IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Torillian said:
|
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
The problem is not people being or not being offended by what other people say. The problem is people saying things for the sake of offending, which is perfectly legal from what I understand.
You say that you wouldn't want the majority of the population to decide what you can and can't say, but at the same you pretty much assume that the majority will have a non racist/sexist/homophobic opinion to counter things like hate speech. If a great majority of the US population turned racist, wouldn't you want to have laws that tell them not to actively yell "Fuck niggers!" on the streets? Wouldn't the minority deserve the right to not have to listen to that stuff every day?
|
How do you define what speech is said solely to offend and what is just offensive as a side effect? And yes it's perfectly legal to say something just to offend people, as it should be.
How would laws ever stop the majority from saying what they want in a democratic society? It would only ever stop the minority opinion that couldn't muster up enough support to win a vote on the matter. You think we should make laws against hateful speech now since all our opinions are reasonable, but if you make a law about it now what's going to stop a later majority from making the laws reflect their own personal views? I just can't agree with that idea. People should always be able to say their piece even if I disagree with it, because I wouldn't want my own rights to express myself taken away as well. Let's say we ban hate speech now because we're all nice and reasonable people, what stops the majority from outlawing anything they don't agree with or find offensive? What about anti-religous speech since the majority of the US is religious? Anti-patriotic speech? Once you start making that decision for others you open the door to the majority deciding the same thing for you, I really can't see how the potential benefits outweigh the obvious harms.
|
It is unreasonable to offend someone because of his skin colour, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his beliefs, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his sexuality and it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his nationality. Offending a racist may be reasonable if it is the only way to eventually stop it from offending minorities.
People don't choose what to be offended by, which is why we need to be flexible and stop as much offending as possible. A racist being offended because he cannot express his hateful views makes no sense. A religious society being offended by a minority because they don't share their beliefs makes no sense. A Jew being offended by hateful speech every day on his way to work does make sense.
It is all about being reasonable.
|
You do not have the right to not be offended. Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. I find the very term "hate speech" offensive, because it categorizes ideas based on a single point of view. Its newspeak. Its the beginnings of the thought police. Democracy can only exist in a free society, and a society is not free if the free exchange of ideas doesn't exist. By threatening to throw people in jail or fine them based on what they say you have eliminated the free society.
But, for the sake of argument, lets take your idea to the next logical step. We ban "hate speech". Who decides what qualifies as "hate speech"? The offended? Then the law against "hate speech" can be used as a weapon against those they politically oppose. It would be akin to having the force of law behind the "race card". "People don't like Obama because they're racists! Throw them in jail". This is not a society I want to live in.
So what's the next step if the above happens? The CEO of chick fil a was recently accused of being a bigot and homophobe for saying "I believe and support traditional marraige". Boston and Chicago threatened to withhold building permits from Chic-fil-a because of his "hate speech" and religious beliefs, in a clear violation of the first amendment. The thing is, his belief is shared by millions of religious people, both christian, jewish, and muslim. If you outlaw "hate speech", then you've essentially opened the door for legalized and institutionalized religious persecution. This is not a society I want to live in.
Free speech is the cornerstone of free society. If you limit free speech, you are opposed to freedom.
