Freedom of Speech doesn't exist

[Dr_Liszt]

I'm going to try to express myself the best way I can. I'm going to try to make my point across as to why I think the whole "freedom of speech" cry is hypocritical.

1.The West values Freedom of Speech. Is bullshit. One of the biggest violators of freedom is the West. People think freedom should be protected at all costs. I agree, but what it really means to me is "my right to be free should be protected, screw everyone else as long as it doesn't affect me!" The people who are heard the most, are white people, the people who holds the media, are white people, the government is filled with white people. White people hold the power of freedom of speech, therefore is rigged. And most importantly it's white countries that take away other countries' freedom then come back home and preach to the first word about ideals they themselves are stealing away from the third world. This ideal to me sounds more and more as a tool to keep the power in power at the expense of powerless. You are being brainwashed while we are being silenced. As long as a government exists, freedom of speech WILL be controlled no matter what.

2. We enjoy Freedom of Speech in the West. Is also bullshit. As I stated before, as long as government exists freedom will be controlled. Going around saying "I WANT TO DRAW MUHAMAD ALL I WANT" is NOT exercising freedom of speech, is just being a racist and bigot. Now, this is talking for the United States of America because I'm not familiar in other places. So in the U.S you CAN talk against the government and nothing will happen, yes. But if you open your eyes, you will see that the government WILL be willing to silence you if you speak too much. I seem to be the only one to remember this:



That is a perfect example of the government using their resources to oppress their population. Note that the people there weren't protesting against Islam, or immigrants or anything that is harmful to the status quo. They were protesting against the source of all these problems, against the system, therefore the government WILL suppress this, will silence this and no one will talk about it. This is a violation and attack of freedom of speech. So where are the voices speaking for freedom of speech here? Where were they? Why was all this silenced and not used as propaganda? Because the West controls what should be or not be free.

3. We have the right to be bigots without repercussions.We all know how the government allowing hate speech in the past has led to holocausts and mass murder, so let's not pretend hate speech doesn't have repercussions. Let's not pretend that it's not harmful. It was hate speech that led to the holocaust in Europe, it was hate speech that allowed genocide take place in Rwanda, it was hate speech that allowed massacre of hundreds of people in Yugoslavia. There is a reason why hate speech is dangerous and should be controlled. It's hate speech today that is allowing dehumanization of the millions of people who follow Islam. The Gaza strip is at the brink of genocide by Israel. So why are the governments allowing this? Because it serves their purposes. It's simple. The dehumanization of arabs and Islam serve their purpose.

So this is a call to open your eyes and see the broader spectrum. We are all being oppressed here, you just have to be critical and learn where to look.

[Cassius Clay]

I'm in full agreement, but I think we already know that.

[Cassius Clay]

Just realized what I said could have two different meanings. I mean we already know I agree with you. Not that everybody already knows what you're saying.

[LSK]

This is nearly all wrong.

[1] You've challenged the idea that "The West values freedom of speech" with a couple broad claims:

• The West violates freedoms internationally but promotes those same freedoms domestically
• White people disproportionately hold positions of power and influence—and therefore have rigged the freedom of speech game

The first claim is a relevant counterpoint if the idea is really that "The West" always and consistently values freedom of speech. But who holds that belief? I suspect that the sort of people who would hold that belief are the same people who would completely reject the idea that "One of the biggest violators of freedom is the West."

It is possible to value something inconsistently after all. But this inconsistency doesn't mean that "the West" doesn't value free speech. It just means that its valuation of free speech is constrained by external factors—and, speaking for myself, constrained in an objectionable way. Some countries don't have constitutional protections of free speech. I think they ought to. And I think that the American government's interactions with foreign nations should not be conducted in such a way that limits free speech—or limits people in any way that I am not (legally) limited. The fact that this is not always the case points out deficiencies in the extension of human freedoms to foreign peoples but it doesn't contradict the actual valuation of those freedoms.

The second claim is an extension of the first but places the blame specifically on "white people" rather than just generally "the West." I would need to hear a lot more on how exactly white people have "rigged" freedom of speech to respond to it.

