Free speech means that you can say anything. That’s the definition. We put practical limitations on it. For example defamation or calls to violence.
But every single limitation should be carefully articulated and considered. I don’t see why a racial slur would violate anyone’s human rights.
For example I can go up to someone and insult them for all sorts of things - “you’re an ugly stupid worthless piece of trash” and that’s ok but I say “you’re a dirty [racial slur]” all of a sudden it’s different?
If we want to protect people from the effects of words we should raise children with thicker skin - not try and regulate what people can and can’t say. Hearing a word does not have to upset you.
For example I can go up to someone and insult them for all sorts of things - “you’re an ugly stupid worthless piece of trash” and that’s ok but I say “you’re a dirty [racial slur]” all of a sudden it’s different?
If it makes you feel any better, telling someone “you’re an ugly stupid worthless piece of trash” would get you banned from my instance too, so it is not so different.
I wouldn’t use this language myself because I am not ready to defend that it is reasonable to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this context.
I think that they might be referring to Article 1, and possibly 5.
If this is their interpretation, then calling someone a worthless piece of trash is also a violation. You are talking to another human being as if they have less dignity, and you are treating them in a cruel and degrading manner.
Article 1 states that we should “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”
Which, I totally agree with. However if that was the definition for violation of human rights then essentially everyone in the world is constantly having their human rights violated because not everyone gets treated as a brother by everyone. This definition would be broad enough to be meaningless, I believe. Even though I agree we should love our fellow man and treat him with respect.
Article 5 I see more of an argument for, but I think even there is lacking. It says “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
For one, it’s clear that the context is in POW / criminal treatments. However let’s expand the broadness of this statement and say that perhaps using a racial slur is degrading. It’s open to interpretation but let’s follow the thread.
Would me making fun of Donald Trump’s hair be considered degrading? I would say so. Am I violating his human rights? I don’t think so.
If I am criticizing someone by calling them a tyrant, is it degrading? Well, it is open to interpretation.
I recognize you specifically said you are not arguing for this because you are not prepared to defend it - because you recognize it’s an overreach.
Freedom of speech is a critical part of having a free society. If we get rid of free speech to protect others, we are simply throwing away our free society for one where speech will inevitably be tightly regulated. We are heading down a dangerous road.
I would never call someone a racial slur because I believe that all races are equal. However I do not think government should be restricting hateful speech. If we believe in free speech, then we must defend it precisely when someone is making abhorrent speech. Because otherwise, we don’t believe in free speech at all. A wise man said that, one who went through the Holocaust. I am with him 100%
There is an entire category of laws called “hate crimes” which are to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. In many European jurisdictions this even is expanded to include speech.
If I key your car, I get one sentence. If I key your car and write a racial slur targeting your ethnicity or race, I get a more serious one. That much is true even in the United States.
So it’s not a false dichotomy but a real distinction we make in our legal systems. One which I agree with in the context of hate crimes but I don’t agree with in the context of hate speech.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Re-read that quote and tell me which parts implies you can’t say anything. Because according to your quote everyone has the “freedom to hold opinions without interference” which would presumably include opinions such as “[racial group] is inferior” and the ability to express it
I think that main problem is not what you personally said, but that they are hearing the same slur all day, every day, from different people.
Frequency they hear it is what makes it problematic.
“your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins” but you have to be more understanding to be able and see where their nose is. Sadly, it is a bit closer than expected.
Free speech means that you can say anything. That’s the definition. We put practical limitations on it. For example defamation or calls to violence.
But every single limitation should be carefully articulated and considered. I don’t see why a racial slur would violate anyone’s human rights.
For example I can go up to someone and insult them for all sorts of things - “you’re an ugly stupid worthless piece of trash” and that’s ok but I say “you’re a dirty [racial slur]” all of a sudden it’s different?
If we want to protect people from the effects of words we should raise children with thicker skin - not try and regulate what people can and can’t say. Hearing a word does not have to upset you.
If it makes you feel any better, telling someone “you’re an ugly stupid worthless piece of trash” would get you banned from my instance too, so it is not so different.
And I’m totally fine with that. I’m asking why is one apparently a violation of humans rights and the other isn’t.
I wouldn’t use this language myself because I am not ready to defend that it is reasonable to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this context.
I think that they might be referring to Article 1, and possibly 5.
If this is their interpretation, then calling someone a worthless piece of trash is also a violation. You are talking to another human being as if they have less dignity, and you are treating them in a cruel and degrading manner.
Article 1 states that we should “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”
Which, I totally agree with. However if that was the definition for violation of human rights then essentially everyone in the world is constantly having their human rights violated because not everyone gets treated as a brother by everyone. This definition would be broad enough to be meaningless, I believe. Even though I agree we should love our fellow man and treat him with respect.
Article 5 I see more of an argument for, but I think even there is lacking. It says “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
For one, it’s clear that the context is in POW / criminal treatments. However let’s expand the broadness of this statement and say that perhaps using a racial slur is degrading. It’s open to interpretation but let’s follow the thread.
Would me making fun of Donald Trump’s hair be considered degrading? I would say so. Am I violating his human rights? I don’t think so.
If I am criticizing someone by calling them a tyrant, is it degrading? Well, it is open to interpretation.
I recognize you specifically said you are not arguing for this because you are not prepared to defend it - because you recognize it’s an overreach.
Freedom of speech is a critical part of having a free society. If we get rid of free speech to protect others, we are simply throwing away our free society for one where speech will inevitably be tightly regulated. We are heading down a dangerous road.
I would never call someone a racial slur because I believe that all races are equal. However I do not think government should be restricting hateful speech. If we believe in free speech, then we must defend it precisely when someone is making abhorrent speech. Because otherwise, we don’t believe in free speech at all. A wise man said that, one who went through the Holocaust. I am with him 100%
Because that false dichotomy only exists in your brain.
There is an entire category of laws called “hate crimes” which are to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. In many European jurisdictions this even is expanded to include speech.
If I key your car, I get one sentence. If I key your car and write a racial slur targeting your ethnicity or race, I get a more serious one. That much is true even in the United States.
So it’s not a false dichotomy but a real distinction we make in our legal systems. One which I agree with in the context of hate crimes but I don’t agree with in the context of hate speech.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
So no, you can’t say anything.
Re-read that quote and tell me which parts implies you can’t say anything. Because according to your quote everyone has the “freedom to hold opinions without interference” which would presumably include opinions such as “[racial group] is inferior” and the ability to express it
I think that main problem is not what you personally said, but that they are hearing the same slur all day, every day, from different people.
Frequency they hear it is what makes it problematic.
“your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins” but you have to be more understanding to be able and see where their nose is. Sadly, it is a bit closer than expected.