View Topic

Link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

In a poll from Pew Research that came out this week, people were questioned whether they supported the government having the ability to censor speech that was offensive to minorities. There's a lot of interesting data all around, but the main takeaway was that 40% of the Millennial generation (ages 18-34) in America agreed that the government should be able to do so. This compares to 27% of Gen Xer's (ages 35 to 50) and 12% of the Silent generation (ages 70 to 87). Around 28% of Americans in general supported the government being able to do so. Also worth noting is that Europeans were more likely to support censorship of offensive speech, with support ranging from 38% in the UK to 70% in Germany...perhaps for obvious reasons there.

What's your take? Should the government be able to censor or prevent speech that may be offensive to a particular group?

I'd say no. In the end people choose what offends them, so if a minority chooses something to offend them and that means I have to stop saying that, it is an abrogation of my freedom. I think this is a social problem that needs a social solution. That means it won't work every time and sometimes people will get offended, but lets not pretend codifying it into law would prevent it completely either.

Personally, I dont agree with that at all. You cant live in an echo chamber and have any sort of meaningful intellectual growth.

My school is having an open discussion on campus climate and diversity™ soon, and a former professor shared this article about the guy who wrote The Coddling of the American Mind - quite relevant.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt

It actually speaks to what Evelynx was saying. Eventually the moderate left will become so fed up with these extremists that they'll lead the charge for "political diversity" along with gender and racial inclusion.

Fuck freedom of speech. Hate speech, especially the type of hate speech you'll find in Africa, logically leads to mass murders, genocides and all those other lovely things. Some things simply cross the line. You'd be hard pressed to find a South African that supports freedom of speech wholeheartedly, among either those of European descent or those of colour (these include Cape coloureds, Indians, Arabs, and black people, obviously). Germany may take it a bit too far, especially with restrictions on things like saying "Sieg Heil," since that particular expression can be used for a multitude of situations that have nothing to do with nazism, but it's hard to argue with results. They went from a country that had just committed genocide to one of the most progressive countries on Earth. How long has America been fighting the battle against ignorance and losing? Your "freedom" is the root of many of your problems, including your clusterfuck with gun control.

This is something Americans especially never seem to grasp until they've lived in Africa for awhile. Many (not all) of the "crackpot" dictators here are a lesser evil than the alternative. They keep the country flowing relatively smoothly, despite committing many despicable deeds, and it is always the same story. The moment after a "revolution," someone ten times worse becomes the new president for life. Look at Zimbabwe. Mugabe started out as a legitimately good president, and yet through his campaign of hate, he inspired the majority of Zimbabweans to drive all those of European descent out of the country. Many white minorities were murdered like animals, wives raped in front of their husbands, then hung up from ropes by the neck in their barns. The husbands weren't so lucky. They were tortured to death, after watching people who had worked for them for generations, butcher their children in front of them. And this is just too eerily similar to what white South Africans living on farms now face.

And look at Zimbabwe now. Now, those same people who've committed those atrocities, swarm like flies to South Africa looking for a better life. And it is also these same people who are now the victims of extremely violent xenophobia.

So, again I say, keep your freedom of speech. I'll have none of it. No African will.

I have to agree with Eve & PB. What constitutes being offensive is relative and in my experience people search for a reason to be offended, especially minorities. I already have to carefully phrase everything I say because some moron (typically a black person given where I am) will purposely construe what I say as "offensive" and I'm tired of having to choose my words so carefully. That kind of thing is responsible for much violence in America and it burns me up. Minorities are coddled so much in this country and they still search for a reason to be violent. In my part of the country it's commonplace for someone like me (a white person) to be referred to with a racial slur, even if jokingly and it's never bothered me. But if I were to use, for example, the word "monkey" in reference to the actual animal, in a conversation about actual monkeys, a black person would typically construe it as me calling them a monkey. It's about time we stop coddling the world and let everyone grow up already.

While I myself don't understand what's going on over in South Africa, I cannot say for sure that hate speech (while wrong) leads to genocide in all cases. Propaganda and politics, in many instances, play a big role in such things.

Then tell the idiot that he has no context. There's a clear difference between an actual racial slur and idiocy.

Fact of the matter is, there is still a lot of racism from both sides in America, and the entire world really. It's not going to change as long as we tolerate hate speech.

Legislation isn't going to just magically fix that though. We need more aggressive approaches to the matter in education as well as social policy.

True, but legislation is still necessary.

I don't think situations are the same everywhere. To be honest I can't speak to the situation in Africa. Here, we have had freedom of speech for over 200 years without it causing genocide, and honestly without serious free speech related problems as far as I know. The free exchange of ideas is important to our culture.

