Support NeoGAF

JordanN · Sep 24, 2017

BocoDragon said:
When they declare their intention to commit or incite actual violence, then you can arrest them.

I'd argue their intention is in their ideology.
It's why we have the term "dog whistle". Just because you're not explicitly saying it, doesn't mean they wont use other subversive means to advance their agenda.

You can look at the youtube stars *cough* jontron, Pewdiepie *cough* or entrepreneurs *cough* Palmer Lucky *cough* who attempt to make their hateful beliefs seem normal.

Oppo · Sep 24, 2017

PdotMichael said:
A fine opinion if your dignity was never threated.

PdotMichael said:
People should take one for the team. Somehow free speech is a higher good than dignity and physical integrity.

What an absurd and perverted society some people want to live.

i don't like this "dignity" angle you're peddling. to hell with your dignity. the whole prophet cartoon thing was supposedly an "insult to dignity". you can justify too much nonsense with "insults to dignity", that is a true slippery slope.

threats to person and physical well being, of course i'm with you. which is why hate speech isn't hard to define. it's already illegal to incite riots and so forth. this is a very very narrow section of "speech" to wall off. the only reason the category exists at all is specifically to address threats against minorities.

No. That's absolute madness

it's really not.

mortal · Sep 24, 2017

No. That's absolute madness. The amount of people in this thread saying yes, is rather troubling.

br0ken_shad0w said:
But muh free speech!

It's in the Constitution...As in the first amendment.

Spoiled Milk · Sep 24, 2017

JordanN said:
I'd argue their intention is in their ideology.
It's why we have the term "dog whistle". Just because you're not explicitly saying it, doesn't mean they wont use other subversive means to advance their agenda.

You can look at the youtube stars *cough* jontron, Pewdiepie *cough* or entrepreneurs *cough* Palmer Lucky *cough* who attempt to make their hateful beliefs seem normal.

Wait. Dog whistles are hate speech now? Are you even listening to yourself? Paranoid bureaucrats and politically motivated police can point to something you said, say you clearly had an insidious underlying subversive message, and then put you in jail for it? If you want to live in China that badly, go right ahead!

SeanTSC · Sep 24, 2017

No, but more shit needs to be charged as Inciting Violence and the laws around it and punished accordingly. If you call for ethnic cleansings it should be against the laws that we already have on the books. There's plenty of crap people spew on a daily basis that falls under this as it is and we should take it more seriously and more diligently prosecute it.

mid83 · Sep 24, 2017

JordanN said:
I'd argue their intention is in their ideology.
It's why we have the term "dog whistle". Just because you're not explicitly saying it, doesn't mean they wont use other subversive means to advance their agenda.

You can look at the youtube stars *cough* jontron, Pewdiepie *cough* or entrepreneurs *cough* Palmer Lucky *cough* who attempt to make their hateful beliefs seem normal.

So we should be throwing people in jail over their ideology? Yeah no way that goes wrong.

Xando · Sep 24, 2017

besada said:
Well, it's not JUST an opinion. it's a repugnant opinion that rides the ragged edge of what constitutes free speech. I assume your opinion is that it should be protected speech?

It was sarcasm. I live in one of the countries with strongest hatespeech laws in the world(germany).
I often read on GAF that people should have the right to voice their opinion.

Imo calling for warcrimes is no opinion and should be punished in any shape or form.

Also i think a lot of people in this thread don't even know what hate speech laws are generally used for in europe for example.

Golden_Pigeon · Sep 24, 2017

Somnium said:
No. That's absolute madness.

It's in the Constitution...As in the first amendment.

Free Speech don't include Hate Speech, as it don't include threats or insults, even if they are "only words".

besada · Sep 24, 2017

Xando said:
It was sarcasm. I live in one of the countries with strongest hatespeech laws in the world(germany).
I often read on GAF that people should have the right to voice their opinion.

Imo calling for warcrimes is no opinion and should be punished in any shape or form.

Thanks for responding. It's genuinely hard to tell sometimes.

BocoDragon · Sep 24, 2017

JordanN said:
I'd argue their intention is in their ideology.
It's why we have the term "dog whistle". Just because you're not explicitly saying it, doesn't mean they wont use other subversive means to advance their agenda.

