Serious Political Correctness and Free Speech

[sunny004]

**Note: I will be referring to this issue in the context of the United States. If you're from elsewhere, feel free to join in with views/stories from your country.**

I was trying to find a good time to make this thread and I figured with the RNC happening tonight, now's as good a time as any.

Some background: In recent years, certain college campuses (Or, to be more specific, minority students) have begun to call for speech censors on potentially offensive and hurtful speech. Free speech advocates say that this violates the 1st amendment rights of people who hold unpopular or offensive views.

What do you think? Should offensive speech become illegal? Should it be banned on college campuses? Discuss below.

Given the nature of this discussion I will allow all speech, as long as you treat any other users with respect and allow them to share their opinions.

 

[billymills]

I don't believe that offensive speech should become illegal in the united states, nor remain illegal in other countries (Canada in particular).

I believe it is up to individuals to ignore or otherwise dismiss opinions that they disagree with. I think libel laws should be weakened, and that people should treat what they hear with more skepticism.

However I've run into a few scenarios where I'm not sure what the best choice of action is:

Colleges act both as educational institutions and as homes. As an educational institution it is important that speech is permitted. However, insofar as it acts as a residence, it should be possible for people to avoid said speech if they so wish. I do not believe freedom of speech means that anyone should be forced to listen to anyone else, and in that vein, there must be some campus areas that should remain void.

When 'radical preachers' are in the media, cited as the cause for increased terrorism, the common response is to jail/deport or otherwise disrupt these preachers. I don't agree with anything they say, but I can't agree that is the solution. However, I don't know what an appropriate response to these people who are expressing their opinions.

 

[Shrug]

yea it's a problem dude. even the trump supporters are caving to political correctness, going with "make america great again" as a slogan instead of what they mean, "make it so we can say (BAN ME PLEASE) and sand-(BAN ME PLEASE) openly while encouraging our police force to act as a violent enforcer of racial inequity w/o criticism again"

 

[Bughouse]

The US is a bit out of step with a lot of the western world when it comes to the legality of hate speech. But honestly, I think the US gets it more right than most. For example, I think Dieudonne is an utter piece of shit... and also that what France's legal code has done to Dieudonne is criminal.

It's really troublesome to police offensive speech because it is an impossible standard to apply equally to all possible sources of offense.

 

[Venerable Swede]

"Political correctness" is just what assholes call it when they're derided for being assholes, but god no of course ordinary offensive speech shouldn't be illegal. Death threats and incitement to violence, sure, but those are already illegal and have been forever.

 

[veiva]

Colleges act both as educational institutions and as homes. As an educational institution it is important that speech is permitted. However, insofar as it acts as a residence, it should be possible for people to avoid said speech if they so wish. I do not believe freedom of speech means that anyone should be forced to listen to anyone else, and in that vein, there must be some campus areas that should remain void.

In such a case, the students would have agreed, by attending the college and living in dorms and whatever else, to limit the acceptable range of speech when applicable--e.g., a contract. In the same manner that I would not tolerate abusive behavior in my home, the college is by no means obligated to allow abusive behavior on its premises; after all, the school is not property of the students.

I definitely agree that free speech should be broad, and that people should not have to listen to those they do not want to. I don't believe a private organization, or a person/people limiting what is permissible on their property, infringes the former, though.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

Being "politically correct" does not make you correct. People are far more sensitive and touchy these days. I can remember not very long ago at all, people used to exercise much more patience and tolerance. To say that our rights should be infringed upon as not to offend others is basically like saying that dogs should not be allowed to chase cats because it might hurt the cats' feelings. If you are a special little sensitive snowflake and don't like the first amendment or free speech then there is no shortage of countries that heavily censor what you can say. The USA isn't one of those countries, never has been-don't agree that it ever should be. It's fine the way it is.

 

[JALMONT]

People who use offensive speech purposefully aren't going to stop just because you passed a law against it. How is that going to be enforced? It's not. It doesn't serve any purpose except appeasing those who would want such a ban.

