Hate Speech

[Nick_A]

Hi Arendt

First let me say I appreciate your style. You sense a certain significance and are willing to discuss rather than battle. I was hoping for that here since the psychological approach is more open to discussion.

It must be just me. Whenever someone is happy to deliver the news to me, it always seems to be bad news.

Yes we’ve got work to do and frankly these things should be discussed more openly in society rather than just a continual exchange of talking points.

I agree. Hate speech came into existence from the selective efforts of groups and their sympathizers to protect and create importance for themselves. It is an opinion, now enforced by law, agreed on by certain segments of society.

Hate speech does have the potential to incite violence. It has been proven over and over that this is so and how easily a mob can be formed based on it and its absence of logic.

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.

True, there are situations in which hate speech becomes more of a threat. However, conditions can change and what seems harmless in June for example, can escalate into a very dangerous situation in October. So I agree as far as the importance of context but you may be underestimating how quickly context can change.

The worth of a person’s life and humanity is defined by societal conditions.

Yes, we’ll have to talk on that one.

Just to get this out of the way, My spiritual beliefs are more in line with esoteric Christianity so I believe in the intrinsic worth of a person in relation in the inner movement towards conscious evolution or re-birth. But leaving that out, it is hard for me to believe that where a society could dislike a child, their mother could have genuine love for the young one and believe its humanity and worth defined by her family and lineage rather than these outsiders.

What should be the worth of an individual, Nick? And what is the worth of an individual?

I believe that people in society should be equal under the law. A person may believe themselves to be superior but this should not effect their equal respect from the law. A person should be considered worthy of freedom and the respect necessary to maintain freedom. So even though I could have my own subjective definitions of worth in the spiritual sense, for a free society to be free, people have to be considered equal as INDIVIDUALS regardless of being identified with groups.

My family wasn’t killed because of their individuality, they were killed for being Christian and the killing rationalized by: “Well, you know what Christians do.”

So the question becomes: is it necessary to sacrifice equality and respect for individuals for the sake of concern for protected groups? Should my mugging be considered less hateful than the mugging of a woman, African American, homosexual etc. creating the impression that the worth of my life and humanity is less from these societal dictates?

[Phaedrus]

Obviously accosting someone in a theater will get you arrested, no matter what color the victims is. And we already have legal rulings to deal with “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” No, the actual issue is whether or not something is so terrible that we must not be permitted to say it. And to that I must answer with a one-size-fits-all, resounding “NO!”

And again, who precisely is to decide what constitutes hate speech and where the line is to be drawn? It’s a very slippery slope, and one I don’t want to see us navigate.

I’d rather have to say I’m sorry than ask permission to speak!

[Uniqor]

Hate speech - emotion rationlised. To make a racist speech is to justify the natural racial hostility within, as its primary purpose, with other side motives such as the sense of superiority. This applies to all other situations too.

So as long as one hates and capable of some slightest rationalisation, one does hate speech. The opinion and goal of the majority then decides wether the speech should be classified as hate speech.

Hate speech is like sexual intercourse - censored to a degree in public, but none could live without in private.

[Phaedrus]

The big diff is this- sexual intercouse isn’t mentioned at all in the US constitution, nor is it specifically protected. Speech is. At the risk of beating a dead horse, it simply doesn’t matter what someone says or who dislikes it. Free speech simply cannot and should not be limited simply because the topic is inflammatory or could cause discomfort.

Now, if the issue is should we change the constitution/laws, that’s a different matter. I of course would still advocate complete freedom of expression. I’m very uncomfortable allowing anyone to codify just what “hate speech” might be. Bear in mind that while liberals are in power, hate speech could be anything percieved as a slur against any ethnic or social class; while conservatives (especially neocons) hold sway, hate speech might be anything criticizing Christianity. You can easily see how any defination you might give for hate speech could get pretty ugly, depending upon who’s issuing the arrest warrants.

