• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Should Hate Speech Against Minorities Be Considered an Imprisonable Offense?

D

Dr.Phibes

Member
Cybit said:
Changed the example - the "making the Turkish leader angry with a poem" one is a pretty good one too.
Click to expand...
Again, this had nothing to do with hate speech. Parts of the poem were banned from public recital because of an ancient law that makes it illegal to insult foreign heads of state. Thankfully, this law ist getting abolished.
Hate speech is Volksverhetzung so google that if you don't want to come up with any more examples that make you look increasingly stupid.
 
STI

STI

Member
I’m a minority, and I say fuck no. It’s the 1st amendment, it’s peoples right.

Such suggestions is discrimination against majority.
 
P

PHOENIXZERO

Member
I'd rather have the pieces of shit out in the open so we can see who they are and they can be watched than force them underground. But I'm a minority that's the target of their bigotry/hate so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Massive Duck said:
Lol this thread

Let's just say that in America, anti-minority hate speech and the violence that it incites are considered acceptable consequences of free speech.

That way no one has to embarrass themselves with hypotheticals.

Excelsior, take a break. You know what you're dealing with.
Click to expand...

If you just wanna call everyone racist, do it. Come on. Don't be shy. Call us all bigots and racists. Those of us that don't get to live or grow up in blue bastions, welp, tough luck I suppose. Gonna suck to be a gay kid not in a major city. Or from the Middle East the next time an attack happens in the US.

If they break laws about harassment and violence, punish them with those laws.

Dr.Phibes said:
Again, this had nothing to do with hate speech. Parts of the poem were banned from public recital because of an ancient law that makes it illegal to insult foreign heads of state. Thankfully, this law ist getting abolished.
Hate speech is Volksverhetzung so google that if you don't want to come up with any more examples that make you look increasingly stupid.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but I would argue those are free speech issues and hate speech is inherently a free speech issue. How long did they sit on that law before it got used in a completely inane way and they realized they should have gotten rid of it a while ago. These are the kinds of things that slip by a society that doesn't rigorously protect free speech. Stupid shit gets left alone, or gets by, and you just hope the application of it is never abused. Someone, somewhere, at sometime, decided that insulting a leader was a speech crime.

If you want to go specifically into modern hate speech

You could do stuff like this, where you raid people's houses over postings on social media

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/...ed-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

I mean, when the Russians look at your laws and go "great idea!"...you might want to reconsider the law.

https://rsf.org/en/news/russian-bill-copy-and-paste-germanys-hate-speech-law

Oh hey, how's that hate speech thing working anyway...

http://www.dw.com/en/far-right-violence-rising-sharply-in-germany/a-19363359

In its annual report, Germany's domestic intelligence service (BfV) showed a 42 percent increase in violent acts by extremists associated with the far-right in 2015, describing attacks against journalists, politicians and refugees.

The report shows a recorded 1,408 violent crimes, compared to 990 such crimes in 2014.

During the same period, seventy-five arson attacks against refugee centers were recorded, up from just five a year earlier.

The report revealed the first full year data to be released since Germany saw the arrival of around 1.2 million migrants, which has led to a growing anti-foreigner sentiment.
It said the violent acts against immigrants did not generally appear to be systematically orchestrated, though many of the arson attacks did bear signs of careful planning and preparation.

Germany is home to an estimated 11,800 violent far-right extremists, the report added.
Click to expand...

The repeated historical consequence to trying to actively suppress speech in any kind of democracy or republic is the rise of the very thing you are trying to squash. Current example: AfD.
 
M

Massive Duck. C.M.

Banned
Cybit said:
If you just wanna call everyone racist, do it. Come on. Don't be shy. Call us all bigots and racists. Those of us that don't get to live or grow up in blue bastions, welp, tough luck I suppose. Gonna suck to be a gay kid not in a major city. Or from the Middle East the next time an attack happens in the US.

If they break laws about harassment and violence, punish them with those laws.
Click to expand...

Keep reading b
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Massive Duck said:
Keep reading b
Click to expand...

Fair. I hadn't gotten to the rest of the thread outside a couple of other responses.

The issue with the "well what about well done hate speech laws" is that none of them ever survive any kind of actual problem. All the hate speech laws in the world did jack and shit once the migrant crisis happened. In fact, if the latest german election is any indication, it probably has made things far, far worse on a much deeper level.

Historically speaking, trying to systematically suppress any kind of freedom in a democracy or republic ends up causing that thing to explode unless you attack the root issue at hand. It's all about how it looks on the surface rather than being dealt with. Being south asian our culture is all about the "don't talk about it, it's bad!!" gameplan, and it doesn't work well once you actually run into the real world. People resent the hell out of not being able to talk about something (because we're humans and that's how we're all wired), and it builds up until it explodes or gets defused. It isn't coincidence that this latest rise in the US lasted until a counter-protest in Boston shut it down real quick.
 
