Total Freedom of Speech is Bad

Very interesting discussion. Wish I got into it earlier.

We’ve had a lot of discussion about the importance of total ‘freedom of speech’ but very little by way of actually defining what this phrase constitutes. Any discussion of ‘freedom of speech’ is meaningless without first coming to terms with the idea of voice and the right to be heard.

The greatest form of oppression that occurs in developed Western Societies is not the oppression of free speech but the oppression of one’s ability to be heard.

Which brings me the exchange between Rico and ComradeLer below:

Ricosaur’s (if I may call you so) response here, demonstrates very precisely how the modern form of speech oppression functions to prevent people from truly expressing their views in a public space. It misses one point though; that people are already silenced by the ‘ZOMG I’M SO OFFENDED’ effect. I argue that this is a much more effective means of stifling freedom of speech in contemporary Western Society than direct censorship. In fact, banning people’s right to say whatever stupid shit they want (as ComradeLer suggests) would be a much more effective way of ensuring that people stand up and resist oppression of speech – People in Contemporary Western Societies would be much more willing to resist direct censorship of speech than they would be willing to resist subtle forms of speech oppression that comes in the form of political correctness.

Racism has also been brought up in this discussion, and aptly so - The oppressive concept of racial ‘tolerance’ functions in a very similar way to political correctness. The whole idea of Racial Tolerance is racist. Why should anyone be tolerating some one of a different race – either you fully accept and embrace a person for their culture, or tell them to (essentially) fuck off back to their country. Oppression as we know it today in Western Society is experienced in our inability to be honest about this – Today's censorship occurs when we can’t speak about something because it is too socially inappropriate to speak about – and I argue that it is a much more potent form of oppression because of how difficult it is to resist.

The woman in the video that started this whole discussion is a perfect example of how political correctness functions to effectively oppress the views of this woman without her being able to properly resist the source of the oppression (hence her hateful and rather stupid outbursts to random people on the subway). If for example, there was someone physically stopping her from speaking up about her views, I think the responses on this forum would be overwhelmingly in support for her, and we wouldn’t be 15 pages into this discussion.

All this being said, I whole heartedly agree with ComradeLer’s sentiment below.

What’s important to note here, is that any discussion about racism cannot be had without discussing white privilege first – Really, no privileged white person is in a position to argue for freedom of speech when the vast majority of western media is owned by extremely wealthy white men, and when the vast majority of politicians and decision makers in the developed world are privileged and white. It is deeply hypocritical for any privileged white person to argue for freedom of speech and multiculturalism when privileged white men are the primary instigators of institutions that perpetuate White Consumerist Culture and values in developed Westernized societies. These institutions effectively serve to drown out the values of any other cultural denomination. I think it would also be interesting to note at this point, that the typical juncture at which political correctness serves to censor discussion about racism is when white privilege is brought up.

On a side note, a very interesting thing about the Contemporary Left in Western Societies is that both concepts of ‘racial tolerance’ and ‘political correctness’ are usually championed by them even though they tend to strongly argue for multiculturalism and freedom of speech rights.

So far I've argued strongly for the right of crazy ladies on subway trains letting loose their racists views on immigrants, however, here I agree with ComradeLer. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I believe that society has a role to directly (and note; not subtly) regulate and censor the media and any speech carried out on a large public platform - If millions of people will be influenced by the weight of someone's words, such speech calls for speaking out responsibly and accurately. In other words, the more power one has to be heard, to more subject they should be to scrutiny for what they say - especially if it is misinforming hate speech. I am strongly against any form of censorship of content, however I argue that principles of logic and ethical standards of dialogue can be legally applied to media broadcasters, politicians, twitter users with a certain amounts of followers, etc to ensure that dialogue in the public sphere encourages progressive debate.

Of course determining what constitutes hate speech and misinformation is a pickle in of itself and probably worth a 15 page thread of its own.


In the interests of a progressive discussion, I think the greatest obstacle to freedom of speech and the freedom to be heard is money and the influence of the powerful privileged classes – as without money and such influence you cannot express your views to the public at large, lobby for representation in modern democracy, be represented in a court of law properly, etc.

A proper discussion of freedom of speech entails a deeper analysis of how the wealthy (and mostly white male) privileged classes deteriorate the fundamental aspects of democracy – such as the freedom of the masses to speak and be heard on an equal platform and the ability of various cultural and social groups to voice their interests and concerns in the public sphere.

When was the last time a wealthy white person told anybody to "go back to their country"?

Every day. Wealthy white people just tend not to go around the streets screaming it. But I'll assure you, there are many people I know (and I'm a suburban white kid) that would want to send all minorities back from whence they came.

The problem with this argument is....you're not. Screaming this to a black person would entitle harassment and you'd be arrested and put in the holding cell for the weekend and charged a fine and then most likely sued for hate speech by every black person that was in earshot. The only place your entitled to say something like that is privately. And I'm fine with that the way things are. Its when people start saying the latest Adidas sneakers symbolize slavery and how much that offends them is when being "offended" gets really out of hand.