[Nick_A]

Phaedrus

No, the actual issue is whether or not something is so terrible that we must not be permitted to say it. And to that I must answer with a one-size-fits-all, resounding “NO!”

You, as I, do not like this special legal designation of “hate speech” assuming that its abuse and what it may lead to are considered sufficiently under the law.

And again, who precisely is to decide what constitutes hate speech and where the line is to be drawn? It’s a very slippery slope, and one I don’t want to see us navigate.

To be answered by Unigor:

So as long as one hates and capable of some slightest rationalisation, one does hate speech. The opinion and goal of the majority then decides wether the speech should be classified as hate speech.

Hi Unigor

This is precisely what I am so strongly against. The vocal and influential segment becomes for all practical purposes “the majority.” Somehow they are able to decide through this legal classification of “hate speech”, the worth of a person’s.life and humanity. They decide that people of a protected group are worthy of special protection from a particular form of abuse, potentially resulting in violence that when used against unprotected groups is considered acceptable, justifiable, or both and often “therapeutic” as it was for Germany wanting to regain its national pride at the expense of the Jews. Though Ido not consider people equal, I do consider everyone equal under the law and find strength and value in our collective differences. This is why I am against this “hate speech” classification.

Phaedrus

You can easily see how any defination you might give for hate speech could get pretty ugly, depending upon who’s issuing the arrest warrants.

Yes it can and I believe it already has.

But this raises a new psychological problem. How, as a free society, can we minimize this apparent need for hate speech and the violence it can create without this IMO very dangerous “selectivity of human worth” defined as hate speech?

[Phaedrus]

Yes, already many of our most cherished rights have been seriously eroded. Even before the Patriot Act, the rot had begun, and the ‘war on terror’ has stretched the Constititution to its breaking point.

How indeed to let the KKK, ACLU and NAMBLA have their free speech and assembly yet allow society to be reasonably secure? That’s a tough one.

[Uniqor]

I share your sentiment Nick_A, who doesn’t though? The power struggle between minority and majority is the story of the our society. As far as hate speech is concerned, I reckon it’s just an outlet/sign of the struggle.
However, there is something that’s very significant that I want to point out here… please take notice that “Unigor”, is not my pseudonym…

[Nick_A]

Hello Uniqor. Did I get it right?

I share your sentiment Nick_A, who doesn’t though?

All those that would support legislated hate speech and its implications in respect to individual worth.

As far as hate speech is concerned, I reckon it’s just an outlet/sign of the struggle

Yes, but a mugging can also be an outlet. It’s much easier for the mugger to accept it as such than the one mugged and not of a “protected group.”

[Uniqor]

Thaaaank you!

Yes of course except those bastards - I don’t consider them proper humans anyway - too bad some of us tend to give power to them easily, for that I blame the weak and decadent.

It’s fantastic that you spoke out loud about it here. Sigh… but you know what happened to foruma romana… this makes me excert this question on our republic: is the senate nothing more than a puppy of the imp?

[arendt]

Nick,

You sense a certain significance and are willing to discuss rather than battle. I was hoping for that here since the psychological approach is more open to discussion.

I was hoping, too, that we could discuss it under political philosophy, without the trappings of politics (liberals-conservative). This way, we can talk about it under ideology. Unfortunately, it seems whenever “freedom of expression” is the issue, politics must get in the way, and the result is either a left or right stance, a yes or no prohibition, a them and us partisanship. It seems we cannot shake off that child’s way of thinking when it comes to speech----there is only black and white, never the gray area. One wants to express himself, and that’s that. One wants to say whatever he or she wants and that should be it. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words… so Very much like children.

Speech, in any form, cannot be separated from “action”—and as such, there is a need for critical analysis no matter how much we’d like to believe it is a harmless form of expression. We only need to look at what happened in the aftermath of 9/11. Speech of selected groups of people here in the US had been suppressed, and still being suppressed. To say we are hypocrites is giving us too much credit. We are like children who have memorized by rote “Freedom of Speech”. We are mechanical that way.

