Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

12467…16

Comments

  • #92
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    I find the idea that anyone should be forced to resign or subject to any form of coercion, economic or otherwise for the holding or expression of an opinion morally reprehensible.

    I would support our government introducing unemployment law to prevent employers from sacking their employees over controversial facebook statuses or public statements of any kind.

    The left seems to think that an employers right to fire someone trumps an employee's right to free speech. Employers should be barred from allowing public outrage to deprive someone of a means to earn a living, no matter how reprehensible we think their opinions are.


  • #93
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Would making a statement such as "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people etc. be considered hate speech?
    Not in my opinion. However it is also free speech for others to ask why.


  • #94
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #95
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Maguined wrote: »
    This is the most ironic thing I have read in weeks.

    How so?


  • #96
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Well, we can make exceptions like we do with virtually every law on the books. But generally speaking people's right to express political opinions should be ranked above an employers right to dismiss employees. People shouldn't be made to choose between expressing their political views and their livelihoods.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Would making a statement such as "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people etc. be considered hate speech?

    It's complicated. There isn't one definition of what hate speech is. There are international definitions and national definitions

    e.g.
    – The European Court of Human Rights, in a definition adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, considers ‘hate speech’ as: “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility towards minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”

    – YouTube, in its community guidelines, describes ‘hate speech’ as: “content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as: race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.”

    – The UN’s International Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination understands ‘hate speech’ as “a form of other-directed speech which rejects the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality and seeks to degrade the standing of individuals and groups in the estimation of society.”

    – The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa considers ‘hate speech’ to be “material which, judged within context sanctions, promotes or glamorizes violence based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or mental or physical disability” or “propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

    Yes it could be interpreted as hate speech by some and not others.

    Would something like that be illegal? No

    Hate speech can range from banal statements like that to extreme talk of mass genocide.

    This document on it from a freedom of expression point of view is quite good

    https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38231/'Hate-Speech'-Explained---A-Toolkit-(2015-Edition).pdf

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #98
    scdublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 643 ✭✭✭scdublin


    People are offended over absolutely everything and therefore people don't want to voice their opinions in fear of offending someone. I shared a link to a report on the attacks in Cologne, and while several people messaged me privately about it saying how shocked they were etc, only one person actually shared what they thought on the post. I know 100% it's because they were afraid they'd offend people.


  • #99
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #100
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Kev W wrote: »
    How so?

    Proponents of free speech are the ones that are open to have people disagree with them as nicely put by Custardpi.
    Custardpi wrote: »
    A belief in free expression isn't really worth much unless one is prepared to extend it to those ideas which one finds most objectionable.

    The opposition of free speech in my experience is generally those that do not wish others with differing opinions to have the freedom to express those opinions merely because they are different.


  • #101
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Maguined wrote: »
    Proponents of free speech are the ones that are open to have people disagree with them as nicely put by Custardpi.

    So how does that make my statement ironic? Because my experience differs from yours?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Kev W wrote: »
    In my experience the majority of people who claim their right to free speech is being threatened are just unhappy that they're being disagreed with.

    Yet, history teaches us that when those who have power disagree with those without power the powerful will often threaten the right to free speech in order to silence that disagreement.

    Let's say we apply your logic in the case of Chinese journalist Gao Yu. She claims her right to free speech is threatened because she's just unhappy that the Chinese government disagrees with her. Really?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/china-jails-journalist-gao-yu-71-accused-of-leaking-state-secrets-1.2180179

    "A Chinese court has jailed the 71-year-old journalist Gao Yu for seven years after she was found guilty of leaking an internal Communist Party document to foreigners, part of a growing clampdown on free speech in China."

    Look, it seems to me like when the right to free speech of someone you personally disagree with is threatened then you are quite happy to dismiss it. "Oh, you're just whining about free speech because you don't like people disagreeing with you". Am I right?

    I assume you would not be so dismissive if it was an opinion that you happen to agree with that was being silenced?

    If there are two sides in a disagreement and one of those sides is being silenced, how can you just shrug your shoulders and say they are just getting upset because they don't like to be disagreed with? Clearly they are annoyed that they are being silenced.