NoMoreTrolls

NoMoreTrolls

Banned
Laws will never get used the way you want them to, especially if it's supposedly to the benefit of minorities.

Gee, let's give the current police force and government administration the ability to imprison people over things they say. There's no way we can fuck this one up.

Stop giving the government more fucking ways to mess up people's lives.
 
M

Massive Duck. C.M.

Banned
Cybit said:
Fair. I hadn't gotten to the rest of the thread outside a couple of other responses.

The issue with the "well what about well done hate speech laws" is that none of them ever survive any kind of actual problem. All the hate speech laws in the world did jack and shit once the migrant crisis happened. In fact, if the latest german election is any indication, it probably has made things far, far worse on a much deeper level.

Historically speaking, trying to systematically suppress any kind of freedom in a democracy or republic ends up causing that thing to explode unless you attack the root issue at hand. It's all about how it looks on the surface rather than being dealt with. Being south asian our culture is all about the "don't talk about it, it's bad!!" gameplan, and it doesn't work well once you actually run into the real world. People resent the hell out of not being able to talk about something (because we're humans and that's how we're all wired), and it builds up until it explodes or gets defused. It isn't coincidence that this latest rise in the US lasted until a counter-protest in Boston shut it down real quick.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not naive enough to believe that hate speech or the hate behind it can be eradicated or even significantly decreased by hate speech laws; I'm more about having real consequences it and the violence caused by it.

I also realize that, as I've said before, America is not built for diminishing stress on minorities, but that doesn't make me ideologically opposed to the idea.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Massive Duck said:
Honestly, I'm not naive enough to believe that hate speech or the hate behind it can be eradicated or even significantly decreased by hate speech laws; I'm more about having real consequences it and the violence caused by it.

I also realize that, as I've said before, America is not built for diminishing stress on minorities, but that doesn't make me ideologically opposed to the idea.
Click to expand...

I think that having consequences for the violence is something we have laws for already - whether they are applied by the current administration / local authorities is another matter entirely, and something more laws won't fix.

I don't know if America is any more or less built for diminishing stress on minorities in particular then other countries of its size and makeup. The EU as a whole might be the closest thing you have to it, and they haven't done any better results wise as best as I can tell. I wonder if the US is more stressful in general because of the bootstraps mentality, but that is applied to everyone - just if you don't have inherent advantages, it hurts that group more.
 
N

NoblesseOblige

Banned
I don't know if I'd support imprisonment except for extreme cases such as calling for active harm to be initiated against minorities. However I would consider supporting mandatory education for first time offenders, followed by fines for repeat.
 
M

Massive Duck. C.M.

Banned
Cybit said:
I think that having consequences for the violence is something we have laws for already - whether they are applied by the current administration / local authorities is another matter entirely, and something more laws won't fix.

I don't know if America is any more or less built for diminishing stress on minorities in particular then other countries of its size and makeup. The EU as a whole might be the closest thing you have to it, and they haven't done any better results wise as best as I can tell. I wonder if the US is more stressful in general because of the bootstraps mentality, but that is applied to everyone - just if you don't have inherent advantages, it hurts that group more.
Click to expand...

America definitely has problems that are unique to its origins, growth, and population make up, to the point where you can honestly say there are (at least) two Americas.
 
X

xnipx

Member
If someone threatened to kill you on this message board you would want them arrested right?

But someone threatening black people in general is ok?
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
xnipx said:
If someone threatened to kill you on this message board you would want them arrested right?

But someone threatening black people in general is ok?
Click to expand...

...the answer to both of these questions is no.

At any rate, the answer to the OP is the same answer as to whether or not I believe speed limits should be enforced. Yeah it would make for a better country but the amount of citizens you'd need to lock up would cripple the nation so I'm not sure it would be a good idea.

Also it comes across as a law that'd be ridiculously difficult to enforce legitimately. Laws that come down to an officer's word worry me.
 
llien

llien

Member
It strikes me, that people seriously think that raise of popularity of all kinds of "right" is because someone can openly post hateful texts.

This act won't reduce number of ultra rights, on the other hand, it could be used to, you guess it, attack free speech, a fundamental right.

Such trade off does not look even remotely reasonable to me, so, definitely not.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Acerac said:
...the answer to both of these questions is no.

At any rate, the answer to the OP is the same answer as to whether or not I believe speed limits should be enforced. Yeah it would make for a better country but the amount of citizens you'd need to lock up would cripple the nation so I'm not sure it would be a good idea.

Also it comes across as a law that'd be ridiculously difficult to enforce legitimately. Laws that come down to an officer's word worry me.
Click to expand...

You think actual targeted death threats aren't actionable?
 
llien

llien

Member
xnipx said:
But someone threatening black people in general is ok?
Click to expand...