I simply believe you have to catch them in the actual act of declaring "I'm going to kill X" or "you should kill X". Otherwise I don't see how it is an actual threat of violence.

TheUntamedLegend · Sep 24, 2017

PdotMichael said:
People should take one for the team. Somehow free speech is a higher good than dignity and physical integrity.

What an absurd and perverted society some people want to live.

Free speech is one of the tallest pillars of democracy and to disregard or deride it just plays further into the hand of the alt-right who are right now trying steal it as their own banner.

Maximus P · Sep 24, 2017

I hear too many people hide behind amendments and constitutions. They need changing. Saying certain things in public places can get you killed, the law needs to be there to protect people and allow people to call the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.

Tapioca · Sep 24, 2017

Nope. That'd mean the end of all those anti-Scientology documentaries.

And Southpark.

Sibylus · Sep 24, 2017

Punishable yes, with the standard caveats of varying grades of severity and provisions for extenuating circumstances. Hate speech isn't neutral speech, it has very real knock-on effects that kick society's most vulnerable when they're already down.

mortal · Sep 24, 2017

Golden_Pigeon said:
Free Speech don't include Hate Speech, as it don't include threats or insults, even if they are "only words".

It absolutely does. Also you need to clearly define what constitues as hate speech.

You're telling me that people should be imprisoned for insulting someone?

Salamando · Sep 24, 2017

Tapioca said:
Nope. That'd mean the end of all those anti-Scientology documentaries.

And Southpark.

Canada's laws against "Incited hatred" list "establishing that the statements communicated were true" as a defense. Presumably that means you can talk shit about Scientology, as long as any statement you make is factually true.

deadscreensky · Sep 24, 2017

TheUntamedLegend said:
No, absolutely not.
Ideas like this push "free speech" further into the alt-right's arsenal. They are already trying to co-opt the term for their rallies.
The law has been pretty consistent on what kind of speech is protected, The Supreme Court's imminent lawless action standard seems pretty fair and just.

Agreed. And honestly I don't even care so much that it's a fantastic way for liberals to lose elections, it's just inherently antithetical to American values. (You know, the good ones. Not the massively racist ones.)

For those confused by the slippery slope arguments: imagine arch-conservatives come to power (maybe because liberals pass a deeply unpopular law restricting free speech) and get to broaden the definition of hate speech to speaking in favor of abortion ("Pro-choice defenders are calling for the murder of children!"), or criticizing the super rich, or defending criminals ("They don't care about victims of crime!"). For a real world example of this, look at how even well-meaning censorship laws are almost inevitably used against gay-related expression. (I'd recommend Nadine Strossen's book Defending Pornography if you want a deeper look at how this tends to work even in more liberal places like Canada.)

To be clear: I'm by no means making a 'both sides' argument, just pointing out that when you set up a restriction like this it's a very dangerous weapon. You can't predict who it might get used on in the future. We don't need prisons to fight against racist speech.

Oppo · Sep 24, 2017

some of you have some really weird notions about what defines "hate speech".

it's not dog whistles or innuendo or even racism. it's calls for violence against social minorities.

usually uttering such threats is already illegal. we give them extra weight in hate speech cases because of historical experience and knowing how these ideas can become normalized.

if the argument becomes "i don't trust our court system to not subvert the definition of hate speech" then i'm not sure what to tell you but it's an argument outside of the scope of discussion regarding the specific point. that's .. an american problem, i guess.

BocoDragon · Sep 24, 2017

Salamando said:
Canada's laws against "Incited hatred" list "establishing that the statements communicated were true" as a defense. Presumably that means you can talk shit about Scientology, as long as any statement you make is factually true.

You can't deny the holocaust here in Canada. Now the holocaust happened (do I need to say it?), and the people who deny it are usually pieces of shit....

But the idea that I can't say that is vaguely silly, nannying and anti-freedom.

"The holocaust did

did!

happen"

^ How ridiculous that I could be put in jail for typing something different there.

