Is hate speech considered free speech? (Debate)

[Xero_Daxter]

Yes or no?

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

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

I have absolutely refused to provide service to people as a business if they speak in an overly offensive way.

Yes. Technically there´s an offer, and someone who accepts that offer to have a contract. Both can say no. Independent of what they say and without reason.

But here it´s about communication in the public, and a contract, which can be changed, without asking the costumer to renew the contract. Like when they change the forum rules, or in general even if they change their terms of agreement.

The way the forum rules are handled here - are more like they could reduce it to one rule:
1. We act as we see fit, without further explanation. Try to keep civil.

But anyways - i´m unsure if this is connected to the topic really, as it´s rather about hate speech, and if it should be used regularly, because it´s possible and always nice to read...

[Chaosolous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

I think that it does matter yes. The reason is because you could run around on the street saying racial slurs if you wanted to (I don't recommend it) but if you walk into a store and just start spouting slurs at people they'll tell you to leave. I know I would.

That same logic aligns with an online space owned by a private entity.

It would matter *somewhat*. But if so many people communicate with each other online, I believe that should start to matter more at some point. Why should it even be an argument that those companies are "privately owned"? So many people are communicating there 24/7, worldwide, that's where it happens. So that's where free speech vs. censorship matters as well.

There's reason to consider how the sudden shift in communication behavior via the change in technology should handled, yes. I said that before.

However, the reason it matters is because if Steam bans you they cannot have you arrested for the reason they banned you. You are welcome to use the Epic Game store, the other variety of other game related forums and store fronts, purchase a Play Station or any other variety of avenues to find a place where you can conduct yourself in a way that you feel you should be able to. That's the free market.

If you get arrested you don't get to shop for a new government or go anywhere other than jail.

[Chaosolous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Triple G:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

I have absolutely refused to provide service to people as a business if they speak in an overly offensive way.

Yes. Technically there´s an offer, and someone who accepts that offer to have a contract. Both can say no. Independent of what they say and without reason.

But here it´s about communication in the public, and a contract, which can be changed, without asking the costumer to renew the contract. Like when they change the forum rules, or in general even if they change their terms of agreement.

The way the forum rules are handled here - are more like they could reduce it to one rule:
1. We act as we see fit, without further explanation. Try to keep civil.

But anyways - i´m unsure if this is connected to the topic really, as it´s rather about hate speech, and if it should be used regularly, because it´s possible and always nice to read...

We're not publicly communicating though, we're communicating openly on a private platform. I think for me that's the difference. If I understood you correctly.

Free Speech, hate speech and the intertwining of that with how we as a public interact with each other and companies kind of is on topic, but you're right, we're digressing a bit.

[Heitor Villa-Lobos]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Heitor Villa-Lobos:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights say we have a right to dignity.

That speaks against racism as well as it deffends consent.

If you harm others, you are past your own rights.

Your rights end where someone else's begin.

Um no it doesn't "speak against racism". Why do you always project your own little story onto everything so readily? Do you not understand that it's just one single perspective?

What "dignity" means is completely subjective and arbitrary. I could claim that you attack my dignity by trying to censor what I can say or not.

I don't get it. Are you insinuating your perception of the world is multiple while I experience it as a single entity?

Or that Racism is "my own little story" and not something fought back through years of struggle?

Cut everyone a break. Your privilleged point of view does not invalidate everyone you disagree with.

[blacksunchaos]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Xero_Daxter:

Yes or no?

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

Yes. All speech is free, and those who fantasize about consequences rarely dole them out.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

It would matter *somewhat*. But if so many people communicate with each other online, I believe that should start to matter more at some point. Why should it even be an argument that those companies are "privately owned"? So many people are communicating there 24/7, worldwide, that's where it happens. So that's where free speech vs. censorship matters as well.

There's reason to consider how the sudden shift in communication behavior via the change in technology should handled, yes. I said that before.

However, the reason it matters is because if Steam bans you they cannot have you arrested for the reason they banned you. You are welcome to use the Epic Game store, the other variety of other game related forums and store fronts, purchase a Play Station or any other variety of avenues to find a place where you can conduct yourself in a way that you feel you should be able to. That's the free market.

If you get arrested you don't get to shop for a new government or go anywhere other than jail.

When platforms become big, that starts to become less true. They aren't exactly "private" either. Maybe on paper they are, but in practice, government has their hands in it. Think about covid for example and all the things which happened on the platforms with that.

You can go somewhere else, but the same censorship is in the other place! Or you can go somewhere which doesn't have that, but also doesn't have so many people.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Heitor Villa-Lobos:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Um no it doesn't "speak against racism". Why do you always project your own little story onto everything so readily? Do you not understand that it's just one single perspective?

What "dignity" means is completely subjective and arbitrary. I could claim that you attack my dignity by trying to censor what I can say or not.

I don't get it. Are you insinuating your perception of the world is multiple while I experience it as a single entity?

I have my personal perspective as well, of course. But I at least realize that it is my perspective. You show no signs of realizing that. If you did, you wouldn't say the things you say.

[Chaosolous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

There's reason to consider how the sudden shift in communication behavior via the change in technology should handled, yes. I said that before.

However, the reason it matters is because if Steam bans you they cannot have you arrested for the reason they banned you. You are welcome to use the Epic Game store, the other variety of other game related forums and store fronts, purchase a Play Station or any other variety of avenues to find a place where you can conduct yourself in a way that you feel you should be able to. That's the free market.

If you get arrested you don't get to shop for a new government or go anywhere other than jail.

When platforms become big, that starts to become less true. They aren't exactly "private" either. Maybe on paper they are, but in practice, government has their hands in it. Think about covid for example and all the things which happened on the platforms with that.