[2] You've argued that "the West" doesn't actually have freedom of speech. Specifically, you've claimed:

• The desire to be offensive, e.g. "I want to draw Muhammad all I want," is not an exercise in free speech; it's racism and bigotry
• The U.S. government silences speech—and nobody objects because "the West" controls freedom

Even if these two specific claims were true—they are not, but even if they were—it would not mean that "the West" doesn't have freedom of speech. It would mean that freedom of speech is delimited by our authorities. That is, it would mean that freedom of speech is not absolute. Some of us think it ought to be; others disagree. In either case, both camps still value freedom of speech and regularly make use of it.

To your first claim: "bigotry" and "free expression" are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they overlap often; for example, when racists in the United States criticize actions of the federal government by portraying President Obama as an ape. This kind of expression—intentionally offensive—is free speech, which is just another way of saying that it's protected speech; protected because we value the right to criticize, and we distrust those who say they know best what kinds of expressions "appropriate" or "inoffensive" or "valuable." How third parties would judge the content of such speech—funny, stupid, offensive, boring, racist, etc.—is irrelevant.

To your second claim: you do not live in the United States, so your lack of awareness of the outrage that is consistently, loudly, and sometimes violently expressed here as a result of police abuse and restrictions on the freedoms that we do indeed value is understandable. Our government does exceed its mandate on a regular basis, and many of us object to it.

[3] You've challenged the idea that he have a right to our "hate speech." Specifically, you claim:

• Allowing hate speech has led to or allowed "holocausts and mass murder" in Europe, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia
• Hate speech is dangerous and should be controlled

The first claim is simply inadequate. Hate speech certainly contributed to the spread of attitudes conducive to mass murder, but you're leaving out a lot of the variables that are needed to translate speech-->attitude change-->coordinated action.

The second claim is different than all the rest in your post in that it's a normative claim: how you think things ought to be. Previously, you've restricted yourself to descriptive claims (most of which I think are incorrect): how you think things are right now. I assume that you think hate speech is dangerous for the reasons you describe in your first claim—that it has contributed to "holocausts and mass murder." But, as I said, this is an inadequate explanation of those events. Even if we accept that hate speech was a relevant variable, how important was it? Would these holocausts and mass murders have been decisively averted if hate speech was restricted? What is the frequency with which hate speech leads to violence? And, anyway, who decides what constitutes "hate speech"? The whims of the current cultural climate which—if history is any guide—will inevitably change? Do we really want to proscribe speech on the basis of what's currently popular amongst the political elite?

I find the very notion gross—even, indeed, offensive.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I agree with jordan

[Gendo]

I just think it's awesome that we actually have real disagreement / stuff to debate and talk about. I swear ever since we left IMDB we've almost always all agreed on everything.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

What LSK said. Also what Gendo said.

[aels]

I swear ever since we left IMDB we've almost always all agreed on everything.

No, we haven't, you fucking idiot

[Cassius Clay]

I agreed with all your mamas last night.

[Cassius Clay]

And I think LSK misses the mark by about 99 miles.

Lizst is trying to communicate something fundamental about power and rights...about how power transcends rights. LSK takes her way too literally at times...missing the deeper point. There's a superficial focus on rights and principals as if they are "real"...or the end all.

It's like you guys have never seen Game of Thrones or something. Who's the true king of Westeros? I mean, in terms of power. By the way some of you are think about "free speech" rights, it's like you would say it was Joffrey, rather than Tywin. Nerd rant ends now.

[LSK]

This is going to sound hostile, but I hope you'll believe me when I say that I don't mean it that way: I can only engage with what's actually said, not with some third party's vague interpretation of the "deeper point."

[Cassius Clay]

This is going to sound hostile, but I hope you'll believe me when I say that I don't mean it that way: I can only engage with what's actually said, not with some third party's vague interpretation of the "deeper point."

I would agree with that. It's not meant to be a major statement.

It's at best a lazy shot in the dark in hopes that it might give you and others a hint of how to, I think, properly interpret her OP. Maybe you might look at it another way. But I can only repeat in so many ways how fundamental power is to this conversation.

[sikax]

Hmmmm yeah I was going to respond with something like, "There's a gap of grey area between seeing rights and freedoms as literal laws and understanding that they're just kind of concepts that aren't really substantiated because they're so assumed and when people talk about it in terms of what's legal and what's not legal the point is missed," but Troy pretty much got it there. It's like, the Civil Right Act was passed in 1964 but no one in their right mind would say all black people's injustices were solved right then and there because it was made into law. And when phe_de turned the other thread into what legal rights Muslim minorities could hope to gain through petitions and campaigning, the central things I was talking about (prejudices, racism, viewpoints...not laws) were derailed. I think Listz is correct in identifying that the White West is corrupting and manipulating and controls a lot of things that can't really be helped. And that sucks. And Jordan is correct in that people have the right to do whatever they want. But we aren't talking about legal rights. That's my point. Ingrained prejudices. Racism. Grey area.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Two points - one quick and one slower...

