Should Homophobic Speech be Protected as Free Speech ?

yellum

Should Homophoobic Speech be Protected as Free Speech ?

We are all entitled to Free Speech, so should homophobic speech be allowed ?

BuffyBot

My main beef with this concept would be: If you ban one sort of speech, where do you draw the line?

vibe666

personally, I think everyone has the right to say what they want, but not at the expense of others, regardless of how you may feel about certain a type of person.

its not right or accepted to make racist remarks (well kinda) or sexist ones, and people have gotten in a lot fo trouble for doing so, so why should people be allowed to do so against someone for having a different sexual preference?

everyone has the right to be the person they are as long as that doesn't hurt others, and as long as whoever it may be is living within those boundries they have the right not to be persecuted by someone for being the person they are.

[/rant]

just a note on the subject in case anyone was wondering: this is the opinion of a happily straight man who would consider himself on the middle ground of the whole issue.

ixoy

Difficult question. From a I-wanna-be-liberal perspective, then yes. But then that also allows you to spread racist propaganda á la Combat 16 or the BNP.
The legal line - IIRC - is anything that's inflammatory or advocates violence. Which is why you can't have a Nazi rally. And homophobic speeches tend to be inflammatory as they're generally about denigrating gays and placing them below everyone else. Since this can lead to violence (and certainly prejudicial behaviour) I'm ultimately going with a "no" on the issue. I wonder if we'd get a bigger debate on this on the Humanities board?

yellum

I'll leave this thread here for the regulars that only browse this and a few other forums, then I'll move it over to Humanities.

De Rebel

A speech which is based on a fear of homosexuality or homosexuals, and which proposes opinions and views based on those fears may or may not be deserving of protection as free speech. It depends on the exact content and to a lesser degree on the context.

In a civilised society, one expects "respect for others" to kick in and guide behaviour in such areas. Attempting to legislate for "reasonableness" and "consideration for others" is a nightmare.

More than almost any other body, the US Supreme Court has put a lot of effort into defining/protecting Freedom of Speech. I have found some of Eugene Volokh of UCLA's treatises on the topic very enlightening. For instance,

The judge or jury must conclude not only that the speech was offensive, based on race, religion, sex, or some other attribute, but also that it was either "severe" or "pervasive" enough to create a hostile or abusive environment for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person.

There are norms associated with Free Speech, and these apply to a speech representing homophobic views just as they do to all other expressions of opinion. Certainly anything that can be deemed as an incitement to hatred or violence and which directly threatens is unacceptable to me, irrespective of whether its target is queers, jews, blacks or whatever minority is flavour of the month.

US Supreme Court, Virginia v. Black, At Issue: "The constitutionality of Virginia's law against cross burning"
By a five-vote majority, and in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that portion of the Virginia statute that prohibits the burning of a cross with intent to intimidate. Burning a cross with intent to intimidate represents a "true threat," Justice O'Connor wrote, explaining that true threats "encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. . . . Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. . . . ome cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so." (Note: Justice O'Connor's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Breyer. Justice Thomas did not join the opinion, but stated in his dissent that he agreed with the majority that the Constitution permitted a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate. Thus, the Court's holding on this issue actually had the support of six justices.)

For me, I would like to think that i have protection from a speech (and anything else for that matter) that threatens or intimidates me. However I am not sure that i feel the need to be protected from a speech that i simply find offensive. Reversing the protection, does a speech that I find offensive, but which does not threaten or intimidate me deserve protection - I would have to conclude that it probably does.

Typedef

Free speech is free speech.

Not ... "Free speech... so long as noone feels offended".

Yoda

In some jurisdictions it has been suggested that free speech which incites to the hatred or injury of another person or group of people can lead to the justified prosecution of the speaker.

De Rebel

Originally posted by Typedef
Free speech is free speech.

Not ... "Free speech... so long as noone feels offended".

Offence is easily dismissed; I think we agree on that. What about when it goes beyond that, and intimidates, threatens and incites hatred? Does the speaker have any responsibility for the consequences of his speech? Do you envisage any limits being placed on the speaker?

Yoda

One suspects that TypeDef respects the notion of responsibility for one's actions, De Rebel.