You focus on USA too much. Look around. Minorities in many European countries are of the same race (still targeted). Minorities in Russia are mainly of the same race (and mostly not even immigrants, still targeted and attacks are deadly).
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
You think actual targeted death threats aren't actionable?
Click to expand...

If somebody said they'd kill me on this message board I certainly wouldn't want them arrested. That seems excessive, I'd assume it is probably some teen with too much hormones having a bad day. I've been there, and though I've never tossed around death threats online (or in general) I've had enough lobbed at me to not worry too much about them.

Oh and I'd probably need to interact with the police in some way and that seems like the worst way to deal with any given situation.

Not sure where you got your thing from. I'm pretty sure I didn't misread the question... did I not present my point clearly? I specified that my later lines were replying to the OP.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Acerac said:
If somebody said they'd kill me on this message board I certainly wouldn't want them arrested. That seems excessive, I'd assume it is probably some teen with too much hormones having a bad day. I've been there, and though I've never tossed around death threats online (or in general) I've had enough lobbed at me to not worry too much about them.

Oh and I'd probably need to interact with the police in some way and that seems like the worst way to deal with any given situation.

Not sure where you got your thing from. I'm pretty sure I didn't misread the question... did I not present my point clearly? I specified that my later lines were replying to the OP.
Click to expand...

I think it is sad that even death threats have become normalized as just part of internet culture.
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
I think it is sad that even death threats have become normalized as just part of internet culture.
Click to expand...

If it's any consolation I've not gotten any in over a decade, but the 90s were a crazy time on the internet.

I probably had it coming, being younger and having all them hormones and whatnot, just saying that this isn't really a new thing for the internet.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Acerac said:
If it's any consolation I've not gotten any in over a decade, but the 90s were a crazy time on the internet.

I probably had it coming, being younger and having all them hormones and whatnot, just saying that this isn't really a new thing for the internet.
Click to expand...

Umm ok...

I;ll just point to Gamergate as to why death threats and online harassment aren't just hormones and sillyness that people grow out of... but since you think you deserved it I'm not sure how to argue with you.
 
KarneeKarnay

KarneeKarnay

Member
Yeah. Anything from a fine to prison based on the offender.

It still won't deal with the issue of people yelling White Power in the streets, but it will be better.

The issue I have is that unlike Western Europe which has for the most part worked out the details on how such laws should work, In the US I guarantee this sort of law would never pass.
 
Z

zpiders

Member
As a minority myself with dark skin, NO. I don't won't people to be imprisoned because of words that come out there mouth or written on paper.
 
G

GrizzleBoy

Banned
I'll say no.

Because a population who will elect Trump, will also pressure officials to make hate speech against non minorities a jailable offense too for "equality in law".

Then all it takes is your typical racist fucks to group up and accuse and before you know it the police have yet another reason to lock up minorities at a higher rate than they lock up non minorities, for the same crime.

Have to be careful with these things.
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
Umm ok...

I;ll just point to Gamergate as to why death threats and online harassment aren't just hormones and sillyness that people grow out of... but since you think you deserved it I'm not sure how to argue with you.
Click to expand...

I was an AOL chatroom troll. It's a pretty low bar, and I feel bad about messing with people as I did then.

I agree with you 100% that death threats should be taken seriously, people telling me they were going to hunt me down and murder me is a far cry from the very serious nature of the situation we find ourselves embroiled in. Surface level similarities hide very different intents, and context is important for deciding how such things should be handled.

Still, I wouldn't want somebody arrested if they said they'd kill me on this message board, even if they were genuine. Interact with the police with no immediate benefit to me? No thank you!
 
C

CloudWolf

Member
Hate speech in general, not just against minorities.

Greedings said:
Jailing people for what they say seems dystopian as fuck.
Click to expand...
Depends on what they say. If you say 'Kill all black people' or 'Throw all muslims out of our country' in a public place while you're in a position of power, you shouldn't just be able to get away with it with a slap on the wrist, which is what happens now.
 
llien

llien

Member
excelsiorlef said:
Well yes sure opposing racism, it could be argued,is an anathema to the US. Your moral superiority and reducing the issue down to you being the adult and those in favour ignorant naive children does go part and parcel with how you outright dismiss that it functions elsewhere, part and parcel with you essentially framing the conversation all through a lens of American Exceptionaism.
Click to expand...

You weren't talking to me, but could you elaborate on the marked part.
Where does it function?
Have you seen results of elections in Germany, with ultra right party scoring 21% in eastern part of it (13% overall)?

That happens in a country where hate speech is outlawed, where "heil" gesture could get you into jail.

In what way does it function?
 
Acerac

Acerac

Banned
CloudWolf said:
Hate speech in general, not just against minorities.


Depends on what they say. If you say 'Kill all black people' or 'Throw all muslims out of our country' in a public place while you're in a position of power, you shouldn't just be able to get away with it with a slap on the wrist, which is what happens now.
Click to expand...

