The Right to Hate

[Dizzle229]

I've been thinking this over for a while now, and still haven't come up with a satisfactory opinion.

 

In a nutshell, should people in a free society have the right to feel and express hate against a group or person, even for seemingly unjustified and/or irrational reasons?

 

This came about from thinking about hate groups like Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan. Should a government body be able to ban such groups, or crack down on them with arrests for such activities? Would it be justifiable for a citizen to bomb or otherwise violently oppose such a group?

 

I frequently watch videos on Westboro, and always end up thinking "I really wish these idiots would just burst into flame already". But regardless, attacking them would be terrorism, and is terrorism ever justified? Not to mention how many of their members are children, and never had a chance to know any better. In cases like this, should the government be allowed to take away these children for re-education?

[obfuscator]

Terrorism is never justified and the right to hate should always be allowed.

[Dizzle229]

Terrorism is never justified and the right to hate should always be allowed.

What if enough people are influenced by a group to the point where it could potentially spread?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate.

[Jonanananas]

It's quite simply really(Ok maybe a few exceptions, but not many :P). Everyone is allowed to do what he wants as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others. If it does violate the rights of others, you have to judge which of the rights is more important. E.g. in case of murder the right to life of the victim is more important than the right to do what you want to do.

 

In this case, as long as they are only *hating* others, they're completely free to do so. We're not in 1984, thoughtcrime doesn't exist :P. What they're not allowed to do is to encourage the violation of rights of the people they hate, e.g. suggesting to murder them or whatever.

 

And no, it is not justifiable to attack those groups, unless it is in direct defence of victims.

[Kaida23]

It's one of the downsides to free speech. You may not like the things a person says or believes or even tries to get others to believe, but there's very little that can be done about a person's beliefs as long as those beliefs don't become actions that violate the law.

[obfuscator]

Terrorism is never justified and the right to hate should always be allowed.

What if enough people are influenced by a group to the point where it could potentially spread?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate.

Educate people as to why the hate is a bad idea, don't outlaw it entirely.

 

There are many ideals that a large number of people adhere to that are potentially harmful. Trying to crush those ideas by forcing people to not follow them is almost never the right choice.

[Poppet]

My view on it is, that if it tolerates other persons' FoS it is acceptable in the terms of FoS.

 

But, if it is intolerant of another persons' FoS it is unacceptable.

[Sy_Accursed]

I think the UK law has it right:

Groups like that aren't illegal to exist however it IS illegal to attempt to incite hatred agaisnt another specific group (being it religious, sexist, homophobic, racist or w/e).

So no flyering or parading around with things like "God Hates [bleep]" etc.

[Zierro]

People should be free to express why they hate something just as much as people should be free to express why that hatred is stupid. The only problem is when people use this freedom of expression to manipulate groups into going on crusades of violence, like the case with Hitler and religious cults. But the government is just a group of people too and letting them hold the power of what we can and cannot say is another nightmare.

 

We're always wrong when it comes to politics.

[Randox]

Terrorism is never justified and the right to hate should always be allowed.

I agree with your second point, but as for the first:

 

http://www.treelobsters.com/2009/05/relativism.html

 

I'd say terrorism is frequently justified, based on the above.

I'd make a distinction between people who attack military and people who attack civilian targets first.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I've been thinking this over for a while now, and still haven't come up with a satisfactory opinion.

 

In a nutshell, should people in a free society have the right to feel and express hate against a group or person, even for seemingly unjustified and/or irrational reasons?

 

This came about from thinking about hate groups like Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan. Should a government body be able to ban such groups, or crack down on them with arrests for such activities? Would it be justifiable for a citizen to bomb or otherwise violently oppose such a group?

 

I frequently watch videos on Westboro, and always end up thinking "I really wish these idiots would just burst into flame already". But regardless, attacking them would be terrorism, and is terrorism ever justified? Not to mention how many of their members are children, and never had a chance to know any better. In cases like this, should the government be allowed to take away these children for re-education?

 

Everybody has their own hates and prejudices. If they say they don't they're a liar. We all do. It's only how we channel those hates and prejudices that makes us different from others. Most right thinking people do nothing and keep their thoughts to themselves. The likes of the Ku Klux Klan didn't and therefore thrived on violence and terrorism as it went unchecked. Now, if you use terrorism against them are you fighting fire with fire or are you just as bad as them?

[obfuscator]

Terrorism is never justified and the right to hate should always be allowed.

I agree with your second point, but as for the first:

 

http://www.treelobsters.com/2009/05/relativism.html

 

I'd say terrorism is frequently justified, based on the above.

Hold on though - that comic is completely right. That's not terrorism. Attacking a military target is never terrorism. That's just a label NATO and CO applies to win public approval.

 

Flying a plane into the world trade center was terrorism. Bombing NATO convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq is not.

[Nomrombom]

Hating is fine, but if you start harassing or attacking others then it's not fine.

[chenw]

Although I think the word 'Terrorism' as changed to "acts of violence or intimidation to civilians in pursuit of political gains.". Such attacks on Military Installation rarely incites the same kind of 'Terror' effect into civillians, unless more Civillians die than Military.

[Sy_Accursed]

Terrorism and attacking military targets is kind of subjective to circumstance.

Attacking a military installation in a time of peace would be terrorism; like if some French activist group went and planted bombs on a US military base.

However when the military is already at war it cannot be terrorism, it is just war. Eg To look at the Deathstar reference (which btw I think the wookie's slave 'fact' is made up can't say I've ever come across that) the Deathstar is already attacking stuff and is at war with the intention of destroying many more planets; so it's not a terrorist attack to destroy it. It's an act of war aimed at ending conflict by crippling the other sides offensive power.

[Kimberly]

Reminds me of a South Park episode about tolerance in society.

 

Finally promoted to teaching fourth graders, Mr. Garrison realizes that getting fired for being homosexual could allow him to sue the school for millions. He decides to perform outrageous sex acts in the classroom, hiring his partner Mr. Slave as his teaching assistant. Though the children complain about Garrison's inappropriate activities, their parents mistakenly think their children are intolerant of homosexuality. The adults send the children to the Museum of Tolerance to learn about tolerance of minorities or those with different life choices, though they hypocritically attack a nearby smoker with verbal abuse.

 

...

 

The children mention their discomfort to Chef, who in turn, reports Garrison's actions to Principal Victoria, but ends up being sent to a "tolerance seminar". ... ack at school, Garrison is to receive the "Courageous Teacher Award" for overcoming adversity. Still frustrated at not being fired, Garrison goes all out at the ceremony in an extremely flamboyant and stereotypically gay manner (humming Ferde Grofé's "On the Trail" from the Grand Canyon Suite). Although the parents are indeed shocked at Garrsion's behavior, they cannot bring themselves to criticize it, as they fear being branded "intolerant". When the people continue to call Garrison and Mr. Slave "courageous" for their actions, Garrison finally breaks down and shouts at them that "tolerating something doesn't mean you have to approve of it."