On "Innocence of Muslims", Violence, and Censorship.

[Ryan Gatts]

As many of you are aware, there has been a dramatic uptick in world-suck levels. The American Ambassador to Lybia was assassinated along with four other Americans. Below is a BBC story about the attack. It has a clip of Obama's speech on the subject (which I think is impressively level-headed).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

Since then, the American embassy in Yemen has been attacked by angry protesters as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19584734

Many protesters and news-people have said that these attacks were in protest of a trailer for a film called "Innocence of Muslims". The film depicts the prophet Muhammad (depiction alone is already highly offensive) in an extremely negative light, as a womanizer, a pedophile, an idiot, a liar, and a thug. The film appears to be created by members of several anti-Muslim hate groups. The actors seem not to have been aware what movie they were in, and were dubbed over for the final trailer.

You can see the trailer in question here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntgzoE7rU9A 

My question(s) to Nerdfighteria is this:

Should hate-speech be censored? Free speech does not protect speech that insights violence, makes knowingly false claims, or threatens violence against a person or group. This film has clearly have inspired some violence, and generally made the world a suckier place. Is that additional world-suck greater or less than the world-suck generated by the regulation of free speech?

If hate-films should be censored, how do you decide where the line is between comedic satire, and hate-film? There is a long history of caricature and stereotype used in humor. How do you know what's too offensive?

Is the speaker responsible for the actions that occur in reaction to his speech? How would the speaker be able to predict events like this?

I know the truth resists simplicity, but these are not rhetorical questions, and I'd love to hear your thoughts, Nerdfighteria.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

No, hate speech should not be censored.

Speech that incites criminal activity can be clearly defined.

Speech that is objectively false when claiming to be objectively true can be clearly defined.

"Hate speech" cannot be clearly defined. What some people think is hateful, others will not, and neither can be proven objectively.

Yes this film has caused violence, but it did not incite violence. The difference being that it did not call for violence to happen. The people who were violent about this made their choice to be violent. They did not have to do it, they were under no compulsion to do it, and the film itself did not cause it in so far as it called directly for it. All that has happened is that they responded to it.

If we censor hate speech, we give those who speak in that manner an extra platform to say "look, the government is oppressing us" etc, and that isn't something we want to deal with.

Unless someone can come up with an objective definition of hate speech, then hate speech should not be criminalised.

Incitement to violence should be criminalised, slander should be criminalised, but not anything else.

Furthermore, the "Innocence of Muslims" film has had its point proven by the people who reacted violently. The film makes the point that Islam is a violent and uncivilised faith, and here people are being violent and uncivilised about it. Fortunately, it's clear it's not all of the people since there have been several pro-American rallies also. But the point is that it doesn't help your cause when you call for the deaths of people who call you bloodthirsty.

[Brie Cheesman]

Very excellent point. I think it's really important that laws restricting free speech be quite clearly defined, with boundaries as to how far it can be taken. In the U.S., there've already been a large amount of recent actions taken (in schools, mostly, but also unfortunately in some courtrooms) to restrict free speech beyond what has been legalized; if hate-speech were to be illegal with so little clarification as to its specific meaning, that would increase world suck (or at the very least, nation suck) way more than it already is.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Should hate-speech be censored?

This is a very difficult question to answer. Mostly because it depends on the system of values which you use. And because there is no proper way to say that one system of values is superior to another without using a system of values to make that decision. When talking about ethical systems it is therefore very difficult to say whether hate-speech should be censored or not.

My personal opinion is that it should be censored given certain circumstances. One of the most important factors being the validness of the arguments. If the arguments are rational and logical, and if they aren't based on emotions, then we shouldn't censor them. If they however make the arguments with the manifest or latent purpose of creating hate, then we should censor. After all freedom of speech wasn't meant to help people spread hate or nonsense arguments, it was meant to give people a safe environment in which they can create rational ideas without the fear of being harmed. (So that people similar to Copernicus can spread their ideas without having to fear the reaction of the church / others.)

The second question which then arises is: How can we prove that something is hatefull or not. This is a difficult question, because often the hatefull ideas will not be manifest but latent. In that case we have to be carefull not to categorize speech which is against our normal system of values as hate-speech merely because we don't agree with it. However I do not think that just because it is difficult we shouldn't do it. It would cause more harm if we didn't censor it than if we did. Or so I think.

If hate-films should be censored, how do you decide where the line is between comedic satire, and hate-film?

This is a very difficult question, perhaps too difficult for me. This is very dependent on your system of values and I don't think that I know enough about all ethical systems around the world to give a good-enough answer. I think there are smarter people who might be capable of answering this question.