Right now we are dealing with minorities being offended by what people say, not with threats of violence against minorities. Threats of violence and calls to violent or illegal action are illegal here, and are recognized as a causative agent if the actions are carried out, with the speakers considered complicit in the crimes. We don't have unrestricted freedom of speech.

I certainly don't think Germany's success can be solely attributed to banning certain words and phrases.. at all, actually. Nor was Hitler's rise to power and the subsequent conflicts caused by saying those words.

Honestly I'd have to see this sort of legislation on a case by case... How would it even work? We have the n-word here, but I hear it several times a day in rap music, coming out of the mouths of the people the word is the pejorative for.. prematurely banning the word seems like it would have removed the ability for them to re-appropriate the term for their own use.

I agree with Evelynx that the government should not be able to censor speech considered offensive (at least in the US).

First of all, how does one deem what is and is not offensive? Then if a word is considered offensive, does it have to have a certain degree offensiveness before it needs to be censored? How does one determine the line that needs to be crossed? It's just too fuzzy, and I feel like it would only raise tensions.

Second, offensive speech is not the same as fighting words. Saying racist/sexist/whatever-ist words are wrong (in my view), but they do not incite violence. If they do, then that is considered reason enough to limit speech and is punishable in the US.

Third, the federal government should not be able to decide what is and is not offensive. Private companies do not allow it in the workplace, and if someone who is large enough in the public eye says it, then they get denounced and 9/10 times publicly apologize -- so there is a degree of societal censorship in place already. The government should not get involved in it as people already have problem enough with the government not being "for the people" and overstepping boundaries, and I likewise feel it is not their place. Besides, people will say what they want to say when it comes to ignorance/bigotry/hate anyway -- legislation won't change that.

However, I cannot say the same things for other countries as they are in different social/political situations than the country in which I live.

In addition, since when has legislative banning actually worked? They tried it during prohibition and that failed...massively. So that simply isn't an option. The only way to get rid of hate speech is to educate the people so that a societal norm can be established. A gradual process, but it works.

Then tell the idiot that he has no context. There's a clear difference between an actual racial slur and idiocy.

Fact of the matter is, there is still a lot of racism from both sides in America, and the entire world really. It's not going to change as long as we tolerate hate speech.

Hate speech is subjective and can be abused if censored, and in the US, people who disagree with the administration have been labelled as racists for instance, and censored under the accusation of being a bigot.

I myself have lost a friend who accused me of being a bigot because I defended someone's right to express something she considered as hate speech. 

“Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege to do so, too.” - from one of Voltaire's 1901 essays.

In a way, we had a similar debate here a few weeks ago...not over hateful content, but content that made some people uncomfortable, and I think the things I said there apply here...it's easy to say that Germany goes too far, but once the precedent is in place what's to prevent a slippery slope over time? How can you say that content x is offensive but not content y? And before you know it it's difficult to exchange provocative ideas and thoughts just because they're provocative. Only 25 years ago a vast majority of people would have considered support of the LGBT community in America morally offensive. Would speech supporting it have been banned under such a policy?

That being said, there are real problems in America with racism and bigotry...I don't think they stem from free speech, I think they stem from a historical lack of will in America to deal to come to grips with these problems. After World War II, the Allies established a massive and intense shaming campaign as part of their denazification drive, directly blaming the German people for the actions of the Nazis, including the Holocaust, which most German civilians hadn't even been aware of prior to that point...it had a potent effect, and things such as the ban on speech considered pro-Nazi came from that.

Spoiler

"These atrocities: Your Fault!"

In contrast, there was no such coming to grips after the American Civil War, which ended slavery. After the war most people were more concerned with national unity and rebuilding the south than the newly freed slaves, and after it ended the states were allowed to adopt laws restricting their rights...which 100 years later would lead to the need for a Civil Rights Act. In both cases, the symptoms of racism were dealt with, but not the sentiment behind it. With the election of President Obama, many people even believed that racism had been overcome in America, but as events of the past few years have shown it most certainly has not.

I suppose the clear difference here (and in all of Africa) is that hate speech almost always incites violence. Therefore the moment someone DOES commit hate speech, we clamp down pretty hard. That's not to say some people don't get away with it, but still.

Things like Trump's defamation of people's characters also wouldn't fly in many places outside the US.

Free speech actually doesn't extend to things that will incite violence or riot...
And much of Trump can actually make a good slander and libel case, if only any of us had the real money/popularity to fight him...