Mark,
"One problem with this line of argument: what do you do when you have real evidence that hate speech does lead to violence, injury, even death? "
Actually, there is the flip side as well. What happens when this kind of "good intention" becomes steadily and incrementally deeper entrenched until it becomes orthodoxy? Political correctness, of course.
Though not inherently inevitable, it is a truism of human nature that we then tip over into actually using violence, injury, and death to enforce the orthodoxy and protect the high priests who became the gate keepers of what constitutes hate speech.
Al Sharpton, anyone?
"One problem with this line of argument: what do you do when you have real evidence that hate speech does lead to violence, injury, even death?"
Er, use existing laws to prosecute, and do so vigorously... you know, the way civilized nations do sometimes?
Really Mark!! I don't know whether to laugh or not.
Ran: I did write "I suppose separate laws on incitement to illegal action, rather than the hateful content itself of the speech, might deal with the problem."
But maybe some times, in some places, they may not deal adequately.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark,
"But maybe some times, in some places, they may not deal adequately. "
I'm not trying to pick on you but again, I can see the opposite case.
The laws are designed to deal with real hate speech but allow legitimate dissent
...
"But maybe some times, in some places, they may not deal adequately. "
Gov't power being so overwhelming and absolute and all.
Best not to give them the opportunity in the first place...or at least give us the ability to protect ourselves against them...(cough, 2nd amendment, cough)
As your quote demonstrates, Mill was defending free speech as the road to "truth". Leaving aside the philosphical problems with this (what do you do when you have found truth, as presumably you must allow for because you are spending so much time searching for it?) and conceding that we know what he meant in general terms, surely he was concerned with the stifling of opinion. He lived within memory of heresy and tough sedition laws and was advocating the classical right of dissent.
But apart from challenges to multicult sacred texts, that is not usually what today's issue is. Nobody gets into trouble for questioning the Trinity or advocating a republic. Much controversial public speech in our era relates to assertions one has the right to express one's opinions in vulgar, offensive or inflammatory language, and I wish Mill could return to give us his take on that. Whatever the merits of that cause, it has nothing to do with a search for truth and little to do with any attempt to persuade. Does anyone really believe the Danish cartoons send any message other than a highly evocative: "Your religion disgusts us."
I think what divides strict libertarians from social conservatives here is that, while both treasure free speech, the later understand that excessive offensive speech will eventually favour the bigoted and have reasonably forseeable negative consequences grounded in human nature that you can't dismiss as secondary or avoid simply by citing Mill or Tom Paine. That need NOT be the same thing as being milquetoast weak or fearful, although I admit it can be hard to tell the two apart today regarding Islamism. At some point the extreme libertarian view dissolves in absurd abstracts. Does it really make sense to insist the state has absolutely no business interfering with my right to hurl angry epithets at my neighbour about his race, culture or religion but then demand it send a SWAT team pronto if he hurls a rock through my window in response (private property, you know)?
Maximum public freedom rests on maximum private piety and civility, not just on abstract theory. Free-speechers should fight HRT's to the death, but also carry bars of soap with them at all times to wash out potty-mouths.
"Does it really make sense to insist the state has absolutely no business interfering with my right to hurl angry epithets at my neighbour about his race, culture or religion but then demand it send a SWAT team pronto if he hurls a rock through my window in response (private property, you know)?"
Yes. Sticks and stones, and all that. Your epithets can only damage me as much as I let them.
But what if my epithets terrify your family and children?
Posted at 2008-02-17 07:32:45 [PermaLink]"One problem with this line of argument: what do you do when you have real evidence that hate speech does lead to violence, injury, even death? As in Germany before and after the Nazis came to power. I suppose separate laws on incitement to illegal action, rather than the hateful content itself of the speech, might deal with the problem. But what if one can clearly demonstrate that hateful content in fact did lead individuals to such illegal actions?"
