The right to be a bigot

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Mar 26, 2014.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    In Australia, we have no constitutionally entrenched right to freedom of speech.

    Currently, the government is proposing changes to the existing Racial Discrimination Act.

    Here's the proposed law:
    This is a significant watering-down of the existing law.

    As it stands, the law prohibits actions that are:
    So, the government wants to change things so that it is ok to offend, insult or humiliate others on the basis of race etc. And intimidation is also acceptable as long as it does not put somebody in fear of physical harm.

    The "vilify" provision of the proposed law is new.

    The existing law in relation to subsection (3), above, judges acts from the point of view of the group of which the targeted person is a part. The government wants to change this so that the "ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community" is the standard against which conduct is to be judged.

    Also, the government wants to introduce the wide-ranging exemption in section (4), which does not exist at present. This section could conceivably negate much of the effect of the law.

    ---

    The Australian Attorney General, Senator George Brandis, has stated that the existing law is "unreasonably constrictive on freedom of speech". He says:

    He has also stated that people ought to have the right to be a bigot:

    ----

    I am interested to here your thoughts on this.

    Do you think that in a free country people ought to have the right to be bigots (in their public statements)?
    Should we permit racial insults, offence and humiliation on the basis of race, on the grounds of "freedom of speech"?
    Should we allow intimidation of others (as long as it doesn't put them in fear of physical harm)?

    Feel free to compare and contrast the law in your own country.

    [Edit to add: And what about on sciforums? What do you think about the same three questions?]
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Definitely. Because without such a right, blacks in South Africa (for example) could be legally arrested for speaking out against whites.
    Yes. Because along with the bad, some good can come of it (see above.)
    Intimidation in the form of entrapment, coercion etc - no, should not be allowed. Intimidation in the form of saying something that scares someone else - yes.

    Again, a simple example. Imagine a gay man says, at a rally where the Westboro Baptists are gathered, "you better be afraid - because one day we will have all the rights you have, and will be standing right next to you in society. At work, on the bus, in our schools." That man should not be arrested for intimidating the Baptists.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    billvon:

    How about inciting hatred against a particular ethnic or racial group?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Inciting violence - no. Inciting hatred - yes. A citizen of a country should be free to speak out against violence in his country, even if it incites hatred towards whites (or Arabs, or Jews) in the government.
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    No I don't. I think to some extent these are already protected under laws against slander and infamy. I think all countries everywhere should limit speech to protect against obvious abuses. It's highly problematic figuring out how to define it and how to enforce it and how to prevent innocent people from being falsely convicted. But the spirit is in the right place. It says "enough is enough".


    Never. I am appalled that that US permits the Ku Klux Klan and similar hate groups to freely spread their virulent strains of hate speech with little or no accountability. There are times when the public may need to get out on the streets and express rage, but I can't think of any reason why limiting hate speech would encroach on the possibility of such a demonstration being given its opportunity to air grievances. IMO there is a misplaced sense of the chilling effect. It's not the possibility that someday some demonstrator may be unjustly arrested which curtails liberty. It's the use of hateful speech which has a chilling effect on life of the nation. In the US this is most vividly being played out by the folks who have the audacity to call themselves the Tea Party, as if to imply that their brand of racism, theocracy--and oppression of women, minorities and gays--is justified in the way American colonialists were justified in rebelling against brutality by their British overlords. It's this excessive fraud and propaganda, coupled with indoctrination and the worst kind of bigotry, religious bigotry, which ought to be regulated.


    Intimidation is a bit broad, but if we limit it to the cases I just mentioned, then it supplements the types of protections such a policy would have in mind. I would like to see not only racial and ethic groups protected from intimidation, but women, minorities and gays in general. I would add to that list scholars, hoping that Tbaggers would no longer attack the teachers and experts involved in teaching evolution or the dissemination of climate science. Obviously that's highly idealistic and virtually impossible to implement. This may not be as big an issue in Australia as it is in the US but perhaps you see something comparable.

