Free speech vs Hate speech
- Thread starter Yubel
- Start date
it was not me who brought it up. its the way this thread progressed. if you do not care to read this then leave. no one is forcing you to participate.
you have 2 instances of genocide. on one you can do research on or openly deny it. on the other you can not. its against the law.
this is not some anti-semitic agenda or whatever nonsense someone comes up with. its the simple fact that I fucking hate hypocrisy and love free speech.
people act like the moment these laws would be abolished we go straight back to genocide... mental as fuck.
in germany even anti-judiasm gets twisted into anti-semitism all the time. like they are interchangable. islamophobia is cool though, no problem there. anti-christian? sure, go for it. shit on hindus? yeah w/e.
why did someone bring this up? cause its the most glaring example right now where freedom of speech is inhibited. wether you agree with it or not.
this is exactly what I meant earlier.
restricting freedom of speech is cool for the guys who disagree with the opinion that is restricted. be it on a forum or somewhere else.
this is dangerous.
I will leave it at that. just one more thing.
you are not immune to propaganda and neither am I.
take care
you have 2 instances of genocide. on one you can do research on or openly deny it. on the other you can not. its against the law.
this is not some anti-semitic agenda or whatever nonsense someone comes up with. its the simple fact that I fucking hate hypocrisy and love free speech.
people act like the moment these laws would be abolished we go straight back to genocide... mental as fuck.
in germany even anti-judiasm gets twisted into anti-semitism all the time. like they are interchangable. islamophobia is cool though, no problem there. anti-christian? sure, go for it. shit on hindus? yeah w/e.
why did someone bring this up? cause its the most glaring example right now where freedom of speech is inhibited. wether you agree with it or not.
this is exactly what I meant earlier.
restricting freedom of speech is cool for the guys who disagree with the opinion that is restricted. be it on a forum or somewhere else.
this is dangerous.
I will leave it at that. just one more thing.
you are not immune to propaganda and neither am I.
take care
Last edited:
You donut, as a normal human being you shouldnt talk about either in such manner regardless of the law or not.
Whether it is Armenian or Holocaust it is a shit thing to discuss both like they didnt happen
Same goes for anti islam, anti christian and everything anti. Ive seen bashing on all sides.
Fuck the laws, this is about being a decent human being. And if you wanna go aroubd and spew anti genocide/holocaust or anti this or anti that ideology you can fuck off
Whether it is Armenian or Holocaust it is a shit thing to discuss both like they didnt happen
Same goes for anti islam, anti christian and everything anti. Ive seen bashing on all sides.
Fuck the laws, this is about being a decent human being. And if you wanna go aroubd and spew anti genocide/holocaust or anti this or anti that ideology you can fuck off
Having a different opinion isnt always "talking smack".
Taking criticism and addressing it without lashing out is a skill that needs to be learned.
If you come up to any guy from any country and for no reason say some dumb shit, you could get smacked but I dont think that's what's discussed here(I didnt follow the discussion either tho).
Taking criticism and addressing it without lashing out is a skill that needs to be learned.
If you come up to any guy from any country and for no reason say some dumb shit, you could get smacked but I dont think that's what's discussed here(I didnt follow the discussion either tho).
I actually agree with you to some extent.
The best way to counter any sort of speech is more speech. Silencing or censorship amounts to lack of tolerance which isn't good.
Also, I do agree that often we come across hypocrisy and subjectivity when it comes to interpreting what constitute hate speech. For example, personal insults thrown by users are in itself should amount to hate speeches but many times its tolerated.
With that said, I think you are overlooking one major aspect of free speech - no speech or form of expression can be absolute. There is always reasonable restrictions imposed for greater common good like integrity of a nation.
What constitutes reasonable restrictions define the thin line between free speech and hate speech which manifest in form of content of the speech, intention of the speaker and consequences of the speech.
Let's take holocaust as an example coz that's what upto discussion.
Case A- denying holocaust
Content of the speech - coming out with new scientific / historical evidence related to it
Intent of the speech - to highlight correct historical facts
Consequences of the speech - scientific / open debate on the matter which will result into better understanding of the event.