Is the speaker responsible for the actions that occur in reaction to his speech?

To a certain extend, yes. But the ones who react to what is said should be held responible as well. Communication isn't a one-step flow. There are intermediary factors, such as interpersonal communication and the ability to think as an individual. When someone says something hateful then you as an individual should think about what is said. If you don't, and you act hatefully towards others without any rationality on which your actions are based, then you are responsible as well. But that doesn't mean that the speaker isn't responsible at all. People who purposefully try to make others act hatefully are equally responsible. It doesn't matter if this is manifest or latent, if their purpose is to create hate, then they are also responsible for the consequences.

Also, I like your profile picture. :)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

After all freedom of speech wasn't meant to help people spread hate or nonsense arguments, it was meant to give people a safe environment in which they can create rational ideas without the fear of being harmed.

The problem is that we don't really have an agreed upon definition of an entirely rational argument. For instance, there are plenty of people for whom issues like God are entirely rational and others for whom such a thing is the hight of absurdity. I don't think we can really pass judgement on the value of content within any given form of speech, rather we should merely question whether it incites or encourages people to commit criminal acts.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

The problem is that we don't really have an agreed upon definition of an entirely rational argument. For instance, there are plenty of people for whom issues like God are entirely rational and others for whom such a thing is the hight of absurdity. I don't think we can really pass judgement on the value of content within any given form of speech, rather we should merely question whether it incites or encourages people to commit criminal acts.

Well, I do not want to start a discussion - because I don't like having discussions with you. But God as a metaphysicall entity (which can not be disproven nor proven) is less rational to believe in than the law of identity; a=a. We can therefore state that some things are more rational than others. The entirety of the praxis is not something I'm interested in discussing however.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Well, I do not want to start a discussion - because I don't like having discussions with you.

Are you going to expand upon your reasoning there? That seems pretty rude.

 

But God as a metaphysicall entity (which can not be disproven nor proven) is less rational to believe in than the law of identity; a=a. We can therefore state that some things are more rational than others.

 

Agreed, but there are people who believe that god is irrational and others who believe that God is rational. Equally there are some who believe gun control is a rational idea and others who do not. The point being that I don't think you could create a legal system that passes judgement on the rationality of the content of someone's argument.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Are you going to expand upon your reasoning there? That seems pretty rude.

I don't like you, I won't lie about it. The fact that it seems rude is merely because I don't want to lie about it. I state it as it is.I think that acting as if I like or respect you, whilst not meaning it, would be worse than stating that I don't. Many times I wanted to ask you how you were raised and how your parents were. Just to know why you need such certainty in every system of thought. Every non-absolute is a logical impossibility to you, while in truth absolutes rarely apply to a posteriori reality. If I were truly honest I'd damn you for always asking questions just to confirm your own beliefs. But I won't. I won't reply to any question you post after this post. And I won't start any debates with you anymore, nor shall I answer any of your replies.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I don't like you, I won't lie about it. The fact that it seems rude is merely because I don't want to lie about it. I state it as it is.I think that acting as if I like or respect you, whilst not meaning it, would be worse than stating that I don't.

Give me a reason why you think this. Thus far, all I've done as far as I can see is disagree with you. I disagree with Abreo, Eynestin and many others about lots of things, that doesn't mean I think they're rude.

 

Every non-absolute is a logical impossibility to you, while in truth absolutes rarely apply to a posteriori reality.

 

No, that's not what I said. I said absolutes are necessary when it comes to making laws, and are necessary in many debates. Non absolutes are relatively useless because all you're doing then is stating positions.

 

If I were truly honest I'd damn you for always asking questions just to confirm your own beliefs. But I won't.

You just did. That's not clever. Also, I don't ask questions to just confirm my beliefs. I ask questions to see if anyone can counter my beliefs.

 

I won't reply to any question you post after this post. And I won't start any debates with you anymore, nor shall I answer any of your replies.

Wow, silent treatment. How mature.

[Abreo]

Many times I wanted to ask you how you were raised and how your parents were.

 

Well it's fine to not like someone or the way they argue but that was the point you sort of fell into the path of no redemption. It definitely becomes too personal once you bring his parents and his possible childhood into this. If you have problems with the way he argues you can nicely discuss it but that was just rude man.

[Ryan Gatts]

@Aaron V

I'm sorry you ended up in a tangential argument. I'm interested in theoretically pursuing the idea that there it is possible to have censurable hate speech. (I don't personally hold this belief, and I know you abstained from the difficult question above, but I like trying to solve theoretical problems :) )

So. If we assume that any hate-speech is censurable, then the most hateful speech possible must also be censurable. What makes a statement optimally hateful? Do you measure based on the size of the target audience of people to be offended? Is it measured by the severity of the hate? How would one go about measuring these things (size of target audience, severity of offense)?