    When Lincoln freed the slaves, there were pockets in the South who resisted. After the War those former slaves were still not truly emancipated. The country responded by enacting the amendments which establish that all people (really men, but it was a start) are citizens who are may not be deprived "life, liberty and property, without due process of law". (And that last part just means if you can lose them by going to jail or some reason like a drug seizure.) My point is this: the South litigated this for about 100 yrs, arguing that States have rights which trump the rights of individuals, and States are sovereign entities which can not properly be managed in such affairs by the federal government. I say it took about 100 yrs because that's when the Kennedys and Johnson picked up the ball and created stronger laws to protect victims. The people I would like to see restrained, who now call themselves Republicans, the Tea Party, and other names associated with fundamentalist churches, plus the lobbyists for the corporations seeking deregulation, have joined together in an unholy war against civil rights, as part of their strategy of keeping social conservatism in place. It's a softer target for religious indoctrination, and once the church membership swells, it's easier to sell candidates who pledge to "restore God to America". This is not just what we call the Culture War. It's the Civil War still in progress. There has never been a day since the cessation of canon fire in which racial minorities can truly say the opposition to their self determination has finally been eradicated. And it's not just the "candidates for Jesus" we have to be wary of. It's the stacking of social conservatives in our Supreme Court. They still hold a majority. And they still defend States' Rights over individuals. The other kind of threat is the official manipulation of workers to do the bidding of the boss. The most striking case was when the US Atty Gen. under Bush redirected the US Dept of Justice lawyers who were assigned to Civil Rights cases to instead go off and investigate cases of alleged voter fraud (against Democrats). It was a "kill two birds with one stone" policy. It curtailed the prosecution of civil rights claims and harassed the local party HQs. All of this paints a very bleak picture for the American idealists who hoped to conquer hatred and bigotry through law.

    None of that may apply to Australia but I suspect you have your own political history to contend with, which may have similar examples of ways conservatives use a wide spectrum of tactics to undermine liberal policy.

    Posting here is a privilege, not a right. You are free to set the rules as you see fit and we agree to them as a condition of exercising our privilege. I have seen many cases of mods quickly stepping in against hate speech. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back. On a rare occasion or two I've seen a poster complain about an infraction, that it suppresses speech. Even if that were true, so what? It just says that the owners, through their agents, the mods, have made a decision to run things this way. That's hard to compare to a skinhead complaining that he received a fine or had to do community service for painting swastikas on a synagogue.
     
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Of course. I'm not sure how much meaning remains in "free country" if that isn't the case. It's important that people have the right to speak their mind. And that right is most important, and most at risk, when people say things that other people don't happen to like. "Freedom" can't just be restricted to freedom to conform.

    Yes and no.

    I think that there should be laws against criminal threats, stalking, extortion and libel. In other words, people should be free to say things that other people find offensive and insulting, but they shouldn't be allowed to harass, terrify and intimidate other people in the name of free speech.

    But having said that, I think very strongly that laws such as these need to address these problematic behaviors across-the-board, wherever they occur. The idea of outlawing them only if the target of the harassment is of a particular race is just racism all over again, in a new and politically-correct guise. The law needs to be color-blind and treat all of its citizens equally, and mustn't try to establish special rights and privileges for particular politically-favored races.

    There's also the 'fighting words' principle in law. While somebody might have a constitutional right to say something that another person finds offensive, they don't necessarily have any special right to protection from being punched in the nose for saying it. The government shouldn't outlaw one person saying 'fuck you' to another, but that doesn't mean that the government has any obligation to provide police protection to loud abusive drunks in bars.

    Harm probably should be interpreted so as to include things like libel and defamation. There's also the psychological harm aspect in stalking. But if this kind of thing is going to be prosecuted in a court of law, there needs to be a legal requirement that real harm be demonstrated.

    I'm not sure how the government can possibly enforce a law that effectively requires that members of politically-favored groups must be universally popular with everyone else.
     
  10. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Well ain't that gay man going to heck for fearing another?
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”
    ― Søren Kierkegaard


    “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
    ― Winston Churchill


    “All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”
    ― George Bernard Shaw


    “The censor's sword pierces deeply into the heart of free expression.”
    ― Earl Warren


    “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

    If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

    I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.