Well, boys, great discussing with you.

Long live Banana Phone!!!

[Nick_A]

Hi Arendt

Political philosophy is one thing and as you suggest, it is almost impossible to take partisanship out of it. Let’s face it, the great attraction of politics is the partisanship and the advantage of the party in power.

However considering the question psychologically first allows for certain basic understandings impossible for political philosophy

What is the appeal of hate speech and violence? Now of course you’ll get the normal whitewash of lack of education etc. but can the ignorance of hate speech be experienced through speeches, books, and wonderful speeches? I don’t believe so.

Look at the entertainment industry for example. This is what we spend our money on so it is one thing we care about. How many of the top movies have violence as their chief attraction? How much of the music business is dominated by violence and the sale of violence?

So my question here is if this attraction to violence is natural for our species? Don’t confuse this with competition which can be completely non-violent but accept it just as the joy of violence itself.

Is it natural or the result of a particular type of ignorance impossible to address through “education”.

By this I mean ignorance of ourselves as individuals: the experience ofourselves. If a person defines himself by groups, what actually is he as a human being?

Can we then begin to understand this attraction for violence as in hate speech that we spend our money on if we recognize its attraction in ourselves? Do you think this attraction is natural or only serves as a cover for something we do not understand?

If this is so, can there be any long term advantage by defining the term only in respect to “protected groups” if the core of the problem is within our individuality?

We understand why children are afraid of the darkness, but why are men afraid of the light…Plato

[Nick_A]

Uniqor

Yes of course except those bastards - I don’t consider them proper humans anyway - too bad some of us tend to give power to them easily, for that I blame the weak and decadent.

Yes, it is invariably the other guys fault. If these bastards could only accept the obvious truth of their status so well expressed by King George , so much aggravation would be saved. We could know immediately who the good guys and bad guys are and take appropriate measures assuring societal peace. And it would just be like these idiots to fight about it. Again, lack of education and demonstrating once again the need for more money to insure the extinction of such deviant thought.

“I desire what is good. Therefore everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a traitor.” - King George III of England

There is another possibility well expressed by Simone Weil in the quote below that is certainly not politically correct since it has the audacity to express something reasonable about equality. Such errors are due no doubt from the lack of modern education so we must excuse such grossly politically incorrect thought. Imagine…a free society that professes the value of equality under the laws should actually take it seriously and not just as bravado.

Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings.

[arendt]

Hi, Nick.

Political philosophy is one thing and as you suggest, it is almost impossible to take partisanship out of it. Let’s face it, the great attraction of politics is the partisanship and the advantage of the party in power.

I suppose I didn’t make myself clear. I am speaking of too common a confusion (or ignorance) about political philosophy. Political philosophy deals with the theories about society and individual and all the other observation that a political theorist makes about the connection or interrelation of individual, society, and government. Ideologies should ring a bell here. Think of Machiavelli, Locke, Mill, Foucault, Marx. It doesn’t talk about politics, which basically deals with election, political parties, political campaigns, and voters—things that change day by day. This a separate issue. It is a reality of a very specific form of government. Sadly, many cannot tell the difference between the two.

However considering the question psychologically first allows for certain basic understandings impossible for political philosophy

Impossible?

Look at the entertainment industry for example. This is what we spend our money on so it is one thing we care about. How many of the top movies have violence as their chief attraction? How much of the music business is dominated by violence and the sale of violence?

So my question here is if this attraction to violence is natural for our species? Don’t confuse this with competition which can be completely non-violent but accept it just as the joy of violence itself.

If you say this, then you are trivializing what ideology, found in many hate speech, is all about. A political philosopher would not resort to this kind of medium to deliver the news to its target population. He must try to convince his readers that his view is reality. Violence is a means that can be used to further a view. But it is not necessarily so.

