told not to spread hate or he'd spend some time behind bars.
I understand why freedom of speech is needed, but feel when it targets others and attempts to sway others to hate, it should be stopped.
I feel calling others dogs or snakes based solely on there religious beliefs qualifies as hate speech because it attempts to inspire others the think the same of their fellow humans.
All anyone has to do is replace religion with race to get a sense of it's hate. Would any of us call people of another race dogs or snakes in a public place?
Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion provide just that - Freedom to say what you like, and freedom to believe in whomever you choose.
What is DOES NOT do is protect you from the consequences of said religion, or said speech. So, if you are entitled to the freedom to say hateful things about a group, even if it is the belief of your faith system - it does not protect you from the responsibilities of saying such things.
For example - should your religion advocate for the death of homosexuals, or Jews, and you believe this, and speak freely about it - you are responsible for the outcomes of your speaking out.
Hate speech is often cited when Freedom of Speech is used in arenas that encourage violence etc against certain groups - where heightened emotions of a LARGE gathering of people is likely to lead to violence against said groups.
So, feel free to say it, to believe it - but it is not protected through Freedoms etc if you incite violence against another through your use of your freedoms.
Should we take the freedoms away? No. Should we be more careful when and how we speak? Very much so
I thought this was very interesting. The First Amendment, as I see it, defends a person's right to say pretty much anything they darn well please. Does that make what they say right or acceptable in any way? No.
Sadly, there is absolutely no way at all to protect a person from hateful, hurtful, or offensive words-except to silence the one who speaks them. At the end of the day, you can't truly silence anyone. You can only choose what to hear and internalize.
That's my personal take on it. Here's a more official word.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/publi … _hate.html
I looked at the First Amendment, however I was asking if Freedom of Religion can be invoked with hate speech that is religiously based?
Thanks for the link and your explanation, btw.
Is the result of that speech likely to be physical harm? Not merely emotional hurt but actual physical harm? (Inciting a riot is illegal, as is shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre as both will likely result in physical harm.)
If so, then it should be illegal. If not, let 'er rip.
an admirable view, but perhaps one not shared by the keepers of these hallowed halls. Banished from our ranks, was one who unashamedly proclaimed views which, although common and widely held, found disfavor within the realm of political correctness.
Presumably this action was in response to a complaint of offense taken by one who themselves would be found offensive by many others, and who must see a one sided application of censorship to be for the common good, providing it support their view and silence opposition. Sorry to be cryptic, but I have neither solicited nor acquired permission to discuss the issue from the parties involved, and for that reason shall remain so.
I have not spoken of it before, and merely elude to it here due to the relevance to the OP, and in the hope that I might add weight to the merit of this discussion, by illuminating that a penchant for censorship already manifests itself among us.
HP's private web site does not offer free speech; it has always maintained rules limiting the concept. At least in my three years here.
As far as censorship being one-sided, never that I've seen. While rules are seemingly ignored at times, I've always thought of that primarily as mostly a little slack being offered, similar to not punishing a child every time they mess up. I have never seen anyone banned from here for anything BUT hate speech, defined as speech abusive to some other person and carried out repeatedly. HP has made the decision that such speech is "illegal"; either follow the rules or leave. That few will admit to making such speech, and blame their banning on politics, religion or some other factor doesn't hold any water; every one I've seen has been for egregious offensive speech abusive to someone else. Or, in rare cases such as continually submitting the same substandard hub for publication, but I presume that isn't what you refer to.
I wholeheartedly agree with a private entity's right to make and administer rules for participation. I am not aware of enough instances, I suppose, to determine the equity of administration here, so I'll leave it be.
When rules for censorship are made and applied, it is by nature subjective. I personally believe political correctness, which has largely been a tool for a small number of people to silence a large number, has been detrimental in the extreme. I also know rules are often applied more when there is a complaint to appease, (squeaky wheel, and all that).
Perhaps the OP was only speaking of legal limitations. They were advocating silencing evangelists at pretty much any cost in another forum, (of course, only evangelists of doctrines they disagree with, that is).
Whatever the venue, choose your words wisely and perhaps you can convey your message in spite of censorship. Clever folk may take it as a challenge, and enjoy the game.
Yes, censorship is subjective, which WILL give rise to responding to a squeaky wheel, if nothing else because the censor didn't "hear" the message until pointed out. Or maybe viewed it as marginally offensive, could go either way. Or got up on the wrong side of the bed - we're all human.
Doesn't mean it is all bad, either, although 99.99% of censorship IS bad. The two examples list are reasonable to forbid.
And yes, choose your words wisely. Care whether you offend or not, and try to do so ONLY when intended. I have been banned from HP for things I would never have thought of as a banning offense, but have learned as a result. I try to follow what I think the guidelines are here, and the intent behind the guidelines.
There have been a few instances of thin skinned people leaving in tears (they said) and I completely understand and accept the intent of HP to supply a forum where everyone is comfortable posting. So, do my small part to provide that forum while also expressing myself. Sometimes difficult, sometimes impossible, but at least make an effort.
In general, freedom of speech is for the *goodness* of free speech. I think freedom of speech can be abused. Hate speech is one way to abuse freedom of speech, unless it is used for some good.
Free speech is not nearly as free as some people would like to believe. Hate speech can be prosecuted. Libel and slander can also be prosecuted.
The freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of someone else's arm, and free speech cannot infringe on the rights of others. Its all too easy to offend someone no matter what you say or how you say it. I appreciate personal freedoms, but freedom only gets you so far. I've seen some of the hateful crap that comes out of some mouths here, and hp fully had the right to get rid of users who do not follow the rules, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. No, they're not bring persecuted. They're being held to the rules, just like everyone else. If you don't abide by those rules, you can expect to be shown the door. It's really that simple.
The difference between the westboro ex. and my convo with ED is that I said there were ppl being tortured for their faith and he replied with basically, "that's what they get for not staying home and being quiet." If someone had asked me if Westboro was in the right, I'd say, "No way. They are motivated by hate and a sense of superiority. If they believe homosexuality is not supported biblically, I would understand that pov, but they are hate-mongering, teaching their children to do so and telling ppl it's in God's name."
ED had the opportunity to say what was happening to those tortured Christians was wrong, but he refused to say any thing of the sort.
It was then that I pointed out the flaw in your argument by reminding you that the organization in question has mission statements of evangelizing, which is what is getting people hurt in other countries. My solution was to stop evangelizing so those people wouldn't get hurt.
Do you think it more important they continue evangelizing and getting people hurt?
Again, my solution is there for all to read.
Amazing. Less than a page to go completely off topic and turn into a bash session about an entirely different thread, which, incidentally, also almost immediately veered off topic.
Hate speech should most certainly be protected. The First Amendment is pretty clear that no law would ever impose upon free speech.
And of course, just because the speech is protected doesn't mean the speaker should be...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
I am not in favor of restricting freedom of religion, but it bothers me greatly that some extremely religious groups actively teach hatred.I suppose we have to put up with it, but why is there so much fear to show...
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 Dave Mathews5 years ago
Three weeks ago I was prohibited from giving answers in the "Answer" Section, because I offended some bleeding heart, with something I said in an answer. I did not swear or call names, they just didn't like...
by Jeff Berndt5 years ago
So we have freedom of speech in the US, but we also have a crime called "incitement to riot."If you want to commit that crime, what you need to do is get up in front of a group of people, and say some words....
by Chasuk5 years ago
Is describing someone as suffering from a persecution complex "hate speech?" What about referring to them as a moron, a zealot, or mindless sheep?
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...
Copyright © 2017 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.