Also, your profile picture isn't bad either. : )

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm sorry you ended up in a tangential argument.

Can I just point out that I did respond to his point on both occasions, and that it was him who brought up personal things for whatever reason.

So. If we assume that any hate-speech is censurable, then the most hateful speech possible must also be censurable. What makes a statement optimally hateful? Do you measure based on the size of the target audience of people to be offended? Is it measured by the severity of the hate? How would one go about measuring these things (size of target audience, severity of offense)?

I think the basic principles you might use (and I'm just spitballing here) would be the following:

Simplicity, severity and audience.

Firstly, audience. It would be absurd to start making hate crime legislation that effectively operated one on one cases. The only times where you could have hate speech as a crime and still have an effective legal system is if you accepted cases where:

A group speaks hate to an individual

An individual speaks hate to a group

A group speaks hate to another group

Anything other than that, and you'd have so many cases that your courts would just melt down.

Secondly, severity.

You need to ascertain the level of severity of the hatred involved, and at its most basic level it comes down to what is advocated to be done to someone. So for example, not wanting homosexuals in the military could not itself be regarded as hate, because there is not malice involved. However wishing that said homosexuals suffered emotional and psycological pressure to leave the millitary could be regarded as hateful, but obviosuly not as severe as wishing they would all be court martialed and shot.

Thirdly, simplicity.

Hate is simple. The more simplistic the statement, the more sweeping, the more generalising, the worse it is. So for example, saying something like "all the gays should burn in hell" could very easily be seen as a simplistic hateful point. But making a more nuanced argument about the Bible's view on homosexuality, even if it is negative, couldn't be seen as hateful.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

yes, sorry about the argument. I just got quite sick of it.

About the question at hand, I assume that you want to find the most objective possible way to determine how hateful something is. The problem with this is that the quality hate isn't easily converted into a quantity with which to create this objective judgement. And every form of quantity in this system will often be based on an underlying ethical system. Thus the best question to ask is, so I think (opinion), which system of ethics should we use. To have an absolutely objective system you would need a morally absolute system. Because then it would be true for everyone. But moral absolutism is often seen as impossible, because it doesn't take in account that moral isn't something you percieve, like color or texture, it is something you feel or think, and because of this it differs from person to person. So we cannot make a completely objective system. But what can we make? We can base our system on popular moral. Like utilitarianism or virtue ethics. But those all have a lot of shortcomings, those all look at it from one point of view. I would propose to not use any of these systems, where they only attach value to one way of viewing ethics. But I'd rather use (personal opinion) a system of value pluralism. Where we use different ethical systems for different issues. This will not be completely objective, but if it is well implemented then it could create a system in which we can seperate the hateful from the non-hateful in quite a easy way. 

So, now that I have given my opinion on which system to use, I still need to do something which I think is impossible to do; postulate some values which should be used for this system. And because I think that it is impossible to postulate some universal values, I just want to make censorship something time and space bound. So that different countries can choose which values they base their censorship on. And because I'm not familiar enough with eastern ethics, I will only speculate about which values we could use in the western world. 

I for one hope (personal opinion) that we will use values based on the rationality of an argument. If an argument is completely rational, but if a byproduct of that argument could be hate, then we should still allow it (perhaps for a few rare exceptions in which the consequences would be too horrifying, but I'm not sure of that yet). Simply because being hateful isn't it's purpose, it's purpose is purely rational and intellectual. If however the entire purpose of an argument is hate, then it should be censored. But that is just my system of values. Now you raise a good point; how do we measure hate? Frankly, I don't know, I don't know at all. And I don't even know if this is something I should speculate about or if I should let psychologists and biologists figure it out. Many of whom, I assume, are a lot more competent than me. We could learn a bit from Milgram's experiment, but that won't help much. We could only state that the use of supraindividual fictions or the faking of legitimate autority could make something more hatefull, and more prone to incite aggression than arguments/movies/... in which this is not used. And as you stated already we could use the size of the target audience, but that doesn't really seem like a good way to measure hate to me. I fear that movies like Brüno, which can easily be percieved as hatefull or offensive, would be censured just for having a big audience. In the end I don't really know any way to objectively measure it. Sorry :)

Personally I don't really know my own opinion on the issue. I feel that it is much more complex than it seems and that I can't just answer it in a few lines of text.