[Nick_A]

Arendt

If you say this, then you are trivializing what ideology, found in many hate speech, is all about. A political philosopher would not resort to this kind of medium to deliver the news to its target population. He must try to convince his readers that his view is reality. Violence is a means that can be used to further a view. But it is not necessarily so.

First I misunderstand you and now you misunderstand me. Well its a good thing we’re not married.

I did not mean to imply hate speech as the motivation in entertainment. I am asking you if hate speech is the result of something deeper that manifests in several ways including hate speech that we find attractive. This is the psychological question. Another Simone Weil classic:

A hurtful act is the transference to others of the degradation which we bear in ourselves.

I tend to believe that as a whole, we’ve become so caught up with these feelings of personal degradation that we act it out in various ways including hate speech.

If this is so, it is an unnatural condition that could be outgrown and replaced by something more natural and hence, satisfying even to a small extent but enough to make a difference.

Without this hope, I cannot see the benefit of political philosophy. If the human condition that manifests as hate speech were natural, then the only alternative would be a police state.

This is why I believe agreement as to the psychological nature of hate speech is the necessary first step.

[arendt]

Hi, Nick.

First I misunderstand you and now you misunderstand me. Well its a good thing we’re not married.

I did not mean to imply hate speech as the motivation in entertainment. I am asking you if hate speech is the result of something deeper that manifests in several ways including hate speech that we find attractive. This is the psychological question.

Yes, and I answered, or at least tried to imply, that we must look at ideology—it is the psyche of society, is it not? There is a deep-rooted belief/feeling/emotion that hate speech expresses, and the one most potent or most explosive is a hard-core belief aka ideology. I have given instances of when these hard-core beliefs, expressed through “hate-speech” , have actually resulted in violence, in real life. (hollywood movies is not one of them).

I tend to believe that as a whole, we’ve become so caught up with these feelings of personal degradation that we act it out in various ways including hate speech.

If this is so, it is an unnatural condition that could be outgrown and replaced by something more natural and hence, satisfying even to a small extent but enough to make a difference.

It is a natural condition that people have beliefs, hard-core beliefs, ideologies. It is also natural that one feels threatened constantly by contradictory beliefs held by others. There would always be conflict from within a person’s own belief system, and from without—we don’t live in a vacuum, the world is headed fast towards complete globalization, and the individual would naturally feel the stress and pressure as a result.

Without this hope, I cannot see the benefit of political philosophy. If the human condition that manifests as hate speech were natural, then the only alternative would be a police state.

In a way we are already in a police state. Like I said, and this is not an opinion, you only have to look at our intelligence gathering, our terrorism policy, our security plan. Our government is using civilians as informants—a housewife, gets online, learns arabic, learns the map of baghdad, poses as a male, chats with the radical-subversive group, catches one terrorists supporter and he is now in jail.
FBIs and CIAs have online code words that buzz “red” to them—alerts them of possible terrorist activities. Nothing new there.

[Nick_A]

Hi Arendt

Yes, and I answered, or at least tried to imply, that we must look at ideology—it is the psyche of society, is it not? There is a deep-rooted belief/feeling/emotion that hate speech expresses, and the one most potent or most explosive is a hard-core belief aka ideology. I have given instances of when these hard-core beliefs, expressed through “hate-speech” , have actually resulted in violence, in real life. (hollywood movies is not one of them).

True but the question remains what your attitude is to this apparent necessity for hate speech. Do you see it as potentially equally damaging to all people or only the societal concern for “protected groups” as currently seems to be the case?

we don’t live in a vacuum, the world is headed fast towards complete globalization, and the individual would naturally feel the stress and pressure as a result.

Isn’t this all the more reason why hate speech shouldn’t be identified with “protected groups” but rather a concern for all?

Would you agree with me that psychologically these designations imply a certain justification for its selective use that is damaging in the long run?