Typedef

Saying "I hate queers"
and saying "Go bash queers", are two totally different things.

One is a personal statment, the other is incitement to violence.

In a civilised society, one expects "respect for others"

Indeed, and it is also expected that by that tennent, someone may have a radically divergant view from yours, which is their entitlement to hold, so long as it causes no harm to others.

I could be a Jew hating, leather clad neo-nazi thug called Boris. I could hate the untermenchen breeding all around me, that is my entitlement as a citizen of a free country.
If I go and do harm to somebody Jewish, incite others to do harm in some way to that person, I've crossed the line from my strangeness being my business, to my strangeness/beliefs/lifestyle being somebody else's problem.

If a right winger expresses his/her disdain at homosexuality undermining the fabric of society, whilst it may be insulting, it is simply an opinion and an exercisal of free speech, no matter how much one might disagree with it.

Basically.

De Rebel

Sounds like pretty much every poster to date is on the same wavelength then. Sticks and stones and all that.

No dissenting views?

yellum

Moving time.

Get thee to a Humanities board !

Actually, will I move it or let it stay here ?

De Rebel

Originally posted by yellum
Actually, will I move it or let it stay here ?

Move it I say. Its not going to develop here with all this boring unanimity.

BTW, the absence of a Yellumish opinion is noted.

yellum

Yellumish opinion follows ..

I believe in free speech and I also believe that speech that incites violence is wrong. Its sometimes a tough line to police this though and this is why now and then mistakes are made by those that govern us and we have them either going too far one way or too far the other way.

Yeah I know another boring PC statement.

To humanties we go..

chill

You have to differentiate betwen prejudice and bigotry and incitement.

Using the law as a stick against bigotry is extremely counterproductive and innefective anyway as it only build more resentment. The best weapon society has against such attitudes is our everyday social acceptance.
When I har someone near me spout bigotted trash I show them very clearly how much I oppose it. Too many people allow it to continue without comment.

We cannot and should not have a society that prosecutes people for being ignorant or prejuced.

But we should prosecute them when they cross the line to incitement.

Imposter

So is the content of the opinion/speech itself the problem or the possibly oversensitive nature of the person who becomes enraged with this content when perhaps other people would just be offended by it?

Yoda

Can't you tell for yourself?

tendofan

Umm.. I'm uncomfortable with restricting people's freedom of speech in any way. It's probably naïve, but I think that if one censors something it may be driven underground and become ghettoised, thus giving it a self-sustaining, insulated and unchallenged environment; whereas if it is openly discussed it is easier to expose the irrationality of such a prejudiced position.

Tendofan.

Nevyn

No not everyone can tell for themselves Yoda, if a person is brought up believing it is perfectly fine to speak or refer to people in what would be considered offensive there has to be a standard set by society to say what is offensive.

Why else to companies when hiring employees take the time in training courses to explain that it is not permissible to comment inappropriately on a persons gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

We are all taught what are acceptable codes of conduct from an eerily age, i.e. don’t hit other children, don’t call other children names. Is it infringing on the right to free speech that it is not
A good thing to call another person a " cry-baby" to a " c u nt" to a " disgusting fag " and hurt their feelings?

There is no true Free speech in such a fashion but it is like censorship we have to have some censorship, so we live as ever in a state of compromise where what is acceptable constantly changes and we have to be careful that things don’t slide too far.

The whole thing is very subjective.
But if the intent was to harm in whatever fashion it should not be tolerated.

Yes language is constantly evolving,
And we have seen the sting being taken out of a lot of words over the years, the reclaiming of words that were once used to degrade certain people being turned on their heads,
from bitch to fag and one of the few terms that is still considered in the USA and here on Boards.ie as too aggravating to be allowed, N i g g e r.

The Corinthian

I note that there’s been a fair bit of consensus in this thread, so I’ll try to ruin that now

What happens if someone makes the statement “the Holocaust never happened”? Certainly it’s offensive but to argue that it’s incitement to hatred is arguable.

Should something like a comparison between the systematic killing by the Germans who were Nazis and systematic killing by the Jew who were Bolsheviks be permitted?

