Is hate speech considered free speech? (Debate)

[Xero_Daxter]

Yes or no?

Disclaimer: I don't hate anyone. I love everyone.

[Gym Leader Rory wants to battle!]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Thalatos:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Magical Girl Polycule:

Hate speech should not be included in any law that governs freedom of speech. Words meant to hurt or incite violence should always be met with punishment.

I disagree. Because words are just words and just because someone decides words are now hurtful or bad, it should not be banned. It literally cauterizes the whole purpose of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Freedom of speech means I can say whatever tf I want. Not my problem if others feel offended by it, they have the good right to feel offended, so what ?

Look at it, look what they nowadays consider hate speech, basically everything that criticises whatever group of people.

Some people who cant be civil and kind do not deserve freedoms or rights tbh.

[TwisterCat]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

My first thought goes to killing. Killing is objectively something society says is wrong. However, the context for why you would kill someone matters.

I'm not sure most Americans would saying killing is wrong. They'd definitely say murder is wrong. But the only reasons some people would object to the idea of "killing", is because murder is also under that blanket term.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

That makes it vague. Let's say it is about whether you should be banned for it or not. Then it needs to be clear. It can't be both objective and contextual.

I know that there are some words which you cannot say here, and it seems to be absolute. It is not even allowed if you quote it to refer to the word itself. That is very strict, but at least it is clear. There can be no misunderstandings with that.

Well, I mean, I think something can be objective and contextual at the same time because it's on different parallels.

My first thought goes to killing. Killing is objectively something society says is wrong. However, the context for why you would kill someone matters.

There's a difference between killing someone you pass on the street and killing someone who's attempting to break into your home or cause you harm. Then there's the context of killing during war. Objectively we still, as a society, say killing is wrong but contextually it can be justified or given "a pass."

Maybe that's not a good comparison but it's just what sprang to my mind first.

Yes, I get that. But that is just philosophy. We need to make it practical. There is this user and he said this and that. I am a moderator looking at the report, am I going to ban him or not? How are you going to get from the objective+contextual to a single outcome, yes or no?

[Chaosolous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Well, I mean, I think something can be objective and contextual at the same time because it's on different parallels.

My first thought goes to killing. Killing is objectively something society says is wrong. However, the context for why you would kill someone matters.

There's a difference between killing someone you pass on the street and killing someone who's attempting to break into your home or cause you harm. Then there's the context of killing during war. Objectively we still, as a society, say killing is wrong but contextually it can be justified or given "a pass."

Maybe that's not a good comparison but it's just what sprang to my mind first.

Yes, I get that. But that is just philosophy. We need to make it practical. There is this user and he said this and that. I am a moderator looking at the report, am I going to ban him or not? How are you going to get from the objective+contextual to a single outcome, yes or no?

Genuinely I don't think I follow the last question, can you clarify?

[SvarogX]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TwisterCat:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

My first thought goes to killing. Killing is objectively something society says is wrong. However, the context for why you would kill someone matters.

I'm not sure most Americans would saying killing is wrong. They'd definitely say murder is wrong. But the only reasons some people would object to the idea of "killing", is because murder is also under that blanket term.

What if we start calling killing :" Eliminating " ?

Makes the conversation way more easy doesn't it ?

Now if you are being asked, is it wrong to eliminate an innocent priest on his way home from church or a burglar who violently broke into your house holding a firearm in his hands, what would your answer be ? And would judges and court still talk about " murder " or killing? If yes, in what case ?

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Yes, I get that. But that is just philosophy. We need to make it practical. There is this user and he said this and that. I am a moderator looking at the report, am I going to ban him or not? How are you going to get from the objective+contextual to a single outcome, yes or no?

Genuinely I don't think I follow the last question, can you clarify?

There are objective and contextual aspects to what the user said. But I need to decide whether to ban him, or not. It's completely binary. I can't "sort of" ban him. How am I going to make that decision?

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Yes, I get that. But that is just philosophy. We need to make it practical. There is this user and he said this and that. I am a moderator looking at the report, am I going to ban him or not? How are you going to get from the objective+contextual to a single outcome, yes or no?

Practical would be to forward it to the authorities, so a court can answer the questions, and not some low wage mod with no education, in case he is human, and the punishment is a ban, when everyone can just have another account.

[Chaosolous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Genuinely I don't think I follow the last question, can you clarify?

There are objective and contextual aspects to what the user said. But I need to decide whether to ban him, or not. It's completely binary. I can't "sort of" ban him. How am I going to make that decision?

As a private platform, however your policy dictates. If it's no tolerance then context would not matter. That would be my answer.

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chunk Norris ☯:

Most people think they support free speech but they don't. Steam doesn't believe in free speech. Nor do they believe in objective hate speech but does anyone besides maybe the public forum? Twitter is MUCH better then it used to be. I can say things on it that would get me banned here, but there's still limits on it.

And one just has to see Elon Musk being sued by various world governments to see many other countries don't value free speech either.