How would this be enforced? Would it need to be done within earshot of an officer or could you report a person? Would you need to be recording them? Could you record them if you're not allowed to otherwise but suspect that they are gonna say something hateful?

Laws that can't be consistently enforced cause problems, because officers can pick and choose when to enforce them. I'd rather not give them any more power to lock up whoever they please...
 
A

a.wd

Member
Yes, hate speech to minorities should be considered an imprisonable offence.

TBH there are no good reasons to allow it.

Free speech should be about the exchange of ideas, not about the oppression of the easily attacked.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
llien said:
You weren't talking to me, but could you elaborate on the marked part.
Where does it function?
Have you seen results of elections in Germany, with ultra right party scoring 21% in eastern part of it (13% overall)?

That happens in a country where hate speech is outlawed, where "heil" gesture could get you into jail.

In what way does it function?
Click to expand...

I mean 13%? Is it your contention that if there weren't hate speech laws that number couldn't possibly be higher (surely you wouldn't claim lower)... because 13% is not great by any means but it's also pretty much in the expected range of the percentage of racist assholes you should expect anywhere. If anything that on a back of a immigration/refugee surge (racists love nothing more than to hate refugees) that they got 13% (a huge increase yes ) is simultaneously horrific and not necessarily because it's possible that's their ceiling, there time will tell... but this didn't happen because of hate speech laws and lack of them would not have stopped this either.

Now I should note when I speak of First World Countries and speak towards the US being the most conservative one.... that should not be understood as me making any claims that others are liberal havens, or progressive paradises, I said before my post history backs up that I am very quick to fight against anyone claiming racism, bigotry, etc... are "Only in America". However, one must face reality and here it should not be controversial to state that while every country has bigotry, the US is relatively unique in its numbers. You spoke of 13% (and that's just Germany, plenty of other First World countries havve these laws, again like Canada) yet 13% is not close to the 50% the GOP gets, 13% is not close to the level of support the GOP gets in every election (especially amongst white Americans who again have voted GOP in majority since 1968)

When I speak of function I point to the fact that most of the first world has variations of hate speech laws and don;t descend into 1984 nonsense that so many seem to believe hate speech laws are symbolic of. As for Germany one of the fundamental things that allowed them to transition from Nazisim to what they are today is in fact the laws that prevent things like Holocaust Denialism.

I mean going back to the 13% as I was also leveling a critique of American exceptionalism, you use 13% to say see hate speech laws clearly don't work... yet America has none and again they just elected a literal white supremacist from the GOP (and let's get really real, he's just more open about it than most of them).... No obviously correlation doesn't equal causation and all that jazz but hate speech laws also serve as a sort of mission statement for a country.


I point to Canada where I live for a second, we have conservatives, they suck of course, but you know what, they utterly failed to even get anywhere attacking same-sex marriage back in 2006... only a year after it became legal across the country. To this day they can't even find the support to open a debate about abortion restrictions, and Canada has some of the freest on paper Abortion laws in the world (in that we don't have nay, it's legal and there's zero restrictions legally speaking... it's more complicated in practicality of course but that's not the issue at hand). Guns same thing. I go on. Now is this caused by having hate speech laws on the books? No but they speak to a culture, children grow up here knowing that hate speech can't be waived off as free speech or a different opinion, that hatred and bigotry is not the same as just an insult or calling someone an asshole. In Canada they are rarely used, and rarely have to be, and i believe there there is a case of correlation = causation.
 
Snoopycat

Snoopycat

Banned
We've had hate crime laws in Scotland for years now. It seemed like a good thing but these laws have mainly been used to stop morons singing at football matches or prosecuting nonsense like this -

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/coatbridge-man-who-taught-girlfriends-10896246

What actually annoys me about this guy being taken to trial is the amount of public money that's being wasted on prosecuting him. It's stupid and offensive, but it's clearly a joke. A simple visit from the local police should have been the end of it. Instead we're actually wasting money dragging him through the courts.
 
Spuck-uk

Spuck-uk

Banned
appaws said:
I guess I am not that surprised, but this is the most terrifying gaf thread I have ever read.

Whatever side feels themselves in the ascent tries to outlaw dissent. For example, the medieval church. Now it is modernist/secularist egalitarianism emerging into that stage and feeling its oats.

This is why I can't trust the right on privacy or criminal justice issues, or the left on self-defense, freedom of property, and I guess now self-expression issues. Anti-statism is the only way.

Fuck racists...but no need to outlaw them. We should just be ignoring them, looking at them the same way we look at flat-earthers or anti-vaccination people.
Click to expand...

The 'just ignore them' approach, beloved by liberals, did not work very well on Nazi Germany.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
legacyzero said:
Holy shit. Yep, I feel much better on my stance seeing that crap. This is exactly why we should just leave it as is.
Click to expand...

I referenced this in post 427, but I'll be more specific. You should pay attention to this ongoing case in the UK

A Scottish man who provoked outrage after filming his girlfriend's dog responding to Nazi slogans has been arrested by Lanarkshire police.

Earlier this year Markus Meechan uploaded a video of the dog, a pug named Buddah, responding to the phrase "gas the Jews," raising its paw in an imitation Nazi salute when it heard the words "Sieg Heil", and viewing footage of Hitler giving a speech.

In the Youtube clip, titled M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi, Meechan says: "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute her dog is so I thought I would turn her into the least cute thing you could think of which is a Nazi."
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/

Officers said the video had been shared online and ”caused offence and hurt to many people in our community".

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: ”A 28-year-old man was arrested on Thursday 28 April in relation to the alleged publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003).

”A report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal."

DI David Cockburn said: ”Posting offensive material online or in any other capacity will not be tolerated and police will act swiftly to tackle hate crimes that are motivated by malice or ill-will because of faith, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

”This clip has been shared and viewed online, which ultimately has caused offence and hurt to many people in our community. There is no place for hate crime in Scotland and police take all reports of incidents seriously."
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland

The case is currently in court and Meechan faces up to 12 months in prison (average sentence for hate crime in the UK). The judge seems to keep delaying the final trial from my following of it.

The YouTube video in question, obviously watch in icognito mode if you do not want your recommendations being messed up ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus

Find it crass? Find it offensive? Find it childish? Find the guy to be a moron/idiot? Find it a complete waste of time? Find it the kind of thing an employer would sack you for? Find it the kind of thing society/social media hangs their head in shame and mocks you? Sure. Speech/behaviour has consequences, most of which are social or disciplinary outside of the Government being involved (such as being banned from a website or your work giving you a warning/firing you).

Find it the kind of thing to seriously be facing the prospect of prison time? Wasting taxpayer money and resources of the courts? No, that is ludicrous. People who begin to verge into authoritarian practices always think if only I/we can control who the Government imprisons/censors, we'll get it right. If only I/our political party is in charge, we'll/they'll get it right. We can't make mistakes with taking people's rights away, we're perfect in our pursuit of justice! We just want to stop people being mean. Again, heart in the right place, head possibly not. Whether you like it or not laws and Government powers are supposed to be egalitarian. For everyone. Even people you don't like. Most societies deal with the outcasts, anti-social, problematic and shitty people with social ire, criticism, challenge, mocking and of course those in many professions, attempts at educating/reforming. Asking the Government to take on more and more powers of removal of rights to do the dirty work and just begin jailing/arresting lots of these social outcasts is indeed a slope your society chooses to go down. Outside of the hard-line on incitement to violence/terrorism/other acts of violence/physical harm. We can all agree on that. All speech isn't violence though, no matter how much some online are trying to get that definition to stick.

As always satirising/attempting comedy isn't instantly an endorsement of the subject matter you choose. Otherwise, Charlie Hebdo would be in a spot of bother. Outrage at Charlie Hebdo is one thing, actually ever suggesting people there be arrested for hate crime is another. I can assure you there will be religious people who would want Charlie Hebdo shutdown and people put in prison for speech/expression. We should be trying to raise societies and individuals who are strong enough to challenge speech and belief, as depressing, hurtful and troubling as that is at times. If we just want to turn to the Government to handle everything, then as I linked earlier in this topic look forward to also having privacy and expression rights eroded as a Government claims they need to spy better to enforce better.

I keep linking these articles on GAF, but they do seem like things the 1st amendment could aid in protecting you from

https://www.newstatesman.com/scienc...ow-about-terrifying-investigatory-powers-bill

https://www.newstatesman.com/scienc...as-now-entered-draconian-era-porn-prohibition

I know for a fact the US does not have some of the website blocking court orders the UK is inflicting. Sure, it's often around piracy (torrents)/video streaming, but the porn bill above is showing how the UK government could be spreading ISP level court blocking orders to pornography. Freedom of speech/expression is more tied up in the big picture than some imagine. As I said above it's great to think if we just amend/change what I think will be good, then a Government of a country will do good with that. I'm on the right side, our use of Government powers will only bring good for society. Apart from that being arguments from emotions, I'll again remind everyone of how in a democracy you do not have a dictatorship. The same Government will very likely not be in charge for your whole lifetime. It's reasonable to debate the powers any Government should have over the people and the rights to speak, even if it's offensive speech.
 
C

CloudWolf

Member
Acerac said:
How would this be enforced? Would it need to be done within earshot of an officer or could you report a person? Would you need to be recording them? Could you record them if you're not allowed to otherwise but suspect that they are gonna say something hateful?

Laws that can't be consistently enforced cause problems, because officers can pick and choose when to enforce them. I'd rather not give them any more power to lock up whoever they please...
Click to expand...
It's not that far-fetched. In a lot of Western countries there already exist laws against certain kinds hate speech. When Geert Wilders was speeching to people a few months back about wanting fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands (and chanting 'FEWER FEWER FEWER') it caused a major controversy that ended with Wilders being formally charged and tried in court.

