Freedom of Speech turning to Freedom to Hate?

Question

I was just on youtube, looking up information about an athropological theory on Out of Africa and then i found a video of an antrhopologist explaining it.... it wasn't long until he immidetaly started HATING and saying the most degrading things about African people and it literally made me sick

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RXC4u9BE0uM

I understand that we have freedom of speech and its great that we have something like You Tube to use as a creative outlit

but to what extent is it ok to use your rights and freedoms to spread hate?

he wasn't joking... he made several more movies of the same type

Answer 1

shouldn't be allowed, but where do you draw the line?

A famous American was alleged to have once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Of course he didn't say it. It actually comes from The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall and published in 1906 under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre. And paraphrases what Voltaire said.

Of course, even the ACLU defends the right for Nazi groups in the US to call for the burning of ACLU headquarters.

Answer 2

That, my little lady, is the HARD side of the freedom of speech
The "open forum" of free speech is there for every individual (at least for the moment) and for ANY person or group to START having the call on what is or isn't allowed---and---you no longer HAVE free speech !!
The beauty here is that people who hear the type of hate mongering that you are talking about here--- if they are informed, knowledgeable, and aware--- will know immediately where this sort of garbage is coming from and be able to get it categorized and filed away in the proper place with no hangups at all --- but-- there does exist the slightest edge that this type of thing will lead some who are uninformed, ignorant, and unaware into thoughts and beliefs that are very unsavory and most definately undesirable in nature !! But, the upside IS, that true freedom of speech far outweighs the alternative !!!

Answer 3

This is a long reply, but bare with me. There ARE regulations to the Freedom of Speech amendment in the US constitution (according to case law). I don't know about other countries. As far as the internet (youtube goes) it is up to the owner of the website to regulate contents of their page. Read on to find out more about the US regulations (the links will take you to the case descriptions);

Lawful Regulation on Speech -

Obscenity. Speech defined as obscenity is outside the boundaries of First Amendment protection. As defined by (Miller v. California) obscenity is speech that (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest; (2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner specifically defined sexual conduct; and (3) lacks as a whole serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The definition of obscenity, developed in 1973, focuses on a local "community standard," and has proven to be the crux of litigation surrounding internet censorship cases, which by their nature cannot depend upon local community standards.

Fighting Words. Speech likely to provoke an average listener to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace, falls outside the protection of the First Amendment because the words have no important role in the marketplace of ideas the freedom of speech is designed to promote. (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire)

Incitement The government can regulate speech that is intended and likely to incite "imminent lawless action," or where the speech presents a "clear and present danger" to the security of the nation. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

Answer 4

Well, it IS freedom of speech, but when it's just hate speech, it's pretty much not accepted because it's generally not nice when it all comes down to it, and nobody wants to hear about it.

Yes, people do use their rights to take things too far, but changing one law will lead to outrage in a group, changing it back may anger the other side, and the only way to keep the balance is to keep the rules as is. I see where you're coming from, though.

Answer 5

Anti-Islamic speech *isn't* ok. Anti-extremist speech is. When *most* Westerners are saying bad things about Islamic extremists, they're not talking about run-of-the-mill Muslims (unless those Muslims are a blood-thirsty mob that's trying to tear down embassies and murder the people inside for no legitimate reason). They're talking about people who crash planes into buildings full of civilians. Or who commit acts of war, like blowing up a docked ship. Or who try to smuggle guns into Israel to arm people who will use them on civilians. And just to set the record straight, there's plenty of anti-Semitic speech going around over here. Just ask anyone in the "Occupy" movement.

Answer 6

In many parts of Australia (and the world) hatespeech has been legislated as a crime, but that doesn't stop racism on talkback radio, newspapers and places like youtube. That measn that the line is drawn by a combination of citizens willing to complain, the police and their inclination to act and the courts.

That's fine to a degree, but what happens when the community is blind t it's prejudices? Obvious current examples include the way muslims are treated in our community, but also includes longer term embedded prejudices like those against women and stupid people.

The original question is a good one, and I'd like to see people address the ways of managing freedom to hate versus freedom to speak.

Answer 7

Honestly, racially incendiary speech is not covered under the banner of free speech. (But can you prove they were trying to incite people? They can say it is just a joke, etc..) Just as speech inducing public panic and riot is illegal. (For example, you can not falsely yell "fire" in the proverbial crowed theater.)
However, the lines are sometimes blurred and you just can't possibly legislate every aspect of life.
I couldn't watch the entire video, it was too annoying. Please tell me at the end he said that he was just joking. I have a sinking feeling that wasn't the case though.
Unfortunately, some people have a sick sense of humor and I guess we just have to live with that to reap all of the benefits of free speech.

Answer 8

the united states used to have what was called a "fairness doctrine" which allowed equal time for opposing viewpoints. in effect if you wanted to spout nonsense you had to allow for a logical rebuttal to follow. it was established by the fcc in 1949 and was overturned by the reagan administration in 1987 and made room for the likes of rush limbaugh and other propaganda by the "conservative" right.

with no fairness doctrine you are allowed to say anything you want no matter how false (like rush's recent comments on barak obama and halle berry being self congratulatory "half african-americans") in the name of entertainment.

the 2006 elected congress is attempting to establish a fairness doctrine as binding law. here are a couple articles --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5167_0_6_0_C

Answer 9

Hate is not a bad thing. I did not see the video. Dail-up. Would you hate the Nazi party in the 1940's? The best thing we can do is marginalize those who are fools. If it made you sick you need a little thicker skin.
1) teach your children the positive thing to hate and teach them about the fools.

Answer 10

The right to free speech does not mean the right to be taken seriously.