I have to comment on the assumption that hate-speech and similar laws could have stopped the Nazis if they'd been in place in Weimar Germany. Contrafactuals are impossible to prove, but this case is pretty darn certain: No, they wouldn't have, but they would not have been used. A remarkable feature of the Weimar Republic was that the judiciary (mostly hangovers from the Wilhelmine period) were reactionary, and notorious for letting off right-wing radicals while using the full force of the law against left. Hitler himself escaped the death penalty for his 1923 coup attempt, serving 18 months in the equivalent of a minimum-security prison. Any number of charges could have been brought against the Nazi paramilitaries prior to 1933. Hate laws weren't necessary to stop Hitler - if the will had been there - and - absent the will - they wouldn't have been sufficient.
"But what if my epithets terrify your family and children?"
In what way, Peter? If your family is "terrified" by me saying fuck, then frankly, that's just too fucking bad. If your family is terrified by me saying that I will arrange to have your house / business / synagogue fire-bombed then that is already caught under criminal law.
You continue to plead for the State to enforce civil behaviour. While I welcome civility (perhaps not as much as you do), I absolutely reject the State's involvement, as I fear their intrusion MUCH more than I welcome civility
"Does anyone really believe the Danish cartoons send any message other than a highly evocative: "Your religion disgusts us.""
No - should we not be free to express that view? It also provided the opportunity (rather grandly missed, it goes without saying) for Muslims to respond by saying (or showing) that despite a profound insult, they were mature enough to restrain themselves to verbal responses.
"Your religion disgusts us."
Is that really the only message they sent? The message they were *meant* to send was "We will not be intimidated by threats of violence."
Considerations on Representative Government
Book by John Stuart Mill; H. Holt and Co., 1890
"Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any
force, there is a primâ facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the governed. One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to determine, with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves. But, when a people are ripe for free institutions, there is still a more vital consideration. Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, can-not exist."
IP:
Really? I would have thought that message would have been better conveyed by a picture of Christ with a bomb, rather than Mohammed. But then I suppose the United Church would have wrecked it all by rushing to assure them that Christianity is a Religion of Peace.
Dcardno:
"You continue to plead for the State to enforce civil behaviour."
I had hoped I was clear I was pleading for all of us to enforce civil behaviour and public language so the State could worry about roads and armies and stuff. Because if we don't and you and your pals do start running around hurling f--k epithets at everybody will-nilly, the State will eventually get involved somehow and you will have only yourselves to blame. Are you arguing that you have a constitutional right to yell f--k at kids? Wow, Let Freedom Ring!
DJ:
I guess that explains why Switzerland, Canada, India, Spain, Belgium and even the U.S. are such oppressive tyrannies.
"I had hoped I was clear I was pleading for all of us to enforce civil behaviour and public language..."
No - you continue to argue that we must do so, *or else the State will* - to wit: "...the State will eventually get involved somehow and you will have only yourselves to blame." That's not a call for tempered discussion - it's a threat.
"Does it really make sense to insist the state has absolutely no business interfering with my right to hurl angry epithets at my neighbour about his race, culture or religion but then demand it send a SWAT team pronto if he hurls a rock through my window in response (private property, you know)?"
Yes, it does, actually. What's your point - other than the implication that the State *does* have an interest in regulating my speech about my neighbour and his conduct?
A threat? You do me honour, Sir. Would that I had that power. But ok, I'll try and play: Listen up, Dcardno, clean up your mouth or I WILL VOTE FOR THE OTHER CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE AND TRY TO CONVINCE THE MISSUS TO JOIN ME! Be afraid, Dcardno, be very afraid.
But here's one for you. A couple of years ago I noticed our municipal bus company (quasi-public) posted notices on the buses saying they would be issuing citations (state authority via the Municipal Act) for obscene or abusive language. Old J.S. might have been rolling in his grave, but I was mightily impressed. Was I naive in failing to understand that this was just the first step along the slippery slope to statist tyranny?
Sorry, Peter - we were talking about different things. I was referring to political speech or comments on public policy; you were talking about disturbing the peace. I have less concern about the latter - it goes along with anti-noise bylaws and the like - while I think the former is worth protecting, even if "offensive" to some (including you). The fact that you started your discussion with a reference to JS Mill ("...surely he [Mill] was concerned with the stifling of opinion") and then continued with expression of opinion ("relates to assertions one has the right to express *one's opinions* in vulgar, offensive or inflammatory language..." - my emphasis), had me confused.
Posted at 2008-02-19 14:56:27 [PermaLink]