If we're talking about speech in a public setting, such as college campuses, then I am personally against such censors. There have been incidents on my campus with protesters shutting down presentations by speakers who supposedly represent viewpoints they don't like. I think such behavior is wrong and that's the sort of "speech banning" I am very much against. I appreciate the fact the some people are so passionate about certain topics that they refuse to listen to the other side. I understand that some people prefer to live in an echo-chamber and never have their viewpoint challenged, and that's fine. But when you go around and attempt to impose your viewpoint on me and others by means of shutting down anyone who attempts to present an alternate viewpoint, then you've gone too far in my eyes.

 

[billymills]

In such a case, the students would have agreed, by attending the college and living in dorms and whatever else, to limit the acceptable range of speech when applicable--e.g., a contract. In the same manner that I would not tolerate abusive behavior in my home, the college is by no means obligated to allow abusive behavior on its premises; after all, the school is not property of the students.

I definitely agree that free speech should be broad, and that people should not have to listen to those they do not want to. I don't believe a private organization, or a person/people limiting what is permissible on their property, infringes the former, though.

I think colleges act as a home/work place beyond their capacity as a dorm. A lot of people practically live in the library for 4+ years, and being harassed by pamphlets at every doorway, or by vibrant imagery in each public space would run into the range I find inappropriate. While I think the ability to express such opinions on campus is important, I think it should be modulated in time and space.

While yes a lot of this could be handled by an appropriate contract, I'm entering this discussion looking at what should be in those contracts rather than discussing their existence. I'm working towards an understanding of freedom of speech I can feel comfortable with, rather than looking how to enforce it.

 

[ManOfMany]

**Note: I will be referring to this issue in the context of the United States. If you're from elsewhere, feel free to join in with views/stories from your country.**

I was trying to find a good time to make this thread and I figured with the RNC happening tonight, now's as good a time as any.

Some background: In recent years, certain college campuses (Or, to be more specific, minority students) have begun to call for speech censors on potentially offensive and hurtful speech. Free speech advocates say that this violates the 1st amendment rights of people who hold unpopular or offensive views.

What do you think? Should offensive speech become illegal? Should it be banned on college campuses? Discuss below.

Given the nature of this discussion I will allow all speech, as long as you treat any other users with respect and allow them to share their opinions.

just saying, college campuses denying certain speakers because of protests isn't anywhere near a violation of the first amendment. It's well within the college's powers to choose who speaks on their public stage, that's a privilege, not a right. I definitely agree with you though that the student organizations should be more open-minded. However they are not, and you can't force them to put some people on the public stage when they decide not to.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I think it depends what's regarded as illegal. Having some extreme hate speech as illegal is good, and I agree with UK with this.
Just don't start making things that are not hate speech become illegal.
Also, if the "offender" has no intent to be racist, then it must not be illegal.
Racism can sometimes be really subjective, and lots of stuff is debatable.
That's why, only the ones that are decidedly racist, downright awful, should be illegal.

Telling the differences between races, whether anthropologically or statistically, should NOT be racist/ illegal.
e.g. Pointing out that Asian men are decidedly shorter than black men, should NOT be racist.
Actually, not even bringing up Racial IQ should be illegal, because racial IQ is thoroughly researched and peer reviewed-- it could be true facts, though unlikely.
Basically, if you have peer reviewed research papers backing up to your comments, it should NOT be illegal.

People who use offensive speech purposefully aren't going to stop just because you passed a law against it. How is that going to be enforced? It's not. It doesn't serve any purpose except appeasing those who would want such a ban.

Why don't you think it will be enforced?
UK does enforce its laws properly with no problems.
If you are caught on camera as proof, you are going to get into trouble if you are in the UK.

 

[FullLifeGames]

So I'm from Germany and we have strict hate speech laws here. If you say anything which is against a minority or could be interpreted as a call of violence, you can be prosecuted.
Because of this there were recently raids of 60+ households because of "hate speech" on Facebook.

I understand that these laws exist because of our history, but I'm strictly against it, because it doesn't really help us.
If you say something wrong here, you're mostly a Nazi, which doesn't solve any problem, especially with the refugees crisis, and only gives the far right parties membership.

I know hate speech can be terrible and that you shouldn't say stuff like "gas all the <insert group here>" , but when it's a method of letting off steam, I think it should be allowed, otherwise those people could get violent.
Personal consequences for posting something like this, happen anyway. I mean, noone would hire a guy, who posts stuff like "gas all the <insert group here>" seriously.