Or Perhaps Family Guy is anti-Semitic?

Even when I recently I recounted an observation by a friend that most of the Neoconservatives in the US administration were Jewish and that many of the policies being pushed forward were more beneficial to Israel than America - to which I was accused of inciting hatred?

Now I’m not specifically targeting Jews - The book ‘the Bell Curve’ is an example of a similar case, involving African-Americans - but it is probably the best contemporary example of where the argument that freedom of speech may also incite hatred will get blurred, or at least where speech that may incite hatred is most zealously discouraged.

So when does an observation or criticism becomes an incitement to hatred?

Syth

The only cure to free speech is more free speech.

Yoda

In our society, one is free to act. In our society, one is free to speak.

Our elected representatives have enacted legislation, however, which provides certain sanctions for certain kinds of action and speech.

Relevant to the topic of this thread is this for instance.

Hobart

I suppose "Free Speech" and the "incitement" argument also depends on the context. For example if I was at a Neo-Nazi rally and I stodd up and said that I was Homosexual and respected all Jews as equals I could be accused as inciting those people to violence.

If I say the same thing at a gay jewish rally, if such a thing exists, well then it is easily accepted.

Where does one draw the line a free speech?

Yoda

At the responsibility one must take for having it.

Hobart

Originally posted by Yoda
At the responsibility one must take for having it.

I think you may have to expand your answers Yoda. Aspirations are one thing. Reality is another.

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
Where does one draw the line a free speech? [/B]

As others have said, it's in the context.
If you expect to have a strict demarkation line where one can measure every statement and come up with a solution as to whether it is plain old bigotry or incitement then you will be disappointed.

We have to accept that we will always have ignorant people, bigotted people, prejudiced people in this world. It's part of the human balance that comes with having great people, philanthropic people, generous and giving people.

The idea that we can criminalise these prejudices is a serious mistake.

I believe we need always to err on the side of non criminality and allow societal pressures to deal with these appalling people. Only where there is a clear effect of incitement to violence or other injurious action should be resort to the law.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
As others have said, it's in the context.

Actually I said it

If you expect to have a strict demarkation line where one can measure every statement and come up with a solution as to whether it is plain old bigotry or incitement then you will be disappointed.

So by that analagy there is no such thing as free speech. Just contextual speech?

We have to accept that we will always have ignorant people, bigotted people, prejudiced people in this world. It's part of the human balance that comes with having great people, philanthropic people, generous and giving people.

But is that not the whole point of this thread. One mans bigot is another mans hero. One has to be very careful about labelling another a bigot etc..... Just because another does not share your point of view, it does not necessarily follow that he/she is ignorant etc...

The idea that we can criminalise these prejudices is a serious mistake.

I agree. However I still think that there has to be a level of social acceptance. And in a way I contradict me previous point by saying that. However i believe that exploitation of areas such as paedophilia and racism are still no-go areas.

I believe we need always to err on the side of non criminality and allow societal pressures to deal with these appalling people.

Sometime societal pressures are not enough.

Yoda

It's not like we're inventing democracy here, folks.

In our society, one is free to act. One is free to commit murder, or to steal, as much as one is free to teach or to plough. In our society, one is also free to speak.

Our elected representatives have enacted legislation, however, which provides certain sanctions for certain kinds of action and speech.

If you murder or steal, you may suffer consequences for those acts. Similarly, incitement-to-hatred legislation has been approved in order to deal with certain problems which have arisen regarding speech. Apparently this legislation is in the best interests of all.

I for one find the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church that certain lifestyles are "evil" to be deeply offensive, and, indeed, dangerous, as that organization claims to have authority to tell otherwise democratically-elected legislators what to do. We are, I think, fortunate to have certain legislation in Ireland which would discourage government from marching to the orders of the Vatican regarding partnership legislation.

(Not that the current government appears to be interested in doing anything about it.)

Sangre

Originally posted by Yoda
It's not like we're inventing democracy here, folks.

In our society, one is free to act. One is free to commit murder, or to steal, as much as one is free to teach or to plough. In our society, one is also free to speak.

That couldnt be phrased any worse Yoda. We are able to commit murders etc, it does not mean we are 'free' to do so, I would have thought that was pretty self evident.

Anyway, I would aspire towards the non-realistic total freedom of speech, but in regards to incitment to violence, where does one/or where can one draw the line?

I will also have to agree on the context, how the speech is delivered, the crowds reaction etc?
If at a GLB pride parade, someone makes a speech calling everyone fags and homos, the crowd starts getting mad and violent, then to continue is surely incitment.

But it is not black and white, but a muddy, blurry grey matter which we can drown in....

Deep.

Yoda

Grumble. As agents embodied in the world of form, most of us have the wit and wherewithal to select which actions we engage in and which we do not. As such, we are free to choose what we do and say, absent more specific coercion (such as slavery).

As an intelligent species, we learn that our actions have responsibilities. As members of civilized societies, we appoint authorities to enact specific sanctions when crimes are committed.

With freedom comes responsibility. That is why "free speech" isn't entirely free of consequence.

That's different from other kinds of oppressive censorship. Iranian writer Nikahang Kowsar has a lot to say about that http://sicknick.org/archives.shtml

yellum

Originally posted by Sangre

If at a GLB pride parade, someone makes a speech calling everyone fags and homos, the crowd starts getting mad and violent, then to continue is surely incitment.

To continue is stupidity or bravery. If a neo-Nazi made an anti-gay speech at a pride march and the marchers turned on him I wouldn't really call that incitement to violence but it would mean the person caused the crowd to turn on him/her. The crowd should be charged really, they should know better.

I would think its only incitement if the nazi made a speech to people urging them to commit violent acts or acts which would lead to violence.

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
Actually I said it

Touche

So by that analagy there is no such thing as free speech. Just contextual speech?

No such thing as limitless free speech. No such thing as limitless freedom.

But is that not the whole point of this thread. One mans bigot is another mans hero. One has to be very careful about labelling another a bigot etc..... Just because another does not share your point of view, it does not necessarily follow that he/she is ignorant etc...

Yea and No. We have alread drifted slightly off the whole point of the thread anyway but let's not lose it completely by getting into a discussion about what is prejudice and what is bigotry..

I agree. However I still think that there has to be a level of social acceptance. And in a way I contradict me previous point by saying that.

I don't believe in social acceptance of bigotry and prejudice. Quite the opposite, I believe society should show it's anathema of it clearly and demonstrably.

However I believe that exploitation of areas such as paedophilia and racism are still no-go areas.

I don't know what that means but it sure sounds subjective.

Sometime societal pressures are not enough.

That's why prejudice and bigotry will always exist.

.
.

AngelofFire

The biggest problem with homo phobia is that many do not consider it an unnacepable form of descrimination as they do with Racism, Anti-semnitism etc. we have laws in place that prohibit the incitement of hatred against other ethnic groups. The same laws should apply to homophobia.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
No such thing as limitless free speech. No such thing as limitless freedom.

So to get back to my original Question. Where does one draw the line? What is/is not acceptable when it comes to frre speech?

Yea and No. We have alread drifted slightly off the whole point of the thread anyway but let's not lose it completely by getting into a discussion about what is prejudice and what is bigotry..

I disagree. I believe that that is exactly what the thread is about.

I don't believe in social acceptance of bigotry and prejudice. Quite the opposite, I believe society should show it's anathema of it clearly and demonstrably.

You kind of missed my point there. I was trying to say, badly as it turned out, that your peers should be the judge of what is and what is not acceptable. If your peers happen to be a crowd of goose steeping, leader glad, homophobic neantherthals, so be it. However it is not for you or I to label a person a bigot. Because we run the risk of being ignorant of their views. Which, when it happens, turns us into the animal we so despise.

I don't know what that means but it sure sounds subjective.

It is subjective. But I am drifting off subject so I will not drift into an explanation.

Specky

Surely to suppress the right to freedom of speech is actually to promote prejudice. Is it not at the heart of fascism to take away the rights of the opposition so that they can be marginalised and illiminated?

Without freedom of speech it would appear to me unlikely that gay and lesbian issues would ever have have elevated to the position they are beginning to hold now in the mainstream.

Where the problem lies is when people take a "democratic" approach to free speech i.e. there are lots of us with our opinion and hardly any of you with your opinion....so shut up.

This is why there is a constitution, so it can be decided what is right and wrong, and so these rules can be applied consistantly without resorting to mob decision making.

Unfortunately, however, the mob generally has the greatest influence. This is why demonstrations are called demonstrations. Get as many people together with the same opinion and then march them past a small group of people with a different opinion in the hope that the others will shut up or change their minds.

Without debate you're never going to have the opportunity to test your own argument, and without free speech the opportunity for debate is stifled.

Prejudice is best removed through education.

Hobart

Originally posted by Specky
Surely to suppress the right to freedom of speech is actually to promote prejudice. Is it not at the heart of fascism to take away the rights of the opposition so that they can be marginalised and illiminated?

So if I say that facism is a great ideal and should be all of our goals is that me expressing my freedom of speech or is that me being a facist?

Without freedom of speech it would appear to me unlikely that gay and lesbian issues would ever have have elevated to the position they are beginning to hold now in the mainstream.

I would say that at best that assertion is dubious. The "acceptance" of gayness in the "mainstream" would have more got to do with the liberalisation of the populous from the church than the emergence of free speech.

Where the problem lies is when people take a "democratic" approach to free speech i.e. there are lots of us with our opinion and hardly any of you with your opinion....so shut up.

I agree. But you also have to be careful that you do not mix up free speech with democracy.

This is why there is a constitution, so it can be decided what is right and wrong, and so these rules can be applied consistantly without resorting to mob decision making.

Not true. The UK does not have a constitution. And yet it would be comparable to this country in terms of what is socially acceptable and "freedom of speech". Remember it is the home of speakers corner!! Mob decision making can be re-written as the will of the majority or democracy.

Unfortunately, however, the mob generally has the greatest influence. This is why demonstrations are called demonstrations. Get as many people together with the same opinion and then march them past a small group of people with a different opinion in the hope that the others will shut up or change their minds.

Why a small group of people? And demonstrations, IMO, involve a lot more than "marching past a small group of people with a different opinion". What about the educational aspect? Just because I am not marching does not mean I disagree wiith them. I could be just ignorant of what they are demonstrating about.

Without debate you're never going to have the opportunity to test your own argument, and without free speech the opportunity for debate is stifled.

I agree.

Yoda

Constitutions do not exist to tell people right from wrong. Constitutions exist to define and delimit the scope and powers of government.

One of the sad things about the Irish Consititution is that people have set it to "enshrine" "our" dearest values. I'm not sure whether that is right, though. In the US, the values per se are "enshrined" in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Consititution.

But maybe this ought to be another thread.

Specky

So if I say that facism is a great ideal and should be all of our goals is that me expressing my freedom of speech or is that me being a facist?

Well fascism would be you subsequently taking power and removing my right to disagree with you.

I would say that at best that assertion is dubious. The "acceptance" of gayness in the "mainstream" would have more got to do with the liberalisation of the populous from the church than the emergence of free speech.

I didn't actually mention an "emergence" of free speech, what I meant was that without it the issues would not even be available for debate.

I agree. But you also have to be careful that you do not mix up free speech with democracy.

Absolutely. I don't think I did/am.

Not true. The UK does not have a constitution. And yet it would be comparable to this country in terms of what is socially acceptable and "freedom of speech". Remember it is the home of speakers corner!! Mob decision making can be re-written as the will of the majority or democracy.

That was actually my point...although poorly made. The UK is also the home of the National Front/BNP. They have the right to express their views and in their focus areas (usually poor areas that have seen rapid high levels of imigration and hence have a dissatisfied indigenous population) they enjoy a lot of support even though the vast majority of the British population from elsewhere still view them as a crowd of biggotted skin heads that ought to be locked up....(that wasn't a direct quote, I was paraphrasing...imaginatively...).

Most people view them as biggots because they don't have an axe to grind and hence can accept the larger picture and make a reasoned judgement for themselves and, as a result, vote accordingly.

Freedom of speech provides a platform from which the information upon which the population makes it's judgements can be expressed.