The quick one is that you talk about Freedom of Speech in "the West" and the right to use that to spread hatred and bigotry. That's not accurate. Many European countries would describe themselves as being in favour of Freedom of Speech, but they have legislation prohibiting it's use to spread hatred or bigotry. It's only really places like America where they hold the right to Freedom of Speech to be so sacrosanct that they'd rather see it used for bad things occasionally than put any limitations on it.

The slower one is that with the Freedom of Speech (as with most "Freedoms") there comes some sort of individual responsibility that it will be used sensibly. If you think about it, the overwhelming majority of laws are passed to tell people what they're not allowed to do as otherwise it's assumed that they are allowed to do it if they want to. If you go back a hundred or so years people could go into their local drug store and buy cocaine. If used in moderation to treat a genuine medical issue there's no issue with this at all. Hell - if used in moderation when there's no medical issue there's no particular issue. But used irresponsibly it could become an issue. So the law makers stepped in and passed legislation preventing it's sale.

And I think that's kind of what happens with Freedom of Speech sometimes. People see that they have this right which means they can say whatever they want, so they don't need to think about the consequences of what they're saying. They don't feel any need to take any responsibility for it. And maybe they should...

I don't think I'm expressing my point very well, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say!

[Dr_Liszt]

It is possible to value something inconsistently after all. But this inconsistency doesn't mean that "the West" doesn't value free speech. It just means that its valuation of free speech is constrained by external factors—and, speaking for myself, constrained in an objectionable way. Some countries don't have constitutional protections of free speech. I think they ought to. And I think that the American government's interactions with foreign nations should not be conducted in such a way that limits free speech—or limits people in any way that I am not (legally) limited. The fact that this is not always the case points out deficiencies in the extension of human freedoms to foreign peoples but it doesn't contradict the actual valuation of those freedoms.

I know the people kind of do. But the first world as a whole doesn't. To me is like a dude saying "I'm a feminist! Look how equal I treat my wife and daughters." and then comes out of the house to beat all the women he sees. And he beats these women so his wife and daughters can have a decent life. How is that being a feminist? I just don't understand how that mindset works because so far the First World values it as long as they are being a benefactor. It reminds me to the white feminists going "well women voting will help white power." It's almost the same thing. You get all your privileges at our expense.

One example that comes to mind of how fucked up the first world is to everyone, is Sweden. Sweden goes around parading itself being a peaceful country with peaceful inhabitants who worship peace above all else in the world.... and they sell war armaments. It's... It's fucking insane! And that is offensive. It's so very offensive it makes me want to kill puppies. That dual mentality and that hypocrisy is what earns the first world a lot of hatred and resentment around the world. And it's earned because I'm getting pissed off right now just thinking about this.

+2 dead puppies.

To your second claim: you do not live in the United States, so your lack of awareness of the outrage that is consistently, loudly, and sometimes violently expressed here as a result of police abuse and restrictions on the freedoms that we do indeed value is understandable. Our government does exceed its mandate on a regular basis, and many of us object to it.

That point was to make a point of how the governments quickly shut down any attention that will challenge the system. Making the point that your government does it too, telling you that you too have limitations to free speech. The difference is that you have more freedom to express it when it serves their purpose. In this case the dehumanization of an entire religion and ethnicity that has stood up against the power.

Just look at the views of that incident, they hardly get to the million views. Look at the comments, people applaud the actions of the police because "damn those leftists asking for a little bit of equality!" As Castor said, you are ignoring power dynamics.

And come on, you saw Shooting Dogs, you have to know that hate speech on the radio not only propagated bigotry, harassed it's victims, but also helped people carry out the massacre of their neighbors.

[Gendo]

[Whitey]

I'm glad my dog isn't a puppy anymore.

[Pope Bucky]

Did a non-white person have the nerve to start a thread?

Plus, I think she (SHE!!!) isn't American!

What's the world coming to?