    To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
    ― Salman Rushdie


    “Every man — in the development of his own personality — has the right to form his own beliefs and opinions. Hence, suppression of belief, opinion and expression is an affront to the dignity of man, a negation of man’s essential nature." (1963)]”
    ― Thomas I. Emerson,
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    We do in the USA, and on the balance we've been quite content with it. Over the years a few abridgements have been made, but for the most part they merely apply to the use of language as a tool for committing crimes:
    • You may not advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government by force. If you are a persuasive communicator, this could result in people committing the crime of treason.
    • You may not gather for the purpose of planning a crime. The things that you say to each other are classified as conspiracy, which is a crime unto itself even if the plans are never carried out.
    • You may not lie to someone for the purpose of convincing him to do something which is detrimental to his own welfare but enriches you. This is classified as fraud. This covers the well-known scenario of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, although it is usually itemized separately. After all, you are lying to the theatergoers since there is no fire; attempting to convince them to do something detrimental to their own welfare, i.e., at the very least ruining their night out and at worst injuring themselves; for the purpose of enriching yourself, i.e. enjoying the perverse entertainment of watching them panic.
    • You may not incite a riot. Your purpose is to encourage people to commit crimes. Frankly, to advocate the overthrow of the government might be seen as merely incitement of a riot writ large.
    • You may not use fightin' words. For example, if you walk into a bar in East Los Angeles (a quarter with a predominantly Latino population) at closing time when everyone is plastered, and shout, "All you damn Mexicans should go back where you came from," you'll start a fight and you know it. Fighting is generally illegal although not always prosecuted.
    • The newest addition to this list is hate speech. Like all new things it is controversial. It covers many of the issues that your law covers, such as intimidation, but it also covers a lot of old ground such as incitement of a riot or simply "fightin' words." The problem is that there's no good definition of hate speech. Every Euro-American already knows that we should not use the word "nigger," yet Afro-American entertainers have appropriated it and use it for various effects including laughter. Latinos, Asians, Jews and other minority groups also toss around ethnic slurs in "fun" that would get us in trouble even if there were no law against it. Many communities which were founded by immigrants but are now completely Americanized still use ethnic slurs that way, including the Irish ("drink like a Mick"), a community that is clearly far beyond the "No Irish Need Apply" appendix to "Help Wanted" ads in the 19th century... since we've already had a president of Irish ancestry (Kennedy). Based upon our treatment of Israel as our informal 51st state, it's obvious that Americans love Jews, yet Jewish comedians get laughs by criticizing us for a list of antisemitic behaviors that even our parents might not recognize.
    This is our messy approach to the issue.

    That sounds a lot like the American version. It works for us, so I'd suggest that you not spend a lot of time worrying about it. We've always regarded Australia as a miniature copy of the USA, time-warped about 50 years in the past. Live with your new laws for 50 years and you'll probably accept them grudgingly.

    Why should a person ever be denied the right to speak the truth, especially about himself? If you hate Muslims, it's probably a good idea for your Muslim neighbors to know this!

    "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." We all memorized that in the second grade. You should try teaching it to your children.

    In the abstract, no. But in the real world it's difficult to distinguish one person's intimidation from another person's mere annoyance by the very same offense. And believe me, a cottage industry will pop up, convincing people that a particular communication was indeed intimidating rather than annoying,

    SciForums is not a country and all of our interactions are performed electronically. We don't know each other's names or places of residence. Most of our members are young (and, if you ask me, rather foolish) and make a practice of saying dumb shit. If we start patrolling the boards in search of some version of officially prohibited speech, we'll end up with even fewer members than we already have. We already prohibit hate speech, to the extent that we can actually idenfity it. That's good enough.

    But look at the difference between the results of our way and the European way. We issue parade permits to the KKK. They get all dressed up in their white sheets and go marching down the street. The sidewalks are packed, mostly with people who regard the KKK as cockroaches. They shout obscenities at them and (when the police aren't watching) even throw rotten fruit. Both the Klansmen and America itself are assured that the Klan is a fringe group that is reviled by most of us, and that they will never gather enough sympathy and support to be a force in our politics and culture.

    Europe, on the other hand, has outlawed the Nazi Party and does not allow Nazis to even have meetings. As a result, they had to find another place to hold their Holocaust Denial Festival, and (what a surprise) the country that welcomed them with open arms was Iran! They spent the whole time surrounded by people who agreed with them and wished them good luck.