Meanwhile in America the President is just allowed to say whatever the fuck he wants and it's not even illegal to walk around with a swastika around your arm. I'm not saying that every single racist should be imprisoned, but if you're in a position of power the government should be keeping a very close eye on you. I think it's insane that people like David Duke and Richard Spencer are just allowed to say and do whatever they please when 9 out of 10 times that includes publicly denouncing cultural and sexual minorities, people of a different faith, etc.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
CloudWolf said:
It's not that far-fetched. In a lot of Western countries there already exist laws against certain kinds hate speech. When Geert Wilders was speeching to people a few months back about wanting fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands (and chanting 'FEWER FEWER FEWER') it caused a major controversy that ended with Wilders being formally charged and tried in court.

Meanwhile in America the President is just allowed to say whatever the fuck he wants and it's not even illegal to walk around with a swastika around your arm.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is like the poster candidate for showing you why your 1st amendment is damn good at a time like this. People like him can be elected in a democracy. You can't eradicate all the bad from the world by trying to legislate it all away. Most civil societies draw lines at incitement/physical harm/threats, because yes, we do need prisons and jails for offenders. Societies cannot truly exist though with force to make every mind, person and action be in unison. That IS an authoritarian/totalitarian wet dream hence why people flippantly quote 1984 and other sources of writing/examples. To have a lot of freedom will always bring the bad with the good. People will always be getting offended/upset/hurt, especially around things like religion. The vast majorities of civilisations will behave good, as what is important in life is friendship/love/family/career/etc. For many of the socially problematic, the threat of prison/having rights taken away for actions keeps most thinking/saying rather than doing. Most of the bigotry from Christians/Catholics is saying now, rather than doing, like it was in our bloody histories. For those that do act, we put them to trial to take away their rights.

I know one minute the ACLU is hated around here, then the next minute everyone loves it, but the reason for that is simple. In an egalitarian system of law, everyone's rights get protected. People can't cope with that as they want the system of laws to be based on emotions, feelings and dealing with everything upsetting/problematic in life. Rights should only exist for me because I'm one of the good guys, I think correctly, and I speak politely and respectfully. However, on the flipside that can often mean protecting said rights... from the President/Government. Like what they attempt around Trump and the travel bans. If you want to see true fascism as well, look to countries where the leader/Government can arrest/exert a force on people for dissent/satire/ridicule. Donald Trump's ridiculous/mean tweets are not an exertion of true force, where a state could actually infringe on your rights to expression/speech/satire/mockery/ridicule/offence. I linked it earlier, but look at what is happening in Malaysia with atheists as the Government sees that as an offence to the state enforced religion/ways of thinking.

It may be the case most people will say "but in my lifetime I seriously doubt anything terrible will happen with Governments abusing far-reaching powers". Maybe so, but as I said earlier 70~90 years isn't really that much in the grand scale of how long the Earth and humanity will be kicking about. It's always been a long-haul debate/battle with what kinds of powers a Government should have over the population when it comes to rights/speech/expression. Need I remind anyone certain women around the world used to look like this

arcJT9P.jpg


and now they are under authoritarian/totalitarian ways of thinking that would penalize/exert force against said expression of how one wants to look/dress. Then to criticise/speak out against said oppression also gets you punished. The extreme examples around the world need to be taken note of, because as I said in democracies power shifts around. Governments can come into control of a country and then use whatever powers have been legislated against said countries populations. It's happened in history and is still currently happening. People aren't being naive or showing a lack of care for having serious debates around what powers/rights should be handed over to the state. By this time in a year or two pornography will probably be getting treated as morally degenerate by the UK's right-wing moral busybody Conservative government. Another small example of the erosion of expression/privacy, but the small chips keep adding up.
 
appaws

appaws

Banned
Spuck-uk said:
The 'just ignore them' approach, beloved by liberals, did not work very well on Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Ignoring them? Communists were brawling with them in the streets.

I think the panic people go into over a few crackpots is ridiculous. Who was at Charlottesville, a couple hundred yahoos? Outnumbered by counter-protesters by far. For these people we are thinking of burying a constitutional right? Fuck that noise.

I'm not scared of these people. I know liberty and individualism are more powerful ideas than theirs. I think the left is terrified of these people because they are the opposite side of the same collectivist coin. Two world views based on hate and resentment of others, just aimed at different targets.
 
legacyzero

legacyzero

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
So before I continue debating with you, do you oppose it on a general level as in even in countries like mine or on an implementational level as in what you said above about the US.

Because if it's B I have no real qualm.