    You are basically looking at a situation where someone is being denied their right to an opinion and saying "oh shut up you".


  • #103
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Saying you don't like working with kids isn't a political opinion. It's basically disqualifying yourself for a job. Political opinions shouldn't disqualify anyone from a job unless the job is related to politics.

    The employer should fall on the side of free political expression. The idea that someone would be fired for openly supporting a political candidate is ludicrous.

    Many women are voting for Trump. Are women who are not voting for Trump to have the right to not work with people who openly support Trump?

    As for hostile work environment. Phhhfff. What a spurious claim that would be.


  • #104
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    It's funny how many of the 'free speech' advocates, are all in favour of employers enforcing free-speech restrictions on their workers, through the threat of job loss.

    It shows those people are not actually in favour of free speech at all, they are just in favour of private regulation of speech, rather than public regulation of speech.

    That's why you don't hear the same people, giving out about censorship of free speech in academia, when that censorship is enforced through monetary ties to colleges and monetary ties to the management of colleges.

    For them it's not about free speech, it's about private regulation of speech. It's about private holders of power in our lives, being able to exercise that power against us with no accountability - in a way which is ultimately undemocratic (since it can be used in a way which has a chilling effect on political speech - especially if e.g. you can be fired for posting your views on social media, outside of work).

    People like that don't actually give a toss about principles like free speech and democracy, only about having a permanently-increasing transfer of power, into private hands - and removing all accountability, so that private power can concentrate into fewer and fewer hands.


    Free speech restrictions from government isn't the sole problem. Free speech restrictions enforced by power in general (particularly power without accountability) is the problem - and that can come in many forms, given all the different groups who have power over our lives.


  • #105
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    KomradeBishop wrote: »

    Free speech restrictions from government isn't the sole problem. Free speech restrictions enforced by power in general (particularly power without accountability) is the problem - and that can come in many forms, given all the different groups who have power over our lives.

    I'd agree with this. While obviously firms will want to control the message & image given out about their business, how far should this desire be allowed to impinge upon the rights of workers? The increasing privatisation of the arena for ideas means that often government has a backseat to deciding what's allowable & what's not. They can lay down rules on what's definitely not legal to say but private corporations e.g. Twitter, Facebook etc can impose far stricter rules according to how they view their own interests.


  • #106
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #107
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Would making a statement such as "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people etc. be considered hate speech?

    It depends on the context really.

    If we were good drinking buddies and you told me one evening in the pub that you don't like black people then I'd probably be a bit annoyed by that statement to be honest. I might not argue with you but it would negatively affect my opinion of you and would probably discourage me from spending much more time with you in the future.

    I think it's not "hate speech" in that private context. While you would be free to say such things, there would definitely be a negative impact on a personal relationship and to your own reputation.

    I feel like anyone who has grown up in a Western society would surely be aware that statements such as ""I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people" are going to be met with a negative response. I think we really all know that someone saying stuff like this is deliberately trying to provoke a reaction or attempting to show that they are "untouchable" and can say such things without consequence.

    If it were a famous athlete or movie star saying something like "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people" then I would say that yes this is "hate speech" as this individual would be fully aware that their words would spread far and wide and it would deliberately provoke and antagonize people. It's effectively bullying at that stage.

    There is still a level of responsibility that comes with having free speech. If you use your free speech to deliberately hurt or bully others then this abuse of power should come with a punishment.

    Of course, we eventually come to the slippery slope.

    Consider an artist who makes sculptures from household trash. They might look at all manner of items and ask themself "can I use that to make something"? They might even do this obsessively. In a very similar way, we have far to many people combing through everyday life and asking "is this racist, is this sexist, is this homophobic" and of course they will eventually find something and will now use it to sculpt some outrage.

    The problem is finding the balance where we can say that the celebrity on Twitter saying "women belong in the kitchen" probably deserves some kind of widespread condemnation but the guy who was on TV wearing a shirt that miiiiight be deemed "sexist", if we really stretch, can probably just be left alone.

