https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1idzfg2/should_we_have_freedom_of_hate_speech/
created by arogantant on 30/01/2025 at 22:26 UTC
57 upvotes, 4 top-level comments (showing 4)
Freedom of speech itself I agree with. However, hate speech is used as a weapon, to inflict terror. To force action. So I'm having a hard time bringing that with freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Even with propaganda and obvious bias it seems required and necessary.
Comment by BernardJOrtcutt at 31/01/2025 at 08:20 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This thread has been closed due to a high number of rule-breaking comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive criticism. /r/askphilosophy is a volunteer moderator team and does not infinite time to moderate threads filled with rule-breaking comments, especially given reddit's recent changes which make moderation significantly more difficult.
For more about our subreddit rules and guidelines, see this post[1].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 30/01/2025 at 22:55 UTC
36 upvotes, 1 direct replies
There's been lots written here. The SEP is a good place to look: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/[1] and previous version: https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/[2]
1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
2: https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/
There's also an SEP on hate speech: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hate-speech/
Here's a Philosophy Compass paper that provides a look at some of the issues and recent thought: "Freedom of expression":
This article surveys the classic and contemporary literature on the nature and limits of freedom of expression (or free speech). It begins by surveying the main philosophical justifications for free speech, before moving to consider the two most discussed topics in the free speech literature: hate speech and pornography. The article offers some brief reflections on the large number of arguments which have been offered on these topics. Three newer battlegrounds for free speech are examined at the end: no platforming, fake news and online shaming.
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12759
Comment by VickiActually at 30/01/2025 at 22:46 UTC*
27 upvotes, 8 direct replies
In the UK, we have what's called Freedom of Expression - same deal in principle. But our freedoms / rights are considered to end at the moment you impede on someone else's freedoms.
You have the freedom to express anger. But if you express your anger through murdering someone, you're impeding that other person's right to be alive. Likewise, I have the freedom to say whatever I want. But my freedom ends the moment I'm impeding someone else's freedom to live peacefully, to live without persecution, etc. Happily, this also means that others don't have the right to impede my freedoms.
Some US conservatives like to say "in the UK you don't have free speech!" No mate. I'm free to say what I want - why do you *want* the freedom to shout racial slurs at minorities?
Slurs and hatred do still happen. In practice it's only serious cases that people get arrested for. Harassment, public order, etc. Take harassment as an example. Let's say someone has been repeatedly leaving voicemails, sending letters, and they graffitied your house. That's harassment (and criminal damage for graffiti). If their harassment was on the basis of a protected characteristic - i.e. your gender, race, religion, etc - then the charge is more serious. It could be "racially motivated harassment", for example. This basically increases the charge, and is intended to deter the spread of hatred. This does also protect straight white men.
Edit: also regarding news media, there's careful guidelines around slurs etc. The reason for that is to stop you stirring up hatred. Slurs are not serious analytical discussion, they are just hatred. Think of it like shouting "fire" in a theatre, or falsely shouting "terrorist" in an airport. Yes you'll be arrested - public order. You're doing it just to cause alarm. In the media's case, it would just be to spread hatred. For fiction, there's softer rules. But the take-away is, stopping the news from just posting slurs is actually *better* for analytical engagement.
Comment by AutoModerator at 30/01/2025 at 22:26 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
2: https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/panelists
Want to become a panelist? Check out this post[3].