As to the bolded again that thought while absolutely correct can apply to literally every law. I'm not seeing what makes hate speech laws unique here as a general concept.
Click to expand...
Id say that if you live in a country where the people are compatible with it, sure! Go for it. It's just not a good idea here, at least not in this current climate. And you know me- I'm a Sanders supporter so you know I'm all about trying stuff that other countries have figured out. Healthcare, college, etc.

But even then, with the nebulous language you posted earlier, Id have questions: who gets to decide what "hate" is? Who gets to decide what "group" is? Are whites protected under this law? Are men protected? how about Atheists? Etc etc.

Every piece of language would have to be clearly defined, balanced for all, and held up. What you posted earlier leaves so much room for nuance, which could have a terrible effect good people too.

Audio boxer has been posting examples in this thread that proves it being done horrible. I'm not against so much as I don't trust government bodies (ESPECIALLY) in America to do it right
 
G

Glass Shark

Banned
No, but mainly because we imprison way too many people already for stuff that’s not even nearly as bad as violence-inciting hate speech. As a society we have to figure out how to deal with our problems in a way other than pushing people into a little cage where we don’t have to think about them anymore.
 
V

Venfayth

Member
Free speech protects other human rights. It's important.

That being said, I'm openminded. I'm not going to be upset if calls for violence, incitement of violence, or the (outward, spoken) wish of violence on protected classes become restricted somehow.
 
M

Muffin1611

Banned
Cybit said:
Changed the example - the "making the Turkish leader angry with a poem" one is a pretty good one too.
Click to expand...

Um, that law literally got removed afterwards because everybody agreed it was outdated, it hadn't been used in a long while.

Edit: Nvm, somebody else already said it
 
B

BackLogJoe

Member
Hell no. If the Democrats did this it would work well until a conservative group took control of Congress. Then you'd have congressman altering the law to include white people and then youd have the blue lives rule and it would completely twist the original intent.
 
S

Steel

Banned
Logistically it wouldn't work. Prisons would be full to the brim in no time. Not to mention court fees. Or cops wouldn't enforce it like they don't enforce a lot of things due to manpower.

Fines would be far more efficient.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
Spuck-uk said:
The 'just ignore them' approach, beloved by liberals, did not work very well on Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Even when comparing 1930s Germany to the US today, there's pretty much no comparison that makes sense; Trump ain't Hitler, and Hitler's path to power is not available to him in any shape or form. And dismissing the opposition as "they just wanted to play nice with the Nazis, look what happens" ignores the actual reality and conveniently forgets that the Nazis used that violence to their own ends to buttress support.

As much as people like deriding free speech proponents as being afraid of slippery slopes, the idea that everyone is a speech away from taking over the government and exterminating 10 million "undesirables" is a glass slide at an 89º angle.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Venfayth said:
Free speech protects other human rights. It's important.

That being said, I'm openminded. I'm not going to be upset if calls for violence, incitement of violence, or the (outward, spoken) wish of violence on protected classes become restricted somehow.
Click to expand...

A serious call for violence/incitement or a threat of physical harm is already actionable under the law.

You can delve down the road of "some people just get angry and say things", but the point is, calls for violence/incitement are investigatable and can lead to arrest/being prosecuted.

Can speech be regulated if it encourages violence?

In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to ”imminent lawless action."

The operative word is ”imminent." Following Brandenburg, the high court clarified that vague threats of violence were protected by the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Brandenburg was found guilty of violating Ohio state law, which prohibited ”advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as ”voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." His penalties included a $1,000 fine and a 1-10 year prison sentence.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court made a legally and morally compelling decision in insisting that hateful speech be permitted so long as it is not likely to cause imminent harm. In doing so, it reiterated a principle long ago argued by J.S. Mill, who wrote: ”An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard." So long as the rights of individual to be free from physical harm are not imminently endangered, the law ought to protect as wide a sphere of free expression as possible.

However, while it is true that the law ought to permit Klansmen to articulate their ideals, it does not follow that we ought to listen politely to their insidious messages without vigorous response. Condemnatory counter-speech is essential. We must never forget that the eponymous protagonist of the Brandenburg case was a white supremacist. How rich, indeed, it is for someone like him – who would have keenly destroyed the free speech protections (and much else) afforded to racial minorities were he appointed ruler – to complain that his right to advocate genocide was improperly abridged. As has been recently argued, our law on free speech must be conjoined with a robust ethic of free speech according to which we ought to criticize and condemn the enemies of civilisation who live among us.
Click to expand...

http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/

Sometimes some nuance is required to investigate incitement and deal with it logically.

Manchester man jailed over anti-police T-shirt worn after PC killings

Uauq45x.png


Barry Thew, 39, of Radcliffe, Manchester, was sentenced at Minshull Street crown court in Manchester to four months in prison, after admitting a section 4a public order offence – displaying writing or other visible representation with intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress. Thew also admitted breaching a suspended sentence imposed for a previous offence of cannabis production for which he was ordered to serve another four months concurrently.
Click to expand...