    There's a massive difference between someone saying "I hate you and I want to kill you" and someone saying "you have stupid ideas and your opinion sucks". Yet there are people out there who will try to lump those in together. Sure, they want to silence hateful speech and comments but if they can silence disagreement alongside the hateful stuff? Well that's just an added bonus isn't it?

    It can get to the point where, for example, if you don't have a positive opinion about the new all-female Ghostbusters movie then you are some kind of bitter, woman-hating, man-baby. So what do you do? You say "sure, the movie looks like it'll be decent" because you don't need the hassle.

    You have the people who will think that since they managed to get the guy who said "foreigners go home" banned from Twitter for being racist maybe they can get the guy who said "Immigration should be heavily regulated" banned because if you really think about it hard enough you could say that he is being racist too.

    If people are always asking "is this offensive" and are willing to stretch as far as possible to answer "Yes, it is" then we can never really stop once we get going.

    OK, we've banned all the Racists and the Sexists and the Fat-shamers, who's next? People who make jokes about Gingers? Grammar Nazis? Can we claim that eating food from other nations is "cultural appropriation" and maybe even a bit racist?

    When does it actually stop?


  • #108
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's a hostile work environment for the UKIP supporter who makes up 13% of the electorate (and likely much more if not for tactical voting) to not be able to air his views. Pretty reprehensible for 13% of the population to have to remain silent whereas 30% who voted for Labour and 37% who voted for Cons get to express their opinions freely. Pretty arbitrary I might add. Does a Sinn Féin supporter get to express his or her views? Maybe the bar for hostile work environment needs to be raised. If someone can't work alongside someone because of their political views then they're the problem.


  • #109
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #110
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Yeah, basically I would like to restrict the power of private businesses to police the speech of their employees (not absolutely, of course) because I think open debate in our society on contentious issues is more important than an employers right to fire someone for holding an opinion. That right ensures that public debate is one sided. As I've already said there would be exceptions like if someone uses illegal hate speech. But for example if someone was to make a post critical of Islam as an ideology or religion they should not be subject to disciplinary action from their employer and fellow employees should learn to deal with differences of opinion.

    There's two extremes. One side of it is an American man who was videotaped making monkey noises at a black camera man and it went viral and he was fired. Another extreme is a college student Emily Faz who made a facebook post critical of the black lives matter movement and there was no racism inherent in what she said and twitter started a campaign to get her fired. I think Emily Faz should have been protected from that public pressure on her employer.


  • #111
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Except you're not defending restricting free speech on private property - in the case of the daycare worker fired from her job, you're defending the right of an employer to restrict the free speech of a person, even outside of their job.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Except you're not defending restricting free speech on private property - in the case of the daycare worker fired from her job, you're defending the right of an employer to restrict the free speech of a person, even outside of their job.

    Lefties interpret it as an employers right to fire at will. Which is ironic because they're all for workers rights except when someone has a difference of opinion.


  • #113
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'm well aware that Twitter, FB etc are private businesses, that's kind of my point. If you have a situation where fora for the discussion of ideas are privately owned however is there any moral (as opposed to strictly legal) responsibility on the part of the owners to allow a wide range of views? If not, is such a situation in the best interests of society (obviously the businesses involved would view it as being in their own monetary interest)? If owners of dominant platforms decide that it's not profitable to allow the airing of unfashionable ideas there may be effectively no space left for such ideas, which is not necessarily healthy for society, whatever about a firm's bank balance/share price.


  • #114
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Except you're not defending restricting free speech on private property - in the case of the daycare worker fired from her job, you're defending the right of an employer to restrict the free speech of a person, even outside of their job.

    What she said would have adverse publicity for the company involved as she specifically said she hated being around kids when taking up a job at a daycare centre. It's a no brainer that they are going to fire her. It's a stupidity issue not a freedom of speech issue. If I made public pronouncements about how much I hated the business that the company that employed me engaged in do you really think they should hold onto me as a valued employee?


  • #115
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    What she said would have adverse publicity for the company involved as she specifically said she hated being around kids when taking up a job at a daycare centre. It's a no brainer that they are going to fire her. It's a stupidity issue not a freedom of speech issue. If I made public pronouncements about how much I hated the business that the company that employed me engaged in do you really think they should hold onto me as a valued employee?
    Should everyone who hates their job be fired then, if they express this publicly? Come off it - that's a ridiculous standard, and level of censorship.


