Should racist speech be controlled by the law?

[MrManager]

Specifically the criminal law, i.e. should it be an offence (as it is now), or is freedom of speech too important?

It is nothing to do with being "controlled".

The law allows offensive remarks, just not the racial. Racial remarks in public will be criminal if they cause harassment, alarm or distress or incite hatred - everyone is entitled to their (racist) opinions in private.

There is no easy solution to this obviously, but when you ask the govt to remove more civil liberties than they already have, you're on a slippery slope I'm afraid.

I don't understand how civil liberty equates to being racist though.

because who is deciding what constitutes racist? There is no empirical measure as to what is racist and what is not. You are totally reliant on a benevolent state to use that law wisely.

but is being able to walk down the street without being caused harassment, alarm, or distress not a civil liberty??

Yes but the law comes from what is common sense and general views and values of the society it governs. No one sits there in a little tower making up laws because they sound good. The laws are a result of what society wants and needs to function properly.

Also who decides what's racist?

There are some examples where it obviously, blatantly is (Baroque's examples).

But my dd1 gets called Whiteywhite, Goldengirl, etc here (she is white, fair haired, blue-eyed in a predominantly black school). The comments are not made to insult - but some people would call them racist. (We're not in the UK but wanted to show as an example. )

People of the same skin colour will also use terminology towards each other (presumably in an "ironic" way?) which is deemed racist if used by someone of a different skin colour. Where do you draw the line?

Personally I think the law is fine as it is.

You cannot expect the state to protect you utterly without severely infringing your own liberties as well

I know it's not the same but I've had abuse shouted at me in the street before about my physical appearance. There is no law in the land that could protect me from that, nor would I want there to be.

If someone is harrassing you or abusing you to the point where you feel at threat of harm, this is already covered by other legislation.

I get the slippery slope thing. But what Baroquin is describing is also a slippery slope between hate speech and violence. I suppose it depends on what you see as more harmful to society in the long run. It's never going to be straightforward where there are competing rights.

People have a fundamental right to say what they please.

If a person makes a racist remark (and all corners of the globe do it .. all the time), then it is up the audience or the target to sort it out, if they so wish.

It's totally ridiculous to expect the government to govern people's speech.

Not wanting to be patronising but please please read 1984 if you haven't already done so, and then tell me that you think this is a good idea.

If you think govts only introduce laws that everyone wants and are sensible, I'm sorry but you're being naive.

Look at identity cards for one - we had a very narrow escape.

There is a law to protect you if you are shouted at in the street in relation to your physical appearance.....you do not need a threat of violence to be protected.

EXACTLY desi

Ah, identity cards, fule! Don't get me started on those ....

If you take my taxes, then you already know who I am.

End of.

Racist speech is not illegal and shouldn't be. Inciting racial hatred is and should be.
Harrasment is not and should not be.

So you can say what you like as long as it does not result in someone else being harmed.

Identity cards were going to add the square root of fuck all to state control. Then WERE going to cost a lot of money and not work though.

Is it worse to be called a fat bitch, a stupid bitch, an ugly bitch, or a (insert colour) bitch, when walking down the street?

It's all bad. It's all harassment. Harassment should be the crime. Not the content of the harassment. If that makes sense.

At the same time, there should be laws to ensure that inequalities in employment, education, government, housing, etc are addressed with zero tolerance for isms of any kind.

AnyFule....I do get where you are coming from -I feel that the Law stands to protect basic rights. ID cards do not fall into the category of protecting basic human rights.

I believe that we are entitled to go about our business with minimal interference from others, especially the state but surely part of our right is to uphold the rights of others?

By the way, I read 1984 as part of an O'level when 1984 was still in the future .

Scurry but do you think we all have the right not to be offended?

In my opinion we don't and we shouldn't.

"You cannot expect the state to protect you utterly without severely infringing your own liberties as well"

But I feel no need to verbally attack, intimidate, harass or alarm anyone through my words as I'm walking down the street based on, well based on anything really. Or carry out any action which is going to deliberately upset any particular group of people. So I can't say that I'd be upset about that civil liberty being taken away.

I can only hope that those who think that these laws shouldn't exist at all have never experience "freedom of racism" to any extent (and believe me the difference between the odd stupid/offensive comment is very different) or have anyone close to them that could suffer from it in the future.

I'm actually very and that in 2010 people think it's ok that racial hatred (and other hatred) and abuse should be allowed.

I think there is a difference between real inequality and perceived inequality.

It's all to do your mettle, at the end of the day.

We live in a meritocracy, where all people can achieve big things if they so want it.

Left-wing views have seriously chipped away at the fabric of British life over the last thirty years. A sense of humour is inbred in all the races of the planet. PC limits that humour, but more than that, it creates a climate where people are at unease with each other.

It's divisive, and it's counter-productive.

I believe we have the right to be offensive (if that is what floats your boat ) but I think when it becomes criminal -ie affects others to their detriment, then the law covers it nicely.

I can talk about my feelings and opinions til the cows come home but the minute I hurt someone or harass them or encourage others to do so, then that is wrong, in any culture.

It is the difference between being public and private about how you feel.

This isn't about offence blimey I'm sure most of us are offended by something we hear almost every single day.

The closest word I can think to describe it is verbal persecution.

Yes there may be laws against harassment etc - but if you have absolute freedom of speech I can imagine it would be quite easy to argue that your harassment of someone was you simply utilising your right of absolute free speech.

I can remember vividly when it became acceptable to convey as much racial hatred as you wanted to the person next to you - no matter what their colour where I lived. Prior to that racism (of course) existed but it was frowned on in general, in public, and was muted. As soon as it became acceptable to openly voice those opinions in what ever way they wanted, to whoever they wanted, when they wanted then it all started to change. The country became divided, violent, intolerable.

I know of 2 family members (close ones - my family is very small) who if they were free to say what ever they wanted would have no hesitation in doing so. The current laws at least keep their voices and opinions (which have no real place in today's society) where they belong - as private views and voices.

An ex neighbour of mine called my mixed race children fucking monkeys (and not in a nice way) more than once. I reported him, to the police they prosecuted him. I'm glad I had a way to make it clear it wasn't OK to use that kind of racist language.

Am I missing the point here or are some people saying that he should have been allowed to call my children that?