We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Facebook is Dangerous! Delete Your Acount Now!
Comments
-
Ooh whilst we often agree, on this I disagree.
But I know we can have a normal discussion about this.
I don't believe Hate Speech is a thing. I understand what people mean by it, but I absolutely believe that all speech should be protected - that with which I agree and that with which I disagree.
Whilst I have many reasons for this, here is one:
Let's hypothetically say 'Bill' - a local shopkeeper, is racist.
In scenario 1: You and I know he is racist, he is open about it, because the law does not look to stifle his freedom of speech. We both decide not to support Bill's business enterprise, we shop elsewhere. - now if we accept that society as a whole agrees with our stance (ie that racism is wrong) Bill will be out of business rather quickly.
In scenario 2: The law prevents Bill from expressing his thoughts, we don't know he's secretly a racist. We continue to use his business and give him money. Is that morally better?
Just for edification any speech which 'calls for action'
IE to harm someone is not the same thing; additionally shouting fire in a crowded room etc.
Should not be classed as free speech.
In other words: "I may not agree with what you say, but I agree with your right to say it"
The problem is with hate speech is that, in my opinion, all of it is a call to action. Saying 'I hate X race because of X reason' can either cause disgust, as in your case, or for people to say 'you know what, youre right, X does do X!' Just because you know that YOU are not going to listen to Bill's hateful commenbts, does not mean other impressionable people wont think 'Bill is right, lets all think like Bill.' I mean look at Shamima Begum! If the hate videos and websites hadnt been around, would she be in Syria right now? Maybe.. maybe not. But it can be harmful to be exposed to such things.
I am not on Yaxley-Lennons page, so I do not know the types of things he is doing. He appears to be smart enough to not say things himself, but support others who ARE saying those things, just as bad IMO.
Anyway, all hate speech is illegal in the UK anyway where YL is based, so its not really a moral policing thing, but an actual policing thing. Its not in America unless inciting violence but the things he is accused of are very clearly inciting violence.Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:
Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes
Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups
Public remarks that include hate speech targeted at a specific group in society
Public calls for violence against people based on race, ethnicity or national origin.0 -
"Hate speech" should not have been introduced as a legal term, imho. It shouldn't be assumed that we are all gullible enough to be persuaded by it.
Closing down "hate speech" stops us seeing what motivates the speaker, and so we are unable to get to the root of the problem and provide counter-arguments.
It's all very well locking up radical religious hate speakers now, but what if a future government decides it's "hate speech" to disagree with their policies?
More freedom of speech, please!0 -
KatrinaWaves wrote: »The problem is with hate speech is that, in my opinion, all of it is a call to action. Saying 'I hate X race because of X reason' can either cause disgust, as in your case, or for people to say 'you know what, youre right, X does do X!' Just because you know that YOU are not going to listen to Bill's hateful commenbts, does not mean other impressionable people wont think 'Bill is right, lets all think like Bill.' I mean look at Shamima Begum! If the hate videos and websites hadnt been around, would she be in Syria right now? Maybe.. maybe not. But it can be harmful to be exposed to such things.
I am not on Yaxley-Lennons page, so I do not know the types of things he is doing. He appears to be smart enough to not say things himself, but support others who ARE saying those things, just as bad IMO.
Anyway, all hate speech is illegal in the UK anyway where YL is based, so its not really a moral policing thing, but an actual policing thing. Its not in America unless inciting violence but the things he is accused of are very clearly inciting violence.
Interesting perspectives be, but I believe people are responsible for their own actions.
By all means we should call out such speech; but I don’t believe it should be done via the state.
I guess what I’m saying is that hate speech shouldn’t be illegal. When the state starts to police thought and speech - it’s a slippery slope.0 -
"Hate speech" should not have been introduced as a legal term, imho. It shouldn't be assumed that we are all gullible enough to be persuaded by it.
Closing down "hate speech" stops us seeing what motivates the speaker, and so we are unable to get to the root of the problem and provide counter-arguments.
It's all very well locking up radical religious hate speakers now, but what if a future government decides it's "hate speech" to disagree with their policies?
More freedom of speech, please!
Out of interest, whats your opinion on the current labour anti semitism row...0 -
KatrinaWaves wrote: »The problem is with hate speech is that, in my opinion, all of it is a call to action. Saying 'I hate X race because of X reason' can either cause disgust, as in your case, or for people to say 'you know what, youre right, X does do X!'
I agree with this nuanced take.
The alternative is vigilantism by people who got fed up with racial slurs getting thrown at them whenever out in public. Best to deal with a few disgruntled racists than a racial solidarity movement that has been hardened by the rhetoric aimed at them.
Tbh, I don't know whether or not I prefer the idea of bigots getting taken to task, but I know the general public prefers peace.0 -
I think people should feel free to say what they think, and those of differing opinions should feel free to counter that.KatrinaWaves wrote: »Out of interest, whats your opinion on the current labour anti semitism row...0 -
I don't believe Hate Speech is a thing. I understand what people mean by it, but I absolutely believe that all speech should be protected - that with which I agree and that with which I disagree.
Whilst I have many reasons for this, here is one:
Let's hypothetically say 'Bill' - a local shopkeeper, is racist.
In scenario 1: You and I know he is racist, he is open about it, because the law does not look to stifle his freedom of speech. We both decide not to support Bill's business enterprise, we shop elsewhere. - now if we accept that society as a whole agrees with our stance (ie that racism is wrong) Bill will be out of business rather quickly.
In scenario 2: The law prevents Bill from expressing his thoughts, we don't know he's secretly a racist. We continue to use his business and give him money. Is that morally better?
Unfortunately I don't think scenario 1 is what would happen. By allowing Bill to openly spout his racism, he has a platform to influence others. They can, even subconsciously, start to take on board his views (lets call the 'the Daily Mail effect'). And people are not rational; they believe all sorts of rubbish - even if there's strong evidence to the contrary. When Bill tells Betty all sorts of half-truths and outright lies, Betty believes it and tells others.
In economic terms, people spend where it's cheapest, irrespective of much else (lets call this 'the Sports Direct effect'). So in fact Bill doesn't go out of business, he remains open and continues to provides propaganda.0 -
ThumbRemote wrote: »Unfortunately I don't think scenario 1 is what would happen. By allowing Bill to openly spout his racism, he has a platform to influence others. They can, even subconsciously, start to take on board his views (lets call the 'the Daily Mail effect'). And people are not rational; they believe all sorts of rubbish - even if there's strong evidence to the contrary. When Bill tells Betty all sorts of half-truths and outright lies, Betty believes it and tells others.
In economic terms, people spend where it's cheapest, irrespective of much else (lets call this 'the Sports Direct effect'). So in fact Bill doesn't go out of business, he remains open and continues to provides propaganda.
That’s fine. That’s life; it’s not the job of the state to tell people what to think0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards