Slimebeast said:
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.
|
But where do you draw a reasonable line?
Is it offensive to say that Jews are like a cancer?
Is it offensive to say that Americans are stupid?
Is it offensive to say that Christians are delusional?
|
This. As a religious person, I get offended by just about every arrogant loudmouth athiest who tries to call me an unintelligent gibbering idiot (dispite my degree in science) because I profess a belief in God. Under your (the1) society, I should be able to pass a law to get those athiests thrown in jail for offending me. This is a terrible idea, because even things I find offensive have VALUE and worth in a free society because someone has taken the time to sit there, think about their views, and come to the conclusion that their views are right. Speech is about a free exchange of ideas, and no matter what ideas are being shared SOMEONE is going to find them offensive.
