Free speech as a right to criticise government is exceptionally important.
Free speech as a right to abuse people is not something I want to see in Europe.
I don't see these as being the same. I think there is something wrong with the common English language usage that we use the same term to cover multiple definitions.
That is the question of course: who gets to decide what constitutes 'abuse'? Do you trust anyone in your government to decide which of the words, writings, blog posts, comments or tweets you make constitute 'abuse' of another person?
Given that the go-to rhetoric of so many political and religious groups is to be "offended" as a substitute for being right, laws that restrict 'hate' speech or 'abuse' speech create more legal cover for the people who are least willing to cope with criticism than the people who are most vulnerable to abuse.
And, usually, you will find that the people who are least willing to cope with criticism are the people who should be most criticized, because no one's ideas are sacrosanct.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to listen, or not to listen. Abuse and hate can be countered with more robust freedom of speech, more social shunning, more economic boycotting--it does not require government intervention to curb all the 'isms'.
What are you talking about? How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott?
The government should decide because that's what the government is for. If the government doesn't get it right, then the people should hold the government accountable.
In my opinion, Western governments lack sufficient accountability, but I still trust them to decide more than I trust an all-or-nothing anti-philosophical principle.
The government isn't an intelligent entity; it's made up of people. And people have prejudices, hatreds, fears, and worst of all, a pack mentality. Governments have the worst track record when it comes to oppressing minorities--why would we expect giving governments the power to censor speech help minorities?
>How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott?
You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.
Nobody wants to see abusive speech being used. The question is whether or not the law should "protect" people from it. I'm not talking about making credible threats, because the crime of assault already covers that.
If a society decides that abusive speech is a special case that must not be tolerated, it also has to define what "abusive speech" is. This requires, by its very nature, a subjective and often emotional interpretation. That society must also determine whether unintentionally abusive speech is a crime.
If the law is charged with protecting people against abusive or potentially abusive speech, it has to have powers necessary to do so. This requires the power to censor, the power to silence dissenting voices, and the power to (re)interpret the words of others based on the emotional reaction of anyone who hears those words (which may not be the intended audience).
Those powers undermine the use of speech for all purposes, not just ones that society deems appropriate.
I don't understand why people seem to think that any kind of distinction here can be enforced without undermining free speech as a whole. By way of example, you have property rights and if, by exercising them, you erect a hideous statue on your property which your neighbor finds offensive, your neighbor has no right to have the statue torn down simply because he finds it distasteful.
Freedom of speech is only really valuable when you're saying something that someone might want to censor. Nobody cares if you're saying something everyone already agrees with.
> By way of example, you have property rights and if, by exercising them, you erect a hideous statue on your property which your neighbor finds offensive, your neighbor has no right to have the statue torn down simply because he finds it distasteful.
Also on this unrelated topic, exactly the opposite is common in Europe.
In the UK, you would need planning permission to place a statue, a process which allows a neighbour to voice their objection to the planning committee of the local government.
"Free speech as a right to abuse people is not something I want to see"
And if you take that to mean "people" as any group of people, then it means you aren't free to speak out against ISIS, or the attackers at Charlie Hebdo, or those doing things you think are objectively wrong.
In parts of the world now, it is not socially acceptable to speak out against the actions of Israel, as such critiques are considered anti-Semitic. Maybe this is fair, but if the Israeli state begins decapitating innocent people in the streets, should you be allowed to condemn it publicly?
It's a nice fantasy that the disenfranchised could somehow be immune from hateful or critical speech, but to suggest that there's ever any group that qualifies as saintly enough to deserve such protections is, I think, naive at best.
I agree that there is potentially a distinction. Speech that is restricted in public (eg through a public libel trial) is different to speech that is restricted by preventing the person from ever speaking.
In the former, you get to state your opinions publicly but then have to defend them, but no secrets are kept.
So, the devil of it is, governments--especially ones with elected officials--are made of people, and so criticizing the government and its officers often looks quite a bit like abuse.
Free speech as a right to abuse people is not something I want to see in Europe.
I don't see these as being the same. I think there is something wrong with the common English language usage that we use the same term to cover multiple definitions.