Today, we live in a world filled with diversity of all kinds, shapes, sizes, colors, beliefs and so on. We live in a world that is continuously getting smaller by the minute the more we realize the variety of races and beliefs that make up the world's human populace. Many people find it a nice thing when they get to know and understand people they meet as well as their customs, rites, traditions, beliefs and cultural adherences. One can definitely find unity in diversity.
However, such integration is not always followed by understanding. The human mind is capable of ignorance, bias and malicious intent when it comes to expending the least amount of energy on assimilating or accepting other people and their backgrounds. With ignorance of the background in question comes fear, followed by hate and false perceptions of what one in such a situation would believe as the "truth". Over time, through the lies that make up this belief, this person is led to believe that the said background or group is an endangerment to the society he's/she's part of, and advocates for its push out of society in the name of what he believes to be "tolerance". The prime outlet he/she has at his/her disposal is speech, whatever its form may be, in order to spread such a message that calls for intolerance in the society in the name of what he sees as "tolerance", which can prove to be a grave mistake considering that freedom of speech, a basis of libertarian/liberal society, does not mean freedom from responsibility.
With that in mind, "hate speech" conflicts with another libertarian core value: Social Equity. In a libertarian society, all of its citizens and members are granted equal rights and are recommended to coexist together and tolerate one another. By its definition, "hate speech" promotes intolerance for the group involved in the satire or attack. The degree of the response to the said satire depends on the degree of satire itself, whether it may be a simple prank or an obtrusive attack. In some cases, as in the recent cartoon controversy, the protests done by the group under fire in response to the article or item of speech that lambastes them reaches the climax equivalent to an attempt in suppressing what we know as free speech, albeit not free speech itself as a whole. What makes matters worse is that the said media outlet can incite fear into the hearts of those it is attacking of not being accepted into their respective societies, and outrage sometimes results. So, what measures should we as libertarians take to ensure that free speech and social equity go about unharmed both ways?
There are many solutions to this problem, but one must first consider the fact that hate and distrust are social constructs that can not be avoided no matter what. That being said, everyone should become familiarized with the outlets of hate speech and tasteless satire present in the media. Thus, education can be promoted on these issues, as with most problematic issues. Another solution would be to indicate clearly that the opinion of the artist/writer/media producer does not reflect the opinions of the people around him from the production team, the press syndicate or whatever the media outlet he/she hails from.
If such procedures continue, we might see an end to extreme hate speech, and a more accepting society; another outcome might be accepting hate speech if not accepting others as a whole, and that, in my opinion at least, is much better than outright intolerance.
Remember, as Ben Franklin once said: "Everything in moderation." Keep the balance between the two, and we will have a successful, diverse, free and, most importantly, accepting society.
Salaam, from
Saracen
However, such integration is not always followed by understanding. The human mind is capable of ignorance, bias and malicious intent when it comes to expending the least amount of energy on assimilating or accepting other people and their backgrounds. With ignorance of the background in question comes fear, followed by hate and false perceptions of what one in such a situation would believe as the "truth". Over time, through the lies that make up this belief, this person is led to believe that the said background or group is an endangerment to the society he's/she's part of, and advocates for its push out of society in the name of what he believes to be "tolerance". The prime outlet he/she has at his/her disposal is speech, whatever its form may be, in order to spread such a message that calls for intolerance in the society in the name of what he sees as "tolerance", which can prove to be a grave mistake considering that freedom of speech, a basis of libertarian/liberal society, does not mean freedom from responsibility.
With that in mind, "hate speech" conflicts with another libertarian core value: Social Equity. In a libertarian society, all of its citizens and members are granted equal rights and are recommended to coexist together and tolerate one another. By its definition, "hate speech" promotes intolerance for the group involved in the satire or attack. The degree of the response to the said satire depends on the degree of satire itself, whether it may be a simple prank or an obtrusive attack. In some cases, as in the recent cartoon controversy, the protests done by the group under fire in response to the article or item of speech that lambastes them reaches the climax equivalent to an attempt in suppressing what we know as free speech, albeit not free speech itself as a whole. What makes matters worse is that the said media outlet can incite fear into the hearts of those it is attacking of not being accepted into their respective societies, and outrage sometimes results. So, what measures should we as libertarians take to ensure that free speech and social equity go about unharmed both ways?
There are many solutions to this problem, but one must first consider the fact that hate and distrust are social constructs that can not be avoided no matter what. That being said, everyone should become familiarized with the outlets of hate speech and tasteless satire present in the media. Thus, education can be promoted on these issues, as with most problematic issues. Another solution would be to indicate clearly that the opinion of the artist/writer/media producer does not reflect the opinions of the people around him from the production team, the press syndicate or whatever the media outlet he/she hails from.
If such procedures continue, we might see an end to extreme hate speech, and a more accepting society; another outcome might be accepting hate speech if not accepting others as a whole, and that, in my opinion at least, is much better than outright intolerance.
Remember, as Ben Franklin once said: "Everything in moderation." Keep the balance between the two, and we will have a successful, diverse, free and, most importantly, accepting society.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment