Hate speech—normally contains racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic slurs delivered purely out of hatred, arrogance, and a sense of superiority.
I’m actually a bit puzzled by this:
Hate speech is, unequivocally, intended to express hate. There is no ambiguity nor confusion about this in public debate. The only question out there that political/social observers and the general public must understand is whether hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment rights. Now, should they be? I say, no. Free speech is never absolute. Shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater should be prevented. Heh. (This is just an example of when speech is not or should not be free).
Although, I might agree with Phaedrus—if I learned more about it. I am not sure at this point what is more damaging.
Yes, there are actually good arguments about this. I have to go find my text Debating PC.
Meanwhile, I should take back my emphatic “No” to First amendment protection of hate speech (in my first post), and sit on the fence. Because I have been witnessing what’s has been the result of too much emphasis on the “damaging” racist speech and anti-feminist speech----it has prevented even the most accurate studies/researches from revealing to the public what is actually going on among African-americans living in the poorest areas of the cities, and the work condition of women in corporate america. Lies/erroneous information have been proliferated and perpetuated and continued to be believed even in the face of new evidence.
I assume this to mean that it doesn’t exist in an objective sense but only as subjective opinions of liberals. Does hate speech exist that is not invented by liberals and if so, how can it be defined?
arendt writes:
But what in speech defines it as racist? For example, Say a black man says: “White men can’t jump”, is this racist? What exactly constitutes an anti Semitic slur? What constitutes an anti Christian slur? Are what qualifies them as hate speech the same? This is not so easy.
Hate speech is, unequivocally, intended to express hate.
Is this necessarily true.? Can one person express an idea as hate speech and another the same idea as satire? How do you know if a person is expressing hate speech or satire?
Imp writes:
I would agree but are there any forms of hate speech, (however you personally define it) that is so hateful that it shouldn’t be allowed?
What is the psychology of it? What makes a person want to express it and what makes a person react to it?
I didn’t exactly put that right- it’s not just liberals promulgating this foolishness, but it’s mostly their invention. It’s a long cherished view in America that it’s the unpopular speech that’s most in need of protection, since no one will try to ban popular sentiment. Whether or not you like rascism, etc, I worry a lot more about those who’d loose the Thought Police on us.
Free speech is too important to sacrifice just to appease liberal apologists.
Basically right- it doesn’t exist in any objective sense. There’s no such thing as hate speech, only free speech. Is it offensive? Perhaps to some. But then again, so is pornography- yet the Supreme Court has protected it against puritanical neocons who’ve constantly tried to push their views on everyone. The new buzzword is “hate speech,” but the phrase is just a smoke screen being thrown up to disguise the true intent: cencorship of unpopular speech.
In that sense, I think it’s important that “hate speech” not be defined. Free speech is free speech, period. We mess with that at our peril.
Would saying that it is a societal opinion about social relations make it any easier? Because you and Phaedrus are right in that “hate speech” is not an objectively true thing. That is, if you are looking for its epistemic status or ontological status, hate speech won’t be on the lists. They are not even in the constitution nor covered by law.
What I gave in my earlier response is what has been “agreed upon” by certain segments of our society, namely, the universities (they actually have speech codes in their manual), the linguistics experts, sociologists, and political scientists. So, yeah, it is an “opinion” by certain segments of society. Now, I wouldn’t think that the statement in your example is racist in nature—you can check on university speech codes what they are.
Yes, though not “necessarily” nor “logically” true. But only as “agreed upon” by the educational institution, the groups affected, the experts. Again, I suppose, just as someone can express feeling of love, there can also be an expression of hate towards others by virtue of their being of different color, or ethnicity, or religion, or gender.
Now, why don’t you give a more thorough argument on what you really have in mind. One cannot really refute or agree with, a series of questions alone. Enlighten me and tell me and answer some of the questions you posed. Maybe, I’ ll agree with ya.
Btw, don’t get me wrong, I agree with Imp that censorship, to a certain degree, and depending on the issue, does more damage than good.
Arendt said regarding the definition of hate speech:
This IMO is really the crux of it and my concern over it. I even got into a bitter disagreement with a popular web site over this concern.
Seems fair. First of all, I don’t believe hate speech as an entity exists. For true hate speech to occur, it has to be intended and received as intended. I cannot believe it is hate speech if it is not intended as such but only interpreted as such. The true danger of it is that it can lead to violence. Someone can say what they want to me but I can’t consider it hate speech but instead misguided stupidity. Unfortunately people can be inspired to violence as a direct result of hate speech provocation. It is hard to shrug off a knife in the back. You can say it shouldn’t be and I would agree but the fact is that it happens. For there is a minority that seems prone to acting on impulse. Anyone having witnessed a mob knows what I mean. It is empty of logic.
Exactly what the dividing line is between hate and free speech is hard to say but for a person who values human life in general, it really doesn’t matter if it is a little one way or the other. The point is that a society and institutions within the society must should take the stand that its member’s humanity should be respected and therefore protected.
This assumes an equality that is clearly not the case as Arendt pointed out above. By definition,societal opinion will reflect favoritism. One societal aspect becomes more deserving of forms of hate speech that can lead to violence than another. The result is what is called “protected groups.” It becomes permissible to mock or ridicule one group in ways another group is protected from. The danger of this is that this approach only serves to justify violence.
So for me, the biggest danger of hate speech is heightened by exactly what is often done to prevent it which is the acceptance of favoritism. Some should be protected from it while others are, so to speak, on their own.
I’ll use myself as an example here. As you know there is a large concern for anti-Semitic hate speech. Can it lead to violence? Yes. Has it lead to violence and human slaughter? Yes. Should there be concern? Yes
But, the question becomes what of other groups? It has become fashionable in circles and even considered “therapeutic” in some that this sort of speech be acceptable regarding Christianity. Now you can say: how cold! Don’t I know how the Jews have suffered? Yes I do. But I also know how my family and heredity has suffered.
My family has always been close to the church in one way or another. I am part Armenian. I lost a lot of cousins during the Armenian Holocaust. Why? Because of “what Christians do.”
I am also part Russian My grandfather escaped to America during the Russian revolution. Other family members were killed leaving a church for not wishing to convert to the glories of Communism… Why? Because of “what Christians do”
So I am aware not only intellectually but emotionally of how similar in fact the results of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian hate speech are. But I am an exception since there are few who have my background. So in effect my perspective becomes irrelevant in societal and “educated” opinion from lack of direct experience.
So the question for me becomes how to accept this idea of equality. Do we just give lip service to it but allow ourselves to be guided by societal opinion and misguided “education”, or do we come to see that this idea of “favoritism” only makes the problem worse? I don’t mean to appear superior here but I cannot see why it is so hard to treat people equally as individuals. Yet I know from experience it doesn’t happen. Do we define "hate speech"as the same for all or do we define “protected groups” that are more entitled to protection?
Common sense to me suggests equality but I’ve learned from experience that fashionable societal opinion will rule the day. If I’m right, its not a pleasant perspective but I don’t see a way out.
Yes, you are correct—unfortunately a speech, written or spoken, even when not delivered as such, can be interpreted as one of those harmful utterances that targets a particular group, and this constitutes, according to the proponents of anti-hate speech, a reason for it to be prohibited in universities and colleges. We have to keep in mind that words spoken or written do not exist in a vacuum----they always operate within the context of the social situation they occur. There is this background (or backdrop) in which people and words (and their meanings) constitute a non-separable event or entity (or whatever you want to call it). It will be naive to think that in this space where groups of different experiences co-exist, someone who belongs in the white-middle class social/economic class can say something like “Hey, nigger!” to an African-american without any negative emotional effects to the latter, and without any intention of harassment by the former.
And yes, the true danger of hate speech is that it can result in violence or disturbance of the peace. We cannot expect everyone to act responsibly and try to disarm expressions of hate, not by resorting to violence, but by use of words that explain the ignorance of the offender, if this be the case. So, truly, one can make an argument that anti-hate speech has its roots in utility, hence it is not just some whimsical or capricious act of protection of some favored groups. At least, under critical analysis, and without biases from political parties—liberals and conservatives----anti-hate speech can serve as proactive measure to further society.
There seems to be this effect—double-standard of protection—but I suppose we can look at the history of anti-hate speech to see why. (Now, I say “seems”). So, the big Why: USBMCNED----U.S. Born Male, Christian, of Northern European Descent----and the rest is history. Speech codes in campus is the answer to the problem of how to make US campuses more welcoming to non-white immigrants, non-white citizens, women, homosexuals, jews.