[arendt]

@Nick_A

True but the question remains what your attitude is to this apparent necessity for hate speech. Do you see it as potentially equally damaging to all people or only the societal concern for “protected groups” as currently seems to be the case?

“Potentially” is the key word. So, ask a follower of harm principle if some form of speech can potentially overthrow a government—the answer might be yes. Ooh, too many careful words we are employing. Let me rephrase----Are some form of speech damaging to society? Yes. We have plenty of examples.

Now, currently, based on the way you define it, locally, within the hollowed halls of universities and congress, I would say the answer is, It interferes with the proper functioning of the institutions.

Let me break it down further:

Political groups have the capability to make a stink about what is said, printed, distributed, taught in schools. They are allowed to contest it, ad infinitum, and politically they can win. This is the what is. Now, your what should be—Political groups should keep calm and maintain open-mindedness, and shouldn’t depend on institutions for support, when their being homosexuals, minority, female, jews are being denigrated and their beliefs being threatened.

we don’t live in a vacuum, the world is headed fast towards complete globalization, and the individual would naturally feel the stress and pressure as a result.—Arendt

Isn’t this all the more reason why hate speech shouldn’t be identified with “protected groups” but rather a concern for all?

Nick, I have talked about it so that you can see that it is a double-edged blade. First, there must be an object/referent of hate speech—who are being affected. Second, who are those making the offensive speech—there must a person/group who are making these racial epithets. Your objection as to “protected groups” is misplaced. Of course, there’s got to be the victim of this hate speech, if hate speech is to be pointed out. It is already presupposed. And so, you cannot speak of it as if the only group in question are those being offended, or in your words “protected”. I think your interpretation of hate speech leans towards the mildest forms. But we are talking about the extreme form----those that actually incite violence. So, although it seems to serve only the offended group, it is a concern for the whole society. This is what critical analysis should deliver to you.

Would you agree with me that psychologically these designations imply a certain justification for its selective use that is damaging in the long run?

Again, selective use? No. Please see above, the fact that we live in civil/political society should tell you, no one lives in a vacuum.

[Uccisore]

I basically agree with you, Phaedrus, but here is a question I find difficult:

Morally, is spray-painting a smily face on the door of a synagogue no better or worse than spray-painting a swastika there? Should both acts been seen equally by the law?

[Nick_A]

Arendt

Nick, I have talked about it so that you can see that it is a double-edged blade. First, there must be an object/referent of hate speech—who are being affected.

How about"mankind?"

Second, who are those making the offensive speech—there must a person/group who are making these racial epithets.

How about “mankind?”

Your objection as to “protected groups” is misplaced. Of course, there’s got to be the victim of this hate speech, if hate speech is to be pointed out. It is already presupposed. And so, you cannot speak of it as if the only group in question are those being offended, or in your words “protected”. I think your interpretation of hate speech leans towards the mildest forms. But we are talking about the extreme form----those that actually incite violence. So, although it seems to serve only the offended group, it is a concern for the whole society. This is what critical analysis should deliver to you.

Here is where you lose me. No speech by definition incites violence. We just know that it has the potential to do so. If it is a concern for the whole of society, why should it be legislated that people are treated differently because of current fashionable hatred? Fashions change including fashionable scapegoats. Why shouldn’t all potential scapegoats, meaning all of us, be worthy of the same protection?

Uccisore

Morally, is spray-painting a smily face on the door of a synagogue no better or worse than spray-painting a swastika there? Should both acts been seen equally by the law?

It is different morally but should IMO be the same under the law

Naturally it must be seen in degrees. It is one thing to paint a very large swastika and another to draw a tiny smiley face.

This is why punishment under the law has different degrees from “the full extent of the law” to a rap on the knuckles. Is the intent to harm or just a little play.

Now I ask you: Should painting a picture of an aborted fetus on a church door be considered the same as painting a swastika on the door of a synagogue?

[Dr_Krankenkopf]

deleted