ZackieChan · Sep 24, 2017

Nerfgun said:
i don't like this "dignity" angle you're peddling. to hell with your dignity. the whole prophet cartoon thing was supposedly an "insult to dignity". you can justify too much nonsense with "insults to dignity", that is a true slippery slope.

threats to person and physical well being, of course i'm with you. which is why hate speech isn't hard to define. it's already illegal to incite riots and so forth. this is a very very narrow section of "speech" to wall off. the only reason the category exists at all is specifically to address threats against minorities.

it's really not.

I agree with you 100% here. Your dignity? What does that even mean, and why is that an imprisonable offense? Hell, people attack Trump's dignity and right to live here on GAF daily. They should all be jailed?

Somnium said:
No. That's absolute madness. The amount of people in this thread saying yes, is rather troubling.

It's in the Constitution...As in the first amendment.

Yep, extremely troubled by the flippancy with which people want to whittle away one of our core freedoms here.

JordanN · Sep 24, 2017

mid83 said:
So we should be throwing people in jail over their ideology? Yeah no way that goes wrong.

I wouldn't shed a tear if Nazis were jailed or faced a heavy fine.
WW2 was and still is the most deadly human conflict ever. All it took was one man and one incredibly warped viewpoint to nearly kill us all. How is that worth protecting?

Sibylus · Sep 24, 2017

BocoDragon said:
You can't deny the holocaust here in Canada. Now the holocaust happened (do I need to say it?), and the people who deny it are usually pieces of shit....

But the idea that I can't say that is vaguely silly, nannying and anti-freedom.

"The holocaust did

did!

happen"

^ How ridiculous that I could be put in jail for typing something different there.

Not ridiculous at all. Denying history of genocides is step one to committing more of them.

PdotMichael · Sep 24, 2017

Nerfgun said:
i don't like this "dignity" angle you're peddling. to hell with your dignity. the whole prophet cartoon thing was supposedly an "insult to dignity". you can justify too much nonsense with "insults to dignity", that is a true slippery slope.

threats to person and physical well being, of course i'm with you. which is why hate speech isn't hard to define. it's already illegal to incite riots and so forth. this is a very very narrow section of "speech" to wall off. the only reason the category exists at all is specifically to address threats against minorities.

it's really not.

RIP UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

TheUntamedLegend said:
Free speech is one of the tallest pillars of democracy and to disregard or deride it just plays further into the hand of the alt-right who are right now trying steal it as their own banner.

Free Speech a la USA is not the pillar of democracy.

Tapioca · Sep 24, 2017

Salamando said:
Canada's laws against "Incited hatred" list "establishing that the statements communicated were true" as a defense. Presumably that means you can talk shit about Scientology, as long as any statement you make is factually true.

But presumably you couldn't say "Scientology is a cult full of weirdos. Their "religion" shouldn't exist". It's really more of an opinion that a factual statement. Groups like Scientology would try to get you prosecuted to the fullest, they already sue people left and right.

Crosseyes · Sep 24, 2017

We need a just state able to identify and suppress evil when it threatens it's citizens. Else then it falls to brave citizens to morally fight and destroy evil when they're not legally powered to do so.

With a moral government we could trust them to identify speech which leads to evil and deadly ideology and act to imprison and destroy it.

Unfortunately right now I see it becoming more likely that it will be necessary to kill police and other state actors if domestic conflict continues to brew and the Trump led response sides with evil.

Ishan · Sep 24, 2017

Very complicated question . I'm a fan of Germany and Japan on how they acknowledge they messed up

IaN_GAF · Sep 24, 2017

Anyway, you would first need to establish what defines the punishable "hate speech". When part of it is just "people saying stuff I don't agree with" you probably shouldn't do it.

Ziltoidia 9 · Sep 24, 2017

Nerfgun said:
some of you have some really weird notions about what defines "hate speech".

it's not dog whistles or innuendo or even racism. it's calls for violence against social minorities.

usually uttering such threats is already illegal. we give them extra weight in hate speech cases because of historical experience and knowing how these ideas can become normalized.

if the argument becomes "i don't trust our court system to not subvert the definition of hate speech" then i'm not sure what to tell you but it's an argument outside of the scope of discussion regarding the specific point. that's .. an american problem, i guess.

Yeah, but I mean we have hate crimes. I guess if we had laws dealing with more of the speech side, they should be built in with the hate crime statutes?

