Aspie96 on Nostr: Thank you for the question! First, I will clarify that I do not mean, with "hate ...
Thank you for the question!
First, I will clarify that I do not mean, with "hate speech", genuine threats or incitement to violence. For reference, I do not include, in this instance, those speech acts which are illegal in the US.
Rather, I am referring to those kinds of speech acts which are currently illegal in EU countries because they promote hate against certain groups, or based on certain characteristics.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. It's not the only one and it must, therefore, be balanced with other rights. An obvious example is privacy: usually you cannot share my personal data, although that is an act of speech, because by doing so you would violate my rights. When this balance is to be struck, freedom of speech mustn't loose or be the one to be restricted by default, not more than any other right, and possibly less, rather a fair determination must be made, holding it in high regard.
When it comes to hate speech, it doesn't, in itself, violate anyone's right which wouldn't also be violated by speech act we should definitely allow, and typically do, as its primary harm is the uncomfortable emotional response it creates, but creating it is at the core of freedom of speech.
It must be noted, most importantly, that the freedom to speak goes right along with the freedom to listen, and there is a lot of value in listening to abhorrent ideas and learning from those who hold them. We must do so if we wish to respond and counter appropriately.
In a democracy, the common mob is the highest authority and shall decide, collectively, what is right and what is to be allowed. Doing so entails being able to communicate, to learn information and to discuss freely.
With hate speech, an argument used to censor it is that it might convince others of the hateful ideas. But who is that we are afraid will be convinced? Is it the very same people who are in favor of censoring it? If so, they should plug their own ears and say "la la la" very loudly, leaving me free to listen, because I share no such fear. Is it everyone else? If so, that is fundamentally anti-democratic.
There is also the fact that censoring hate speech is dangerous, since it leads to the creation of echo chambers of people with hateful ideologies which shield themselves from hearing a response to what they say and are increasingly convinced of their views, but mostly hidden from the rest of society, like a deadly disease with no visible symptoms.
First, I will clarify that I do not mean, with "hate speech", genuine threats or incitement to violence. For reference, I do not include, in this instance, those speech acts which are illegal in the US.
Rather, I am referring to those kinds of speech acts which are currently illegal in EU countries because they promote hate against certain groups, or based on certain characteristics.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. It's not the only one and it must, therefore, be balanced with other rights. An obvious example is privacy: usually you cannot share my personal data, although that is an act of speech, because by doing so you would violate my rights. When this balance is to be struck, freedom of speech mustn't loose or be the one to be restricted by default, not more than any other right, and possibly less, rather a fair determination must be made, holding it in high regard.
When it comes to hate speech, it doesn't, in itself, violate anyone's right which wouldn't also be violated by speech act we should definitely allow, and typically do, as its primary harm is the uncomfortable emotional response it creates, but creating it is at the core of freedom of speech.
It must be noted, most importantly, that the freedom to speak goes right along with the freedom to listen, and there is a lot of value in listening to abhorrent ideas and learning from those who hold them. We must do so if we wish to respond and counter appropriately.
In a democracy, the common mob is the highest authority and shall decide, collectively, what is right and what is to be allowed. Doing so entails being able to communicate, to learn information and to discuss freely.
With hate speech, an argument used to censor it is that it might convince others of the hateful ideas. But who is that we are afraid will be convinced? Is it the very same people who are in favor of censoring it? If so, they should plug their own ears and say "la la la" very loudly, leaving me free to listen, because I share no such fear. Is it everyone else? If so, that is fundamentally anti-democratic.
There is also the fact that censoring hate speech is dangerous, since it leads to the creation of echo chambers of people with hateful ideologies which shield themselves from hearing a response to what they say and are increasingly convinced of their views, but mostly hidden from the rest of society, like a deadly disease with no visible symptoms.