    Imagine the difference if they'd been given a permit to hold that gathering in Vienna, Amsterdam or Prague! Every time somebody walked out of the meeting hall to go to pee, a dozen Holocaust survivors with tattoos on their arms would swarm around him, reminding him that he and his friends were all fucking liars! This would have been an important confrontation, especially since in ten years when (perhaps) they might think of doing it again, most of those Auschwitz refugees will be dead.

    Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court justice in the early 20th century, put it well: "The best disinfectant is sunshine." I have updated that into today's less polite vernacular: "It's better to let the cockroaches crawl on top of the linoleum, so you can keep track of what they're doing."

    Actually the notion that the South was fighting the Civil War for states' rights is inaccurate. They in fact wanted states' rights to be mitigated. If a Southern planter and his family traveled to Pennsylvania to visit their relatives, and took along several slaves to do the hard work, the minute they crossed the line into Pennsylvania, a state policeman could simply tell the slaves that they were now free, and send them off in a different direction. Since the national laws permitted slavery, the Southerners wanted them to trump state laws, just the opposite of your scenario.

    It started earlier than that. Truman integrated the armed forces, to the derision of much of the population. Eisenhower began the integration of our schools. Many churches were outspoken in their support for civil rights--to the extent that today we can wonder why nobody ever coined the phrase "the Religious Left."

    It takes a long time--multiple generations--for an evil of such enormous scope to be righted. We made the mistake of trying to accelerate it. Living in Los Angeles, which was always considerably more progressive than much of the country, even we saw the problems caused by Affirmative Action. Afro-Americans who were "educated" in sub-standard schools simply didn't have the qualifications to matriculate into top-notch universities and fill their quotas. When, predictably, many of them failed, it gave the racists ammunition to shout, "See, they really are intellectually inferior."

    This reminds us that censorship is wrong, no matter how nobly it's instituted. People must be free to say whatever the hell they want. Limitations must be rare and supported by enormous evidence.

    Humans are the most communicative of all animal species. If we are to be allowed to have ideas, we must be allowed to talk about them.
     
  13. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    467
    I like the laws we have in the U.S., particularly regarding individuals. As far as groups\orgs., that is debatable.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    In the US you can say whatever you want as long as you do not use speech to commit a crime. So the speech alone will not get you in trouble with US law, it is the actions caused by your speech which will get you into trouble. So racists are free to preach racism and hate all day long each and every day of the year. Racists can speak about their racism but they cannot legally discriminate against them.

    If republicans get their way, that may change. A leading republican, former republican presidential candidate and likely republican presidential candidate in 2016 has said he thinks individuals should be allowed to discriminate against any individual or groups of individuals. It’s a common belief in republican/libertarian circles. And republicans in several republican dominated states have recently tried to pass laws that make discrimination against gays legal. So if republicans should obtain enough political power in the future, discriminatory practices could once again become legal in the US. And there is a case before the US Supreme court now, championed by republicans, which could legalize discrimination.
     
  15. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    It's no wonder there's so much violence in the States if people go around calling each other n****** and h****** all the time. Hey, guys, it's time to try and get along. Maybe there should be legislation for that.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Very informative. Thanks for writing it down. The soldiers of reason need to start kicking some ideologue butt. What's worrisome is many americans can't recognize this is a war. Marley would call it the war against the "baldheads". I call it the war against ideologue sociopathy. Ideologue sociopath = "baldhead".
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Whacko birds have been pretty isolated in American politics and social life. However, with the advent of the republican entertainment complex (e.g. Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, et al.) and with recent US Supreme Court rulings, special interests are flooding America cable and airwaves and the internet for that matter, with particular view points in an attempt to drown out opposing views and evidence based thoughts. In the new America, freedom of speech is ok as long as it is republican/conservative sanctioned speech.
     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    If a legal term is left an "Umbrella" to cover a wide variety of clauses, it can be misused or misconstrued.

    It's possible that any changes to the law itself are attempting to lessen confusion in regards to how it can potentially be broadly used in cases where it shouldn't have been applied. This in turn opens the avenue for other civil laws to potentially pick up the slack where there seems to no longer be any protection. For instance Anti-Troll legislation, Anti-Harassment legislation etc
     

Share This Page