From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.
From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.
Free speech must include all speech including the hateful one simply because “hateful” can be manipulated to mean anything.
Pro-Palestine is an example that was given already. But others might also say that being pro abortion is hateful speech. You might disagree but whoever is in the power is the one that gets to define what hateful means. And that’s why free speech must shelter hateful speech as well.
I’m a bit torn on this, because it looks like doxxing someone or driving them to suicide on-line should also be considered free speech and protected.
Although maybe it’s more about the fact that you may be held accountable for what you say but can’t be banned from saying it? But then again all the protesters would be prosecuted the same way.
In the end, I think the problem with hate-speech law enforcement is in the ones who do the enforcement and not in the fact that these laws exist. As far as I know, pretty much every law can be stretched enough to oppress someone if you’re hellbent on doing that and have a broken law enforcement (which seems rather common nowadays)
If the information is publicly available, then it’s not a violation. If it’s an invasion of privacy or harassment (according to legal standards), then that’s a violation that isn’t protected.
In general, even in the strongest realizations of free speech, expression that directly harms (rather than merely offends) isn’t protected.
This link kinda contradicts the thing you said about principles in my opinion. But then again, I should educate myself more on the matter
Rights/liberties necessarily limit each other where they conflict. A right to be unharmed, for example, may limit freedom of expression.
Beyond necessary limits, principles don’t need compromises. The linked harm principle explains a well-recognized, necessary limit.
In practice, it’s treated as narrow limits on incitement to imminent, lawless action; deprivation to peace & privacy; defamation; violation of intellectual property. Basically, anything that directly harms no matter if ignored.
In contrast, merely offensive expression can simply be ignored (or reciprocated with expression of any kind) without conflicting with rights, so it doesn’t need to be limited.
Thus, terroristic threats or targeted, persistent threats (that put a reasonable person in fear of their safety, thus depriving their rights) aren’t protected. Neither are false claims that deprive them their livelihood nor false warnings that cause panic & reckless endangerment.
Blanket statements that vilify a group of people, ill wishes, falsehoods that don’t incite immediate action, etc, don’t directly raise conflicts that necessitate limits.
If someone commits suicide because of online words from a stranger then they were not mentally well in the first place, and maybe shouldn’t be online at all but rather getting help. Doxxing is not quite free speech? It’s an action taken against an individual. Free speech for example doesn’t grant people the ability to accuse you of crimes Willy nilly, if they do so they are liable for defamation.
But that’s neither here nor there, platforms as private spaces have a right to limit free speech as much as they want. I don’t think it’s good for society when they use that power too strictly, and the fact that they did for about a decade I think it’s one of the main causes of the rise of the alt right, but it’s a right the platforms have. Just like you can kick someone out of your house for saying something you don’t like. When one says free speech what is meant is that someone in a public space can say whatever they want, be it hateful or not.