On the Internet, you see varying types of opinions. One of those growing these days is freedom of speech vs hate speech. Should the people, sites, the government, and other various groups and powers, be allowed to ban hate speech? Some say no, some say yes, some are mixed, some say yes on depending when and where, and others, no. Since I live in the United States, and by no means am I a constitutional lawyer, just a person with an opinion, take what I say with a grain of salt. What I say may not apply to your place of living. This is my opinion, after years of internally debating it, and sometimes outside with friends.
In the United States, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution states; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has defined what is and isn’t protected under free speech. In Roth v. United States, obscenity was ruled to be unprotected. In Schenck v. United States, the SC ruled that freedom of speech and freedom of the press could be limited if the words in the circumstances created “a clear and present danger.” In New York v. Ferber, child porn was banned from being published.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, “fighting words” were ruled to not be protected. Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that “tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a fight, so long as it is a “personally abusive word which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction”. Additionally, such speech must be “directed to the person of the hearer” and is “thus likely to be seen as a ‘direct personal insult'”. Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.
The last one is the closest case for disallowing hate speech. However, I am here to not debate about offensive speech. I am here to talk about disallowing oppressive speech. Oppressive speech is words used to dismantle and attack minorities within a community. Speech can not only cause oppression, but also become oppressive.
A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth. “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell.
In Liberal and Libertarian circles, hate speech is allowed until it is directed to a person. How direct does the incitement need to be? If I say “Kill all gays!” that is certainly direct. What if I say “The world would be better without any gays in it.” Or “Gays are a cancer upon the world.” Or “I would be so happy if somebody killed all the gays.” Or “I really admire how Stalin dealt with the gays.” Or “If you took that gun and shot some gays I would be damn proud of you.” Because if you call a black person a “ni**er”, that’s illegal. But call a group of them “ni**gers“, you’re off scot free. What the hell.
People need to realize that just because you’re not saying something directly, it doesn’t mean the intention isn’t there. I’m all for free speech, but there are limits. Some people just use it as an excuse to be openly bigoted. I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.
“But should being openly bigoted be punished by law? That is my true question. I agree that bigoted speech should be discouraged but absolutely not outlawed.”, you might say.
If you get on a bus you shouldn’t have to worry if you’re going to encounter somebody ranting about how you should be deported, locked up, or not afforded basic human rights. But sometimes you get on a bus and find somebody doing just that. Or on a street corner. Or down the bar. Should these people be permitted to make other people feel unsafe and unwelcome? I would say no, they should not.
“Well, it’s just people’s feelings. Who cares really?”, you could also say.
Saying it’s just “people’s feelings” is kind of downplaying it a bit I think. If people are constantly fantasising-out-loud about murdering certain people, the targets of that speech might have legitimate concerns about whether or not they’ll be hunted down.Because when people openly express hatred towards groups, the groups in that area or site, have their free speech suppressed, because if they speak out, they know they will be hated even more. I think people have a right to not live in fear. That is why there is laws for stalking as well as harassment.
In political philosophy, there is a concept known as positive liberties and negative liberties. You have to mix them so people are allowed to live life as they please, without interfering with the lives of others to such an extent, where it can harm them. In order for others to live their lives as free as you do, everyone must give up the same rights, and gain the same rights.
“The concepts of structure and agency are central to the concept of positive liberty because in order to be free, a person should be free from inhibitions of the social structure in carrying out their free will. Structurally speaking classism, sexism, and racism can inhibit a person’s freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency. Positive liberty is enhanced by the ability of citizens to participate in their government and have their voice, interests and concerns recognized as valid and acted upon.” – Wikipedia on positive liberties.
“It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.” – Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”
Along with that, being accepting of sexist/racist/other -ist speech in jokes influence allowance of those lines of thinking as positive. For proof:
- More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor
- The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding “Racist”
- Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism
- Humour and Hatred: The Racist Jokes of the Ku Klux Klan
- The Enjoyment of Sexist Humor, Rape Attitudes, and Relationship Aggression in College Students
“But it’s just a joke!”, you might say.
“Most of my knowledge in this area is centered around race and not sexuality, but I take serious issue with the idea that suffering is ok because it’s just a joke.
You think you understand how your brain works, and you think when you hear a joke that you can laugh it off without effect. But we are a species where our opinions of one another can be shaped by the kind of drink we’re holding at the time. You think you understand why you feel what you do, but the evidence is not the case, we form opinions first, and justify them later, and we form opinions off the full set of influences that we’ve been exposed to, logical or not.
Having a prejudicial message be “just a joke” can actually make the message even more insidious, because we’re trained to reject outright hate, but as you yourself show, jokes appear so harmless on the face of it.
We have enough trouble acknowledging the viewpoints of others without introducing subconscious biases. And once a subtle prejudiced idea takes root, normal life experience can feed it through confirmation biases. And those ideas can translate into effects like not getting hired for jobs.
Even if you still persist in the delusion that you’re immune to being exposed to prejudicial humor, you must realize that you’re implicitly giving permission to others in the group do to the same.
There is no such thing as “just a joke”.” – User successfulblackwoman from Reddit.
I get humor. And I even think you can do jokes about very serious dark subjects. Like rape. Louis CK did a great bit about rape. But the punchline was that rape is awful and rapists are terrible people. One of the things good comedians think about when they’re constructing jokes is whether they’re ‘punching up’ or ‘punching down’. Are they making fun of the powerful? Are they challenging privilege? Are they rendering something scary into something silly?
‘Punching up’ is when you’re taunting and belittling and mocking the powerful, the privileged, the scary. ‘Punching down’ is when you’re shitting on the weak, the fragile, the vulnerable. ‘Punching down’ is what bullies do. I like comedy that punches up. I think punching down is shitty.
And this comedian that you find so humorous several comments up is punching down. His joke is that he sexually assaulted his girlfriend. There’s no “and then” or “and so”. There’s no twist. The entire joke is that he sexually assaulted his girlfriend. The thing we’re supposed to laugh at, the thing that is supposed to be funny, is sexual assault. And I think it’s shitty.
You should be ashamed to use the term ‘white knight’. If you’ve ever been bullied, or been sad or mad when you’ve seen someone get bullied, you should think about what the term ‘white knight’ really means. ‘White knight’ is a name bullies call people who are standing up to bullies.
- SG