On the topic "offensive speech on campus": I really don't understand why this is an issue. People go to campus to be challenged with new ideas and to learn. Why is then "offensive speech" a problem. If you don't like it, then get some counterarguments ready and have a discussion.

 

[JALMONT]

Why don't you think it will be enforced?
UK does enforce its laws properly with no problems.
If you are caught on camera as proof, you are going to get into trouble if you are in the UK.

How is it enforced? Are there hidden cameras everywhere that can pick up on every word that you say? That would seem kinda scary to me. If random person on the street says that I said offensive phrase x, am I just sent to jail? How can we verify that person's story? What exactly constitutes "offensive" speech anyways?

I personally would draw the line at hate speech, or words that incite violence. But beyond that, speech that is considered "offensive" and the types of speeches I've seen get shut down/protested at my contest make me believe that such things are very debatable. I'm not sure putting the government in a position to make rulings on what is offensive and what is not is the right way to solve the problem (maybe instead we can teach people to be tolerant...)

 

[Minwu]

I don't give a shit about the tone or "offensiveness" of speech, I do think genocidal movements like the Klan should be banned and deserve all the counter-violence they get. So I fully support movements like the recent Sacramento counter-protests.

 

[arugalove]

this piece does a pretty good job of summing up my feelings on the idea of "offensive" speech
https://finenessandaccuracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/i-dont-care-if-youre-offended/

 

[Pyritie]

On the topic "offensive speech on campus": I really don't understand why this is an issue. People go to campus to be challenged with new ideas and to learn. Why is it then "offensive speech" a problem. If you don't like it, then get some counterarguments ready and have a discussion.

Because more and more people are going to unis just because it's pretty much required to get a good job, not because they're actually interested in further education. So you get a lot of people who aren't interested in being challenged with new ideas and are only there for the piece of paper at the end.

So I'm from Germany and we have strict hate speech laws here. If you say anything which is against a minority or could be interpreted as a call of violence, you can be prosecuted.
Because of this there were recently raids of 60+ households because of "hate speech" on Facebook.

I understand that these laws exist because of our history, but I'm strictly against it, because it doesn't really help us.
If you say something wrong here, you're mostly a Nazi, which doesn't solve any problem, especially with the refugees crisis, and only gives the far right parties membership.

I know hate speech can be terrible and that you shouldn't say stuff like "gas all the <insert group here>" , but when it's a method of letting off steam, I think it should be allowed, otherwise those people could get violent.
Personal consequences for posting something like this, happen anyway. I mean, noone would hire a guy, who posts stuff like "gas all the <insert group here>" seriously.


On the topic "offensive speech on campus": I really don't understand why this is an issue. People go to campus to be challenged with new ideas and to learn. Why is it then "offensive speech" a problem. If you don't like it, then get some counterarguments ready and have a discussion.

Yeah I've heard that germany has it pretty bad, and branding people as nazi's is certain people's favourite tactic to discredit someone else's position they don't like.

 

[Cresselia~~]

How is it enforced? Are there hidden cameras everywhere that can pick up on every word that you say? That would seem kinda scary to me. If random person on the street says that I said offensive phrase x, am I just sent to jail? How can we verify that person's story? What exactly constitutes "offensive" speech anyways?

If you are caught on somebody's camera, you basically will get arrested.
That's what it is in the UK.

If not, you might be lucky.

 

[EV]

Yeah I've heard that germany has it pretty bad, and branding people as nazi's is certain people's favourite tactic to discredit someone else's position they don't like.

Huh so it's not just an American thing:

Hide

 

[Outlaw]

I find it both hilarious and sad that segregation is an increasingly popular thing to do on college campuses.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2164

Needless to say, to support the criminalization of "offensive speech" is asinine because it's essentially saying "I'm a special snowflake who needs to be sheltered from points of view I disagree with!!!11" There is a big difference between speech that offends you and forms of speech not protected under freedom of speech. There are very valid reasons for restricting speech that incites violence, and very valid reasons for restricting defamatory speech, because these forms of speech jeopardize someone's safety and damage a person's image, respectively. Speech that offends you just... Offends you, and, news flash: You do not have a right not to be offended. If you're offended by something, prepare counterarguments and debate that point of view, because it turns out free speech is not a one-way street; ideas that are discussed openly and freely are also refuted openly and freely.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

john stuart mill was a huge advocate of free speech, here is a quote from him

"the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race... If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."