  • #116
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Custardpi wrote: »
    I'm well aware that Twitter, FB etc are private businesses, that's kind of my point. If you have a situation where fora for the discussion of ideas are privately owned however is there any moral (as opposed to strictly legal) responsibility on the part of the owners to allow a wide range of views? If not, is such a situation in the best interests of society (obviously the businesses involved would view it as being in their own monetary interest)? If owners of dominant platforms decide that it's not profitable to allow the airing of unfashionable ideas there may be effectively no space left for such ideas, which is not necessarily healthy for society, whatever about a firm's bank balance/share price.

    Basically this. Current law recognises the dangers of monopoly power, both in business and in the media. That's why we have to have stop watches for out political debates in this country. I think the government should make positive law to protect freedom of speech. Even if it comes at the expense of business. The societal harm of suppression of ideas is far greater than the potential economic harm.


  • #117
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #118
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Should everyone who hates their job be fired then, if they express this publicly? Come off it - that's a ridiculous standard, and level of censorship.

    How's it censorship? It's not illegal for you to say your company sucks but surely you'd have enough smarts to know that if you share it on a platform that allows it to be seen by over 8,000 people, as was the case with the daycare worker, that the company that employs you is not going to look favorably on it and are going to protect their own interests.


  • #119
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Custardpi wrote: »
    I'm well aware that Twitter, FB etc are private businesses, that's kind of my point. If you have a situation where fora for the discussion of ideas are privately owned however is there any moral (as opposed to strictly legal) responsibility on the part of the owners to allow a wide range of views? If not, is such a situation in the best interests of society (obviously the businesses involved would view it as being in their own monetary interest)? If owners of dominant platforms decide that it's not profitable to allow the airing of unfashionable ideas there may be effectively no space left for such ideas, which is not necessarily healthy for society, whatever about a firm's bank balance/share price.
    This is a good point - especially because, as time goes on, social media is going to have a greater and greater influence on the range of acceptable public discussion, much like newspapers/TV etc. have.

    Control over public discussion, means greater influence/control over politics - and the level of influence that propaganda from news media has, is enormous in its effect on the public and politics - it's extremely dangerous to have excessive concentration of private power in these areas.

    That's why social media sites - even if they aren't held accountable by the law when it comes to free speech - are held accountable by the public, by the users of the site; Boards would not get away with overt censorship of sensitive topics - if there were to be any censorship, it would have to be done in a covert way.

    The site even pays lip-service to this public accountability, through the Dispute Resolution process and Feedback, and self-regulating moderation - so if there were to be censorship, there would need to be a way to game these accountability processes, in a way that grants plausible deniability in public (which doesn't look hard to game though, to be honest - doesn't mean it happens mind - which is the whole point of plausible deniability).


  • #120
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What about monopoly power? As effective duopolies I think governments should ensure that freedom of speech isn't restricted on their platforms. They occupy an extremely dominant position and could manipulate that power to whatever ends they wish. That's an inordinate amount of power to grant to a private business.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    This whole debate always seems to me - since it focuses on colleges - like a distraction from the way the influence of money in colleges, and greater reliance upon private sources for funding colleges, is causing a censorship of the range of academic discussion able to be taught in many colleges.

    Money in colleges, and control over the management in colleges (again influenced by money) = control/influence over what is taught. That's the most significant form of censorship in colleges these days.

    Don't take this as a disagreement, but as someone who spent far too long in college I do wonder what the hell you are on about?! Maybe it's due to spending time mainly in STEM areas but I don't see what you mean. If anything (in those areas), industry and private sector guidance is badly needed imo. Are you talking about the US?

    Outside of the classroom, the only censorship (or attempts at) I saw were by students protesters shutting down talks/visits by what they saw as controversial figures (e.g. Israeli ambassador, Bertie Ahern, random academics with views outside the Irish mainstream). Not that I disagree with protesting these people but I could never reconcile with the hardcore element that other voices/opinions should not even be allowed on campus.


Advertisement