This doesn't amount to hate speech. Infact, such speeches are welcome but very few people are capable of producing new evidences and they do so in scientific journals or historical journals/ research papers and not on social media.
Case B - Denying holocaust
Content of the speech - distorting historical facts or simply opinions denying holocaust
Intent - propoganda or movement to generate enmity against one group to spread racism or gain political votes. This is started by only few but many jump on the wagon blindly.
Consequences -
Thus, you can clearly see that we often come cross Case B of denying holocaust which is clearly a hate speech and that's why isn't allowed.
Though I agree that same should be applies on other speeches related to such events like communism.
The best way to counter any sort of speech is more speech. Silencing or censorship amounts to lack of tolerance which isn't good.
Also, I do agree that often we come across hypocrisy and subjectivity when it comes to interpreting what constitute hate speech. For example, personal insults thrown by users are in itself should amount to hate speeches but many times its tolerated.
With that said, I think you are overlooking one major aspect of free speech - no speech or form of expression can be absolute. There is always reasonable restrictions imposed for greater common good like integrity of a nation.
What constitutes reasonable restrictions define the thin line between free speech and hate speech which manifest in form of content of the speech, intention of the speaker and consequences of the speech.
Let's take holocaust as an example coz that's what upto discussion.
Case A- denying holocaust
Content of the speech - coming out with new scientific / historical evidence related to it
Intent of the speech - to highlight correct historical facts
Consequences of the speech - scientific / open debate on the matter which will result into better understanding of the event.
This doesn't amount to hate speech. Infact, such speeches are welcome but very few people are capable of producing new evidences and they do so in scientific journals or historical journals/ research papers and not on social media.
Case B - Denying holocaust
Content of the speech - distorting historical facts or simply opinions denying holocaust
Intent - propoganda or movement to generate enmity against one group to spread racism or gain political votes. This is started by only few but many jump on the wagon blindly.
Consequences -
- hatred against one group.
- Generating enmity on basis of race and ethnicity
- Inciting violence
- justifying that a particular group falsified history to portray themselves as victims of biggest genocide in human history,
- justifying crimes against humanity and fuels racism and genocide.
Thus, you can clearly see that we often come cross Case B of denying holocaust which is clearly a hate speech and that's why isn't allowed.
Though I agree that same should be applies on other speeches related to such events like communism.
As I said, when something is true, it is true, whether someone wants to deny it, distort it or whatever...
And when it comes to historical events... History is often written by the winners so the truth is what they say truth is while it easily could be the opposite. You have a perfect example in One Piece - Void Century is off-limits to debate because something stinks, something that will expose the "truth" written by the winners - World Government.
And when it comes to historical events... History is often written by the winners so the truth is what they say truth is while it easily could be the opposite. You have a perfect example in One Piece - Void Century is off-limits to debate because something stinks, something that will expose the "truth" written by the winners - World Government.
Thing is this isnt Void Century. Holocaust didnt happen 900 years ago. We still have people alive that went through it, we got so much evidence and an easy access to it.
And then you have people that come and deny holocaust and stuff, spread propaganda that clearly hurts people and causes a lot of conflict and racism
With that in mind, should be totally fine to shutdown people that wanna dispute Holocaust. Dont you agree?
And then you have people that come and deny holocaust and stuff, spread propaganda that clearly hurts people and causes a lot of conflict and racism
With that in mind, should be totally fine to shutdown people that wanna dispute Holocaust. Dont you agree?
Let them deny it all they want, they will not change anything...
People deny Earth being round-ish and you think they wont deny something like Holocaust? lol
People these days are looking for ways to get offended so whether you want to or not, you will probably offend a Karen or two...
If they want to dispute it, let them. Tell them what they need to disprove, with facts, not with their opinions...
Some people make it their life's mission to say the contrary to everything, dont waste your life on proving them wrong...
People deny Earth being round-ish and you think they wont deny something like Holocaust? lol
People these days are looking for ways to get offended so whether you want to or not, you will probably offend a Karen or two...
If they want to dispute it, let them. Tell them what they need to disprove, with facts, not with their opinions...
Some people make it their life's mission to say the contrary to everything, dont waste your life on proving them wrong...