Basically if we limit what can be said and our beliefs are never challenged, then learning stagnates. The point being that a person should be able to freely speak even if they are wrong. The prevention of free speech would have disastrous effects upon the people as it would severely limit the opportunity to learn from one another.

 

[TheValkyries]

I find it both hilarious and sad that segregation is an increasingly popular thing to do on college campuses.

Wanting privacy from those who are hostile towards you is not segregation.

 

[sunny004]

Gotta love how we're less than 25 posts in and we're already throwing insults lol

 

[Shrug]

there are opinions, sure, and everyone is entitled to their own, which they can love and caress like a puppy, but some opinions are not opinions but are actually false facts, yes, and these you are not entitled to, not everyone gets their own facts, despite how very unfortunate and sad this might seem. and it is usually not fine or ok but tolerable, and tolerable because of a belief in the right of everyone to free speech and some voltaire-type stuff about everyone sharing an "opinion" and the chance to do so. but when the false fact opinions are planted, purposefully created by racists to defend racist ideals, and then SUPERCHARGED by the speaker's obvious personal racism, you're either figuratively speaking a different language (if you have different facts) or literally speaking a different language (if you have different values creating those facts), and, mmhmm, insults traverse the divide between languages - if i called someone who didnt speak english a motherfucking asshole, he would probably "get" what i was, um saying. so why wouldnt it be applicable here, when a user TheValkyries is speaking to user Outlaw - it's the only thing they'll both understand the same, and communicate more than the body of their respective posts would, to eachother, the point of writing the posts then to be to communicate information to those on the same side.

also liking the irony behind crying about insults in a thread meant to at least criticize a little "safe spaces", when the point of safe spaces is to shield from insults, but in real life insults usually have force behind them in the fact insulted people are usually less advantaged and thus there to be exploited, while on this forum, it's a real safe space: if i (for example) called outlaw a tremendous piece of shit who should be retroactively aborted (i didnt mean that), theres nothing to that, as i cant go back in time and retroactively abort him. contrast that to real life, where if racial insults are hurled, theres usually the chance to back that up with actual violence, physical or otherwise. just something to think about ig

 

[sunny004]

there are opinions, sure, and everyone is entitled to their own, which they can love and caress like a puppy, but some opinions are not opinions but are actually false facts, yes, and these you are not entitled to, not everyone gets their own facts, despite how very unfortunate and sad this might seem. and it is usually not fine or ok but tolerable, and tolerable because of a belief in the right of everyone to free speech and some voltaire-type stuff about everyone sharing an "opinion" and the chance to do so. but when the false fact opinions are planted, purposefully created by racists to defend racist ideals, and then SUPERCHARGED by the speaker's obvious personal racism, you're either figuratively speaking a different language (if you have different facts) or literally speaking a different language (if you have different values creating those facts), and, mmhmm, insults traverse the divide between languages - if i called someone who didnt speak english a motherfucking asshole, he would probably "get" what i was, um saying. so why wouldnt it be applicable here, when a user TheValkyries is speaking to user Outlaw - it's the only thing they'll both understand the same, and communicate more than the body of their respective posts would, to eachother, the point of writing the posts then to be to communicate information to those on the same side.

also liking the irony behind crying about insults in a thread meant to at least criticize a little "safe spaces", when the point of safe spaces is to shield from insults, but in real life insults usually have force behind them in the fact insulted people are usually less advantaged and thus there to be exploited, while on this forum, it's a real safe space: if i (for example) called outlaw a tremendous piece of shit who should be retroactively aborted (i didnt mean that), theres nothing to that, as i cant go back in time and retroactively abort him. contrast that to real life, where if racial insults are hurled, theres usually the chance to back that up with actual violence, physical or otherwise. just something to think about ig

Wait, so are you trying to say that incorrect opinions should be illegal? Or just speaking out against hate speech at a place like a Trump rally?