The above case is quite the test for speech/expression/dissent. There is a link to incitement with the words written on the t-shirt, but nuance would probably lead the police when called to question the man and possibly ask him to remove the t-shirt in public due to it being anti-social behaviour. He's being an idiot with a form of political protest probably more so than being a genuine imminent threat to the safety of anyone. If of course, it appeared there was an imminent threat of him being violent/targeting the lives of the police officers, an arrest with a trial to be heard around incitement of violence.

My personal feelings on the guy being an idiot and being incredibly disrespectful to the dead officers are not simply reason enough for me to say lock him up.

Add that example to the one I posted earlier of people arrested/jailed for burning a Koran

Two people have been arrested on suspicion of racial hatred after a man filmed himself burning the Koran.

In the first of two videos, posted on Facebook and YouTube on Tuesday, show a man standing in his kitchen complaining about being unable to start a fire.

Speaking into the camera, he says: ‘I've been trying to get my poxy fire started for half an hour, wondering what shit I can get it going with.'
Click to expand...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-a...rning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/

A former soldier has been sentenced to 70 days in prison for setting fire to a copy of Muslim holy book the Koran in the centre of Carlisle.

Andrew Ryan had previously admitted religiously aggravated harassment and theft of a Koran from a library.

The 32-year-old, of Summerhill, said he had been "shocked" watching a Muslim burning a poppy on Remembrance Day.

Shoppers and schoolchildren witnessed the burning, outside the old Town Hall, on 19 January.

Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates' Court, District Judge Gerald Chalk described it as a case of "theatrical bigotry".
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13119241

Would burning a Bible get you arrested/jailed? As I also said earlier, I don't want anyone burning anything, but if people for dissent/idiots for attention decide to do it, it should be handled proportionately and I am not convinced prison time is the answer.

I know many Americans are debating flag burning, and that there was a legal case won recently (I'm sure a topic on GAF was created and many celebratory responses). I'm sure Trump would like flag burning to be a hate crime. Again, I can have personal thoughts about the use of burning things as a method of dissent, but because I personally wouldn't do it, doesn't mean I can just make a logical jump to "jail for hate crime".

edit: A 2012 NeoGAF topic about poppy burning in the UK http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=499614 Safe to say most of the replies are very hostile to freedoms being eroded, but here we are in 2017 with a lot of minds being changed.
 
R

RedSparrows

Member
Spuck-uk said:
The 'just ignore them' approach, beloved by liberals, did not work very well on Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Neither did direct action in that case (pre-1933), so in glib history land, that's obviously pointless too.

This projection of current political values ('liberals' means what here) onto the 1930s is bloody irritating and misguided.
 
M

MUnited83

For you.
Cybit said:
If you just wanna call everyone racist, do it. Come on. Don't be shy. Call us all bigots and racists. Those of us that don't get to live or grow up in blue bastions, welp, tough luck I suppose. Gonna suck to be a gay kid not in a major city. Or from the Middle East the next time an attack happens in the US.

If they break laws about harassment and violence, punish them with those laws.




Fair enough, but I would argue those are free speech issues and hate speech is inherently a free speech issue. How long did they sit on that law before it got used in a completely inane way and they realized they should have gotten rid of it a while ago. These are the kinds of things that slip by a society that doesn't rigorously protect free speech. Stupid shit gets left alone, or gets by, and you just hope the application of it is never abused. Someone, somewhere, at sometime, decided that insulting a leader was a speech crime.

If you want to go specifically into modern hate speech

You could do stuff like this, where you raid people's houses over postings on social media

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/...ed-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

I mean, when the Russians look at your laws and go "great idea!"...you might want to reconsider the law.

https://rsf.org/en/news/russian-bill-copy-and-paste-germanys-hate-speech-law

Oh hey, how's that hate speech thing working anyway...

http://www.dw.com/en/far-right-violence-rising-sharply-in-germany/a-19363359



The repeated historical consequence to trying to actively suppress speech in any kind of democracy or republic is the rise of the very thing you are trying to squash. Current example: AfD.
Click to expand...
Wildly incorrect in just about every way. Far right rise was consequence of not cracking down on hate speech, not the opposite.
And 14% is quite a lot less than the "land of the free" that literally elects tyrannical manbabies that are white supremacists. Geese, your freeze peach sure worked out great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Xbox, Sony, and others are questioned by US Congress on how they combat "Hate and harassment" in online games.
2
777
Mibu no ookami replied
  • Locked
Videogames are white supremacist.
Drama
14
3K
Hudo replied
Billionaire George Soros Invests $45 Million into Activision Blizzard
2
65
6K
reconminicon replied
WBUR: "video game culture has become infested with white supremacists" (Apparently)
2
88
6K
Hissing Sid replied
[Atlantic] America Has a Drinking Problem
2 3
149
17K
Hawking Radiation replied
Top Bottom