So, this issue hits close to home—I find your background the classic example of the above. I admire you for this.
See above—an argument not so much about equality, but of utility.
I realize an appeal to utility can always be made to rationalize abridging a right, but IMOHO the long term effect of curtailing even really horrible speech is worse than simply bearing said speech. Besides, what type of message do we send when we admit to being so threatened by words that we must move to silence people with the power of the State?
So hate speech is a perpetual problem. But let me ask all of you: what is the attraction of it? From a psychological perspective and assuming as I believe that it can never be justified, why do we partake in it?
Phaedrus suggests and I believe him to be right, that the long term effects of curtailing hate speech can just worsen the problem keeping it smoldering until conditions are right for the “I told you so” argument to kick in leading to more corpses.
But I also believe there must be limits. For example suppose a family of black Americans were at a concert and some people start shouting: “get those niggers out of here!” Should that be allowed. You can say that someone should stand up for them. But if it is a bunch of drunk large tough people and especially in these days of carrying guns, who is that brave? So it is up to the police to protect people from this abusive speech.
Arendt suggests that it is a matter of utility. It is useful for societal conditions. This is what I disagree with. Is the worth of a person’s life and humanity defined by societal conditions? It may be useful to do so but is it justifiable?
Take this idea of “hate crime”. It is not as bad a thing to mug me for whatever reason as it is to mug a homosexual. The homosexual and I can end up in the same hospital room comparing the relative equality of our various broken bones and discussing the entire situation.
Knowing my warped mind, I would argue with him tongue in cheek that my attack was more “loving” since his was considered more hateful.
Regardless of your views on to what degree if any hate speech should be cutailed, do you believe in favoritism. How would you psychologically justify the concept of “protected groups?”. What is so psychologically offensive for a crime to be considered a crime without concern for a person’s opinion of a protected group? Maybe then the homosexual and I could be brothers in broken bones without concern for which attack was more hateful or loving. Are you in favor of favoritism?
Imp, I agree that since we are as we are such incidents will always be. But in regards favoritism you say: “it isn’t my favorite…”
Fine and clever but the question still there. Even though it isn’t your favorite, do you support favoritism in a society where speech is curtailed to some degree?
So as it pertains to the question at hand, the universities are correct in favoring the groups that have organized for the sake of political influence within institutions and those in the minority like myself in their many different forms become open prey for these self interested parties that have adopted the philosophy “payback’s a bitch.” It is not people that have value but it is instead how they serve our self interests.
You probably do speak for a great many and my experience on the Internet has convinced me that this is so. Live and learn.
GENTLEMEN, PLEASE, check your stockings for holes and polish those shoe buckles!!! We’ve got work to do:
Now, let us reiterate what so far have been said about hate speech:
It pertains to those words that target specifically the women, the minorities, the homosexuals, and the Jews. Why these groups? Because, historically, this is how hate speech gets to be defined.
It is an opinion, agreed upon by certain segments of society that are directly confronted by the problems of hate speech, namely the educational institutions, the media, the student body, and political organizations.
It has a potential to incite violence, resulting in disturbance of the peace, interference with smooth functioning of universities and colleges, and of any public arena where people of mixed backgrounds gather.
You guys keep forgetting that when we say hate speech, it’s not just your neighbor calling you a faggot or a nigger or a wetback or any of the garden-variety taunts. There are much more dangerous places where hate speech can move people to organize and plot subversive activities. The teaching of radical Islam is a classic example of this. Hitler speaking of the jews and the homosexuals. Radical university students starting an underground newspaper. Fundamentalists speaking in front of their congregation. Give it a think!
Nick, I will be more than happy to deliver the news for you: The worth of a person’s life and humanity is defined by societal conditions. Now, let us talk about what is, as in what’s happening really in our society, and what should be, as in theoretically speaking what should be happening. What should be the worth of an individual, Nick? And what is the worth of an individual?
Because I have been witnessing what’s has been the result of too much emphasis on the “damaging” racist speech and anti-feminist speech----it has prevented even the most accurate studies/researches from revealing to the public what is actually going on among African-americans living in the poorest areas of the cities, and the work condition of women in corporate america. Lies/erroneous information have been proliferated and perpetuated and continued to be believed even in the face of new evidence.
