And I can’t blame you for that but…consider exactly *why *you might not want to go into it because it is absolutely relevant to where and why we might (or others might) restrict free speech.
I wouldn’t claim, and haven’t claimed, that everything you say should be free of restrictions or consequences, even criminal consequences. I just set the bar in a different place from you and I am perhaps much slower to consider criminalising ideas and opinions.
Defamation is a civil issue. Impersonation and stolen valour should not be criminal unless there is an intent to defraud (in which case it is the fraud that is the issue).
Same with false advertising. A completely civil issue to me unless there is proven harm or fraud.
The ISIS one is where it gets tricky. It is an illegal organisation that presents a real threat to life and limb. Recruiting for them, joining them, distributing propaganda for them seems a sensible point at which criminal sanctions are justified.
However, (and the tricky thing for everyone to consider) what if someone is expressing an opinion that agrees with ISIS? That they support some of their ultimate goals? That they agree with imposing Islamic law or a caliphate?
Do we criminalise that? I say no, that is a step too far. We have to accept it as the price of free speech and counter it with better arguments, facts and ridicule.
This is true, up until the point where opponents of your view (whatever your view might be) start to falsely label your rhetoric as hate speech even when it isn’t. And that’s becoming an extremely pervasive tactic. Here’s why…
The major social media carriers… YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc etc… they are becoming increasingly sensitive to the many claims which argue they allow hate speech to foster on their platforms. This is why user accounts are being deleted left right and centre nowadays. If you’re a minority of some sort, it doesn’t matter who or what or where, it’s becoming the default “go to” tactic to describe EVERYTHING that you don’t approve of as hate speech, even when it’s not even remotely close to being the case. It’s the new wonder tactic because if enough allegations of “hate speech” are made, even if it isn’t hate speech, action is usually taken against the person/group/mouthpiece who you’re in opposition to.
All the world’s major religious texts contain massive amounts of hate speech. This hate speech has been the direct cause of countless acts of violence towards all kinds of minority’s groups for thousands of years.
Should these texts be banned? If not, why not?
See, I’m trying to figure out why it’s cool to ban someone from YouTube for saying God hates group X, but why (apparently) it’s not cool to ban the actual holy book which says the exact same thing.
I’m also trying to figure out why all the anti-free speech warriors in this thread won’t answer this very, very straightforward question, even though this is now the FOURTH time I’ve asked it. My guess is simple intellectual cowardice, but I’m keeping an open mind.
Two men were just arrested for exactly that, in my city. Although they are charged with a public nuisance infraction, they were standing on street corners quoting scripture and screaming at women wearing make up or yoga pants, for being whores! With a bullhorn! 75 complaints lodged since start of year. I’ve encountered them a few times and they are exceedingly obnoxious. And possibly mentally ill.
Not a single church or organization in town seems to have a problem with this action. All in agreement, it would seem, women should be able to be in the public space without such harassment.
I’m not sure why you think this doesn’t happen. You’re wrong, it does. It’s not especially protected because it’s scripture. Use it to harass and get charged, seems simple enough.
Not sure what huge dramatic point you think you’re making. You’re not getting responses because it’s not the gotcha you seem to think, but whatever.
You’ve not answered my question. Do you think the religious texts themselves should be banned? After all, they contain hate speech. It’s a yes or no question.
You are arguing a strawman. It is such an obvious, blatant strawman that people can’t be bothered replying to you.
The reality is you are such a bad fucking troll that your attempt to suck people into your trap is so fucking bad that people are simply scrolling past what you have written. Nobody has noticed you. You’ve asked your question four times and this is the first time I’ve seen it. How bad do you have to be at “getting a reaction” that you have to remind everybody that this is the fourth time you’ve said exactly the same thing?
To answer your question: the answer is “no.” All the world’s major religious texts should not be banned. Why not? Because I haven’t personally advocated banning anything, so why would my position change on the world’s major religious texts?
You advocate deplatforming though, right? If someone’s going round saying “Everyone in group X is evil”, you’d want that person deplatformed. You’d want them booted off social media. You’d want publishers to ignore them. You’d want colleges to disinvite them and TV stations to deny them air time.
So why would you oppose the banning of religious texts which also say “Everyone in group X is evil”? Texts which directly inspired the people you want deplatformed.
The hypocrisy seems outrageous. Deplatform XYZ because his videos are alt-right, or a “pipeline” to the alt-right (whatever that is) but don’t put any restrictions on the holy books which inspired XYZ. How does that make sense?
Don’t accuse me of “hypocrisy” when your argument immediately pivots from “banning” to “deplatforming.” Do you seriously think you are the first person to try that on?
Uh, whatever one’s personal position on civil liberties, it’s pretty easy to distinguish, rights-wise, between “deplatforming” something via consumer/public opinion pressure on private entities and “banning” something via governmental prohibition.
One’s the result of normal give-and-take in the marketplace of ideas in society, and the other is (by US standards, at least) an infringement of fundamental civil liberties.
…you are spending an outrageous amount of time arguing a strawman.
In practical terms they are two completely different things. You even acknowledge they mean two different things when I answered your stupid fucking question. Why the fuck are you asking me this question? You already know the answer.
I haven’t been following this particular thread, but in a casual perusal I couldn’t help but notice your trollishness. Perhaps the only reason no one has directly addressed your alleged “question” is that you’re obviously a fucking moron. Where I live, Canada, hate speech is a legal principle, and has been used to good effect for instance against neo-Nazis promoting “Aryan” white supremacy and genocide. And yet – prepare to be amazed – no one has advocated the banning of the Bible, or the Qu’ran, or the Torah. Perhaps I live in a horrifically hypocritical society. Or perhaps not. To understand the difference, I recommend you go soak your head in a bucket of ice water for a couple of hours, or until rationality returns, whichever comes first.
There’s little difference in practical terms, from the perspective of a speaker, between being silenced by the government and being silenced by the mob. What I want to know is this: Why are the “mob” in this thread happy to use public pressure to silence online hate speech (or even things which may form some hypothetical “pipeline” to such hate speech), but not happy to use public pressure to get rid of religious texts which are a “pipeline” to online hate speech. Why does the “pipeline” start at YouTube, and not at the Bible or Koran or whatever?
If you use public pressure to get me banned from every online platform, every TV channel, every radio station, every venue, and every publication, you will have silenced me every bit as effectively as any government could ever do. So what, in practical terms, is the difference between the two? And why would you shy away from using the same tactics to “deplatform” religious texts as much as you’re able to do so? After all, they all contain massive amounts of hate speech
That’s like saying that there’s little difference in practical terms between being ostracized because nobody likes you and having the government lock you up in solitary confinement. You’re still isolated and lonely either way, right?
What that sort of transparent sophistry fails to take into account is that there are in fact huge and very practical differences between being shunned by private entities and being officially suppressed by the government.
I think you need to clarify what you’re on about here. Are you asking what the difference is between modern inflammatory hate rhetoric and ancient religious texts, and what the reasons are that the two categories are generally viewed differently in public discourse?
In* practical* terms, speech that is banned by governmental decree is likely to have legal consequences, whereas speech that is * deplatformed* has the consequence of… What, not being heard?
Do you see the difference between speech being illegal and just not being given a platform?
Has Canadian hate speech legislation ever been used against people who go around saying “God hates gay people and they should be killed?”
If so, why shouldn’t it also act against the Bible (“Thou shall not lie with man as with woman. It is an abomination”) or the Hadith (“Kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done”).
And if there’s a legal reason why not, what possible moral reason could there be, from the perspective of posters advocating the de facto banning of conservative commentators online on the grounds that they’re a “pipeline to the alt-right”, for not insisting the Canadian government expand the reach of their hate speech laws to cover religious texts?
Yeah, the mob can’t throw me in jail. But equally, the government isn’t likely to send me death threats, burn my house down, or attack me in the street. Personally, if I were a conservative commentator with “problematic” views, I’d be a thousand times more scared of the mob.