South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

May 29, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Libel and hate speech

 (Read 2229 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2413


Three men make a tiger.


« on: July 03, 2013, 08:44:08 AM »

I think that legislation against any form of free speech - even idiotic free speech - is wrong and dangerous. As such, defamatory statements and hate speech should be allowed if anyone wants to be nasty enough to indulge in them.

Rigil
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2013, 08:51:20 AM »

I think that legislation against any form of free speech - even idiotic free speech - is wrong and dangerous. As such, defamatory statements and hate speech should be allowed if anyone wants to be nasty enough to indulge in them.

Rigil
Exactly. Where do you draw the line? Just don't complain when you are called a $%#@.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 925



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2013, 09:05:37 AM »

I think that legislation against any form of free speech - even idiotic free speech - is wrong and dangerous. As such, defamatory statements and hate speech should be allowed if anyone wants to be nasty enough to indulge in them.

Rigil
Exactly. Where do you draw the line? Just don't complain when you are called a $%#@.
I would draw the line at the point where speech causes real harm, e.g. incitement to violence.  You can say that there are already laws against violence, and that the the violence itself should be punished, and not the speech that incited it, but that doesn't serve a preventive purpose.  Those who indulge in hate speech are usually the first to melt away in the crowd when it comes to the nitty-gritty physical stuff, but they should be held responsible in some way.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2413


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2013, 09:19:11 AM »

By making laws that protect a person against the mere words of others, we are crediting slanderers and hate speech artists with much more than they may deserve. The implication of such legislation is that words and opinions have value merely because they are uttered! But if everybody could fearlessly say what they please, words and opinions will be recognised - and rightly so - as dirt cheap. As a result, actual evidence will become a premium resource, and the only thing that can ultimately be relied upon.

Rigil
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2013, 10:22:13 AM »

I think that legislation against any form of free speech - even idiotic free speech - is wrong and dangerous. As such, defamatory statements and hate speech should be allowed if anyone wants to be nasty enough to indulge in them.

Rigil

Thanks to the web, hate speech has now for all practical purposes in fact become legal, whatever the law says. Whether this is a good thing I don't know, but it is what it is.

Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767



« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2013, 10:50:57 AM »

Thanks to the web, hate speech has now for all practical purposes in fact become legal, whatever the law says. Whether this is a good thing I don't know, but it is what it is.


Uh, I'm not so sure about that. It all depends on what jurisdiction you happen to be in, what overly-sensitive person reads your text and rats you out, and how badly a prosecutor wants to score a win.

This is the problem with saying stuff "to friends" online. You're basically saying them in a public space where any passer-by could take it the wrong way.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2413


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2013, 12:09:13 PM »

I would draw the line at the point where speech causes real harm, e.g. incitement to violence.
If a speaker manages to induce violence, perhaps the problem lies mostly with the audience.

Rigil
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2013, 12:27:12 PM »

My understanding is that libel is not a legal term in SA.  It may refer to defamation, which is not an offence, but can lead to a civil claim for damages, or crimen injuria, which is an offence in SA and can be prosecuted.  I support the ability to seek compensation, should your person or company suffer damages due to the publication of negligent or malicious falsehoods.  The case for crimen injuria is not so easy to justify, largely because the definition is vague.  Developed countries have largely decriminalized such forms of defamation.  The threat it poses to freedom of expression warrants abolishing it.

In the case of hate speech, I agree with St0nes that it should be illegal if incitement to violence is involved.  The public is an excitable beast.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +58/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3660


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2013, 13:28:55 PM »

Hate speech and libel are prompted and carried along by the prejudices of the speaker/writer.  Jonathan Rauch said something eminently sensible about it.

This topic cannot avoid raising the question of limits, if any, on free speech.  These limits, in turn, cannot be fruitfully discussed without reference to the circumstances in which speech takes place.  The classic in this context is the injunction against shouting “Fire!” in a crowded venue if there is no actual fire.  Similarly, you are free publicly to denounce Jacob Zuma as a crooked moron with the grace of a horny goat at a political rally, but if you do so in the suburbs at two o’clock in the morning using a loudhailer, you’ll get into hot water independent of how Mr Zuma may feel about your announcements.  Ditto voicing threats of physical violence or harm, which can land you in deep trouble if there is reason to believe that they were meant sincerely.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2013, 13:53:37 PM »

Thanks to the web, hate speech has now for all practical purposes in fact become legal, whatever the law says. Whether this is a good thing I don't know, but it is what it is.


Uh, I'm not so sure about that. It all depends on what jurisdiction you happen to be in, what overly-sensitive person reads your text and rats you out, and how badly a prosecutor wants to score a win.

This is the problem with saying stuff "to friends" online. You're basically saying them in a public space where any passer-by could take it the wrong way.


Well, yes, you could get into trouble if you say it all under your own name. But you can create an anonymous blog or website with a few clicks of the mouse, and if it gets deleted, simply recreate it again. There's not much they can do about it, and the more extreme your views and pictures, the larger the chance that they will go viral after which there will be no stopping them anymore.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 925



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2013, 15:13:24 PM »

Well, yes, you could get into trouble if you say it all under your own name. But you can create an anonymous blog or website with a few clicks of the mouse, and if it gets deleted, simply recreate it again. There's not much they can do about it, and the more extreme your views and pictures, the larger the chance that they will go viral after which there will be no stopping them anymore.

I wouldn't rely on the anonymity of your anonymous blog.  The powers-that-be can very easily track you down if they think it's worth their while.  Work on the supposition that nothing you do on line is private, and everything you do can be attributed to you, whether or not it has your name on it.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2413


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2016, 11:43:43 AM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s8bq4
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.425 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page Yesterday at 20:39:05
Privacy Policy