I'm very familiar with speaker's corner. I support the right to rant

Why a small group of people? And demonstrations, IMO, involve a lot more than "marching past a small group of people with a different opinion". What about the educational aspect? Just because I am not marching does not mean I disagree wiith them. I could be just ignorant of what they are demonstrating about.

I was being simplistic/metaphorical with the "small groups" and "marching past" things. I agree.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Specky
Well fascism would be you subsequently taking power and removing my right to disagree with you.

It doesn’t really, at least in theory - the principle of free speech is maintained under Fascism, however within the confines of the body corporate of the State. The idea behind this being that dissent and change is less unstable or destructive. Additionally, the emphasis on change and rights is not on the individual, but on the State or the people.

That’s the theory, in practice such a system of debate is highly prone to clientelism and ergo stagnation.

/me stirs...

chill

Originally posted by Hobart:
Chill: Yea and No. We have alread drifted slightly off the whole point of the thread anyway but let's not lose it completely by getting into a discussion about what is prejudice and what is bigotry..
I disagree. I believe that that is exactly what the thread is about.

Not in my view. "Should Homophoobic Speech be Protected as Free Speech ?" was the initial question posed. I believe that bigotry and prejudice should not be criminalised but dealt with by societal pressure assisted by government support.

You kind of missed my point there. I was trying to say, badly as it turned out, that your peers should be the judge of what is and what is not acceptable. If your peers happen to be a crowd of goose steeping, leader glad, homophobic neantherthals, so be it. However it is not for you or I to label a person a bigot. Because we run the risk of being ignorant of their views. Which, when it happens, turns us into the animal we so despise.

I don't agree here either. Bigotry is not completely subjective nor just a different view. Just because that "goose steeping, leather clad, homophobic neantherthal" is immersed among a whole load of others doesn't make him/her any less of a complete bigot.

It is subjective. But I am drifting off subject so I will not drift into an explanation.

ok...

.

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
So if I say that facism is a great ideal and should be all of our goals is that me expressing my freedom of speech or is that me being a facist?

Both.


.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
Not in my view. "Should Homophoobic Speech be Protected as Free Speech ?" was the initial question posed. I believe that bigotry and prejudice should not be criminalised but dealt with by societal pressure assisted by government support.

But in order to agree or disagree with the original question one has to have an understanding of where the tolerances lie between free speech and incitement. So therfore my original point is valid. And As I also said one mans bigot is another mans hero.

I don't agree here either. Bigotry is not completely subjective nor just a different view. Just because that "goose steeping, leather clad, homophobic neantherthal" is immersed among a whole load of others doesn't make him/her any less of a complete bigot.

Of course it is subjective. It has to be. Because the "goose steeping, leather clad, homophobic neantherthal" has a view. A view that he/she truely believes in. Just because you or I do not share his/her views does not necessarily mean that they are bigots? Remember he would have been a hero in other circumstances. What if you take that extreme back a notch or two. What if you compare it to the views of The Rev. Ian Paisley. A man who truely believes that the pope is evil. I happen to disagree with him, not true any sense of loyalty to the popoe BTW, is he a bigot. Because he holds extreme views?

loismustdie

there's a diffence between personal attacks and voicing an opinion. however, if you're going to speak out agains homosexuality you are obviously heterosexual and shoud mind your own business

The Corinthian

Originally posted by loismustdie
there's a diffence between personal attacks and voicing an opinion. however, if you're going to speak out agains homosexuality you are obviously heterosexual and shoud mind your own business

Is that like speaking out against the treatment of women in many Islamic countries means you are obviously Christian and should mind your own business? :rolleyes:

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
What if you compare it to the views of The Rev. Ian Paisley. A man who truely believes that the pope is evil. I happen to disagree with him, not true any sense of loyalty to the popoe BTW, is he a bigot. Because he holds extreme views? [/B]

Your implication that holding a belief 'sincerely' or 'truly' somehow exempts a person from being a bigot is deeply misguided.

Most bigots hold their views 'sincerely'. That makes them no less a bigot.

We need less social tolerence of bigotry and prejudice and more people to speak out when they hear it spoken in day to day conversation around them.