You can go somewhere else, but the same censorship is in the other place! Or you can go somewhere which doesn't have that, but also doesn't have so many people.

Would you not have the opportunity to invest your own capital to create your own space if you wanted to though? It might be wildly impractical as a response but it would be an option and with the right efforts and luck (because success does require luck as much as anything else) it could succeed.

I don't see any reason why a racist person wouldn't be able to start their own racist game front if they wanted. I just use racism as an example but anything hate speech related would apply to that.

I don't think they'd be able to get anyone to host actual games on it though because that affiliation would be bad for their business' bottom line as whole.

Anything Covid related and how that was handled is a topic for another thread but I do understand the connection you're making.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Chaosolous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von loerepoot:

When platforms become big, that starts to become less true. They aren't exactly "private" either. Maybe on paper they are, but in practice, government has their hands in it. Think about covid for example and all the things which happened on the platforms with that.

You can go somewhere else, but the same censorship is in the other place! Or you can go somewhere which doesn't have that, but also doesn't have so many people.

Would you not have the opportunity to invest your own capital to create your own space if you wanted to though? It might be wildly impractical as a response but it would be an option and with the right efforts and luck (because success does require luck as much as anything else) it could succeed.

I don't see any reason why a racist person wouldn't be able to start their own racist game front if they wanted. I just use racism as an example but anything hate speech related would apply to that.

I don't think they'd be able to get anyone to host actual games on it though because that affiliation would be bad for their business' bottom line as whole.

Anything Covid related and how that was handled is a topic for another thread but I do understand the connection you're making.

Well, I guess that is already sort of happening. For example, reddit is woke paradise. Twitter is more right leaning. Etcetera. Twitter might have the largest degree of free speech of the major platforms. It might even be sort of anti-woke nowadays? Not sure. So yes, that freedom is (still) there. To a certain degree though. If gov starts pressuring them, like with covid, it becomes significantly less so.

[xDDD]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Hæsel:

Hate speech should never be free speech; otherwise, you're opening the Pandora's box of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in allowing Islamic terrorists, as well as neo-Nazis, to directly speak to an audience, with no stigma, and propaganda is a key element in radicalizing individuals.

Just because it's free speech doesn't mean there isn't a stigma, it just means it isn't illegal.

[xDDD]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Hæsel:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von xDDD:

Just because it's free speech doesn't mean there isn't a stigma, it just means it isn't illegal.

Regardless, in doing so, you're allowing these forces to exist and seduce people's intellect through today's means of communication. It's not just about being able to say the N-word on a public platform or not. & frankly, I'm not interested in seeing people say the most degenerate ♥♥♥♥ and hide behind free speech. There's already enough harmful content and opinions out there.

Allowing them to exist??? Woah buddy, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about arresting (or killing) people because they have ideas that you don't like?

If their stance is so wrong then say the right one. Simple as that. If you are reasonable and they are unreasonable then most people will go with your stance.

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von xDDD:

If you are reasonable and they are unreasonable then most people will go with your stance.

That´s not how it works. Else all politicians and marketing people would work with reason instead of trying to touch the emotions of the people.

[livinggg]

Hate is an idea that just like love, doesn't exist as anything other than an attempt to explain a physical and emotional phenomenon that happens because our united consciousness is segmented and restricted to our bodies. On another scale or strictly of that which is tangible, love and hate may be simply our imagination and not necessary or functional outside of our perspective.

Freedom of speech (anything) is a bit different. The concept is a bit more distinctive, relative to love and hate, it is objective from any perspective because it is always subject to the constraints of reality, which we can all accurately decipher as a certainty of existence within a rule set. Freedom is anything we don't impose on ourselves as a matter of objectivity.

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a natural law, a natural right and one that can't be legislated against. It exists outside of perspective and perception, unlike love and hate, which require the isolation of consciousness.

[Hobbit XIII]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bisder🎗:

Hate is an idea that just like love, doesn't exist as anything other than an attempt to explain a physical and emotional phenomenon that happens because our united consciousness is segmented and restricted to our bodies. On another scale or strictly of that which is tangible, love and hate may be simply our imagination and not necessary as functional outside of our perspective.

Freedom of speech (anything) is a bit different. The concept is a bit more distinctive, relative to love and hate, it is objective from any perspective because it is always subject to the constraints of reality, which we can all accurately decipher as a certainty of existence within a rule set. Freedom is anything we don't impose on ourselves as a matter of objectivity.

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a natural law, a natural right and one that can't be legislated against. It exists outside of perspective and perception, unlike love and hate, which require the isolation of consciousness.

You might want to look at the laws in Britain about that.

[livinggg]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Hobbit XIII:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bisder🎗:

Hate is an idea that just like love, doesn't exist as anything other than an attempt to explain a physical and emotional phenomenon that happens because our united consciousness is segmented and restricted to our bodies. On another scale or strictly of that which is tangible, love and hate may be simply our imagination and not necessary as functional outside of our perspective.

Freedom of speech (anything) is a bit different. The concept is a bit more distinctive, relative to love and hate, it is objective from any perspective because it is always subject to the constraints of reality, which we can all accurately decipher as a certainty of existence within a rule set. Freedom is anything we don't impose on ourselves as a matter of objectivity.

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a natural law, a natural right and one that can't be legislated against. It exists outside of perspective and perception, unlike love and hate, which require the isolation of consciousness.

You might want to look at the laws in Britain about that.

The thing about laws...the ones we create for ourselves must always be in line with those that we do not create for ourselves, otherwise the conflict between the two will establish that what we desire as law, is not.