Oppo · Sep 24, 2017

PdotMichael said:
RIP UN's Universal Declaration of Himan Rights

ok you got me there, touché. i know they use that phrasing. i am a big believer in the Declaration. and i agree with the sentiment.

on a legal level i don't think "dignity" as a concept should be specifically legally protected. i think the sentiment of dignity mentioned there is the result of proper attention paid to health, safety and the rest.

Not · Sep 24, 2017

PdotMichael said:
Free Speech a la USA is not the pillar of democracy.

Especially since nonwhite minorities have never actually had free speech, as our dear leader has demonstrated over the past few days.

Of course some people who are white think free speech is a fundamental pillar of American democracy, having never actually suffered real consequences for the things they've said due to their whiteness.

mortal · Sep 24, 2017

Crosseyes said:
We need a just state able to identify and suppress evil when it threatens it's citizens. Else then it falls to brave citizens to morally fight and destroy evil when they're not legally powered to do so.

With a moral government we could trust them to identify speech which leads to evil and deadly ideology and act to imprison and destroy it.

Unfortunately right now I see it becoming more likely that it will be necessary to kill police and other state actors if domestic conflict continues to brew and the Trump led response sides with evil.

What dysptoian future America are you living in?

fushi · Sep 24, 2017

What?

No.

This community has seriously gone off the deep end.

Not · Sep 24, 2017

fushi said:
What?

No.

This community has seriously gone off the deep end.

2 whole pages of thread to read? Nah. Skip to the hot take.

Kill Your Masters · Sep 24, 2017

Hate speech laws work fine in other countries, and yes, they are also free, and have more freedoms than the US.

AoM · Sep 24, 2017

Crosseyes said:
We need a just state able to identify and suppress evil when it threatens it's citizens. Else then it falls to brave citizens to morally fight and destroy evil when they're not legally powered to do so.

With a moral government we could trust them to identify speech which leads to evil and deadly ideology and act to imprison and destroy it.

Unfortunately right now I see it becoming more likely that it will be necessary to kill police and other state actors if domestic conflict continues to brew and the Trump led response sides with evil.

Jesus.

PdotMichael · Sep 24, 2017

Nerfgun said:
ok you got me there, touché. i know they use that phrasing. i am a big believer in the Declaration. and i agree with the sentiment.

on a legal level i don't think "dignity" as a concept should be specifically legally protected. i think the sentiment of dignity mentioned there is the result of proper attention paid to health, safety and the rest.

Germany does quite well with putting "Menschenwürde" (dignity) above everything else. Alsio it's not that the USA doesn't know the concept of unalienable rights.

mid83 · Sep 24, 2017

JordanN said:
I wouldn't shed a tear if Nazis were jailed or faced a heavy fine.
WW2 was and still is the most deadly human conflict ever.

Look I doubt anybody here has any love for Nazis.

That said, how do you determine somebody is a Nazi? They dont have Nazi membership cards their carry. Do you toss everybody in jail who attends a rally like Charlottesville? Do you base it on what websites use or her goes to? Some people believe every Republican and/or Trump voter is a nazi, or at least sympathizes with Nazis. Does that mean we toss the tens of millions of GOP and Trump voters in jail?

We might as well become China or Russia at that point.

Xando · Sep 24, 2017

IaN_GAF said:
Anyway, you would first need to establish what defines the punishable "hate speech". When part of it is just "people saying stuff I don't agree with" you probably shouldn't do it.

Lot's of people in this thread don't know what hatespeech actually is.

I like the german definition:

Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

It's still very hard to be prosecuted for it and it often goes through the courts until it reaches the supreme court. Nazis are still allowed to voice their opinion in germany as long as they stay within the rules. I don't like the idea of punishing thought crime.

BocoDragon · Sep 24, 2017

Sibylus said:
Not ridiculous at all. Denying history of genocides is step one to committing more of them.

It's like criminalizing people who think 9/11 was an inside job.

That's why I believe in absolute free speech. The ideas we choose to make illegal to voice are arbitrary and up to the whims of the present moment. I would guarantee the right to speak all ideas except the one which directly incites violence.

Teren_Kanan · Sep 24, 2017

No god damn it.

I don't want our future to be fucking Demolition Man.

In groups they should he broken up. Their avenues of communication should