The issue with this kind of thinking for me though is the definition of free speech at that point.

The way I look at it, free speech is exclusively and only the government. If you can go outside and say the words you want to while standing on your property (even if people ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hate you for it) and not get arrested, then you have free speech.

Steam, Twitter, etc, are not the government. They have every right to kick you off their platform and set rules for what they allow. Just like I can kick you out of my house if you're there and speak in a way I wouldn't condone.

Also, to Gumball's point earlier, death threats and stuff of that ilk are not protected under free speech. That argument in the U.S. was settled a long time ago.

Yes and no. There are government protections. I'm not 100% but I believe that Steam is a Publisher since they heavily moderator their content. Someplace like Twitter is supposed to be a platform..now the reason I'm talking about the two is there's alot of protections in place to protect platforms since they act as the public forum/public soap box. Whereas publishers are viewed as specifically adopting certain view points.

However they don't enforce Platforms who are supposed to be non-bias and allow more views very well.

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

As a private platform, however your policy dictates. If it's no tolerance then context would not matter. That would be my answer.

Yes - but no private company should be able to make rules which are above the laws, because that defeats the point in making laws. And that goes both ways - if it´s about limits, and if it´s about rights. Also it´s questionable how private this thing here is, when everyone in the world can read it....

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

There are objective and contextual aspects to what the user said. But I need to decide whether to ban him, or not. It's completely binary. I can't "sort of" ban him. How am I going to make that decision?

As a private platform, however your policy dictates. If it's no tolerance then context would not matter. That would be my answer.

Ah, but that doesn't work. Because the policy is very vague. Things which are "offensive" aren't allowed. But what does that mean? Offensiveness is a very arbitrary concept. It is not only subjective but also contextual on multiple levels. We need to consider the context of the conversation, but also the culture it is taking place in. It is impossible to capture all of that in a neat list of rules.

[TwisterCat]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Thalatos:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TwisterCat:

I'm not sure most Americans would saying killing is wrong. They'd definitely say murder is wrong. But the only reasons some people would object to the idea of "killing", is because murder is also under that blanket term.

What if we start calling killing :" Eliminating " ?

Makes the conversation way more easy doesn't it ?

Now if you are being asked, is it wrong to eliminate an innocent priest on his way home from church or a burglar who violently broke into your house holding a firearm in his hands, what would your answer be ? And would judges and court still talk about " murder " or killing? If yes, in what case ?

Maybe not. Especially if you remove the word "Innocent" from the equation. I can't think that far. My answer might be a simple no, but then pair the case with a whole ideology, and an essay about the person that was killed, and so on. Lines can be blurred.

I think murder in particular has a sour connotation. Many would consider it exclusive to humans, and law. All words are subject to change, I've been told. I'm not a fan of that idea.

[Yew Nough]

The real question is, "Is it free speech if it costs you something?"

[Chaosolous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

As a private platform, however your policy dictates. If it's no tolerance then context would not matter. That would be my answer.

Ah, but that doesn't work. Because the policy is very vague. Things which are "offensive" aren't allowed. But what does that mean? Offensiveness is a very arbitrary concept. It is not only subjective but also contextual on multiple levels. We need to consider the context of the conversation, but also the culture it is taking place in. It is impossible to capture all of that in a neat list of rules.

I think that this point is diverging from the original conversation of free speech and the government. This point you make though is why you shouldn't have laws dictating it. Private companies are allowed to set policy in accordance with how they would like conduct to be done.

Being vague as a corporation not beholden to the first amendment (in the US at least) is beneficial to the company and allows for the differences in discretion on a case by case basis.

This has very little to do with free speech though and is more akin to a philosophical discussion about whether objectivity and context are parallels or opposites.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Triple G:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

As a private platform, however your policy dictates. If it's no tolerance then context would not matter. That would be my answer.

Yes - but no private company should be able to make rules which are above the laws, because that defeats the point in making laws. And that goes both ways - if it´s about limits, and if it´s about rights. Also it´s questionable how private this thing here is, when everyone in the world can read it....

Once you, as a company become global, there's all sorts of dicey wishy washy places you're probably going to find yourself dancing in regards to various governmental regulations.

Correct though that no company can supersede laws, that should be without saying.

"Private" to me is by the definition of: "Not controlled directly by the Government but still subjected to laws and regulations."

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

I think that this point is diverging from the original conversation of free speech and the government. This point you make though is why you shouldn't have laws dictating it. Private companies are allowed to set policy in accordance with how they would like conduct to be done.

Being vague as a corporation not beholden to the first amendment (in the US at least) is beneficial to the company and allows for the differences in discretion on a case by case bases.

This has very little to do with free speech though and is more akin to a philosophical discussion about whether objectivity and context are parallels or opposites.

I don't agree with this "government" thing. It doesn't matter if Steam is a private business or not, we can talk about whether there is free speech on these forums or not. The concept is just as valid here, people are talking and there is an authority which can exert control over that.