Take a look, I'm not kidding: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/adidas-shackle-sneakers-controversy_n_1605661.html

Sometimes I think you have a point, but then I imagine the hurt that would be caused if you actually said those words, say, outside a school where some black children went to.

I think I can just repeat the points I made in my last reply, everyone should have the freedom to express their views. If one truly believed 'they should go back to the congo', then one should be able to express that view, but only in a reasonable way, that does not offend anyone greatly. I agree it is a fine line between acceptable and too offensive which needs to be trodden, but I believe almost any view can be expressed in a more tactful way, and those that cannot are too extreme to warrant attention.

I also disagree that

I think any society should be able to lay down what they deem as acceptable, and what is not.
And of course govenment is part of society, so any law that restricts the freedom to hurl racist abuse is generally supported by that society, as it is in the UK. If a society wants to say bigotry is acceptable, they should be able to, and equally if a society wants to say that racism is not acceptable, they should be able to.

I also disagree here. Constant harrasment and abuse about someones race can leave a lasting psycological scar, perhaps even lead to them hating themselves, or perhaps even suicide.


In addition, racism is illegal in the UK. This law does not actually bring many people to court, but in my opinion a law such as this can help to change the view of society, so everyone understands that in our society we simply do not want rasicts or racism.

I'll go back to my original point. Anyone should be able to express their views, but not in a way deemed unacceptable by society.

That's way too easy to abuse, though.

Perhaps, but it's better than anyone being able to abuse anyone racially that they want to. In my opinion at least.
In general, the courts get things right.

Emphasis on in general

Harassment isn't the same as saying something, though. I prefer an innocent person walking around and someone severely depressed because he worries too much about what some idiot screamed at him to someone being locked up because...well, I don't have to repeat myself.

Well yeah, they can't be right all the time.

In your example, if the 'idiot' had screamed racist abuse at a man, I don't see him a particurly innocent, if the law is that rascim is illegal.
I would say that after a law such as this is introduced, a few 'idiots' might be fined or jailed or whatever, but after a while people realise racism will not be tolerated, and so cases will reduce.

I would also say most cases of racist abuse are justified, and all those that aren't would be recognised as such.

I think it'd be more the screaming part that'd do the job. Screaming at someone in public, no matter what you say, is generally looked down upon.

That's what you'd expect indeed.

While I feel like "abuse" and "justified" are the best words to describe it, I agree with the point.

Well yes, I suppose it is.
Although some screaming is more acceptable than other screaming, depending on what the screamer is screaming about.

Especially when they're on a market selling their goods.

I agree, it should be illegal.

@Ardinius
You make some good points, and speak some wise words, but sadly I think you were slightly late to the party. I agree with some of waht you said, but I don't think peoples right to be heard is at all being restricted.
With social media and the internet, an average citizen has far more of an ability to publicise their thoughts than ever before.

I agree with Mr. UtterlyImpecable here to a certain degree. I believe we shouldn't let people spew meaningless hate, but that's just my opinion. And my opinion has no more value than a racist's. I do think that society should take action though. Just not legal action. As a people, we should ban together to block out hate speech. Not through censorship or lawsuits, but with an iron will. If everybody just ignores hate, it may as well not be there at all. If reporters never showed up to Westboro protests they would stop protesting. The issue arises when society determines that the words "I don't like the way society/the government is run" are hate speech. That's why the founding fathers of this nation created the Constitution, to protect the minority. Just because we disagree with something doesn't mean we can stomp all over it.

*PLEASE NOTE: I realize that there are people here from outside of the United States. The only reason that the context of my argument is in the U.S. is that it is the only government I am familiar with. Europe is great, I just don't know how it works over there.*

Here, you generally get threatened and eventually shot by a lunatic.

Here=?

In essence I like what you're saying.
However, I think you make it sound far too easy to ignore hate, sometimes constant racist abuse can be extremely difficult to ignore.
I also think perhaps sometimes ignoring the issue might not resolve it completely. Often, racist speech is not far away from racist violence, so in my opinion tackling the issue head on might be the best way forwards.

I'd also like to point out in the UK racist abuse isn't dealt with by lawsuits or censorship, because racist abuse is an actual criminal offence, the police would be involved.
Racist beliefs are not illegal, but spewing them out in public is.

Oh, sorry, I set my location to something different. It's the Netherlands. Especially Muslims get very angry, both vocally and physically as soon as someone makes but a single joke or comment. Of course I realise that's just the minority, and there are plenty of people who don't act that way, don't get me wrong.

Although I don't get picked on for my race too often, people make fun of me. Not a lot, because generally people grow up and stop making fun of people. The point is, I always managed to ignore it. I understand that people are different, but we all need to build up a think skin to unkind words.
Next point, violence is violence, and should always be dealt with as violence. I do agree with hate crimes carrying a heavier sentence, but only because hate criminals tend to be repeat offenders.
Finally, yes I realize that hate speech is a crime in the UK. But like I said before, sharing your opinion should never be a crime, even if that opinion is at odds with the rest of the community.

Really? I would have expected The Nether to be the most peaceful place on Earth *no sarcasm*. It would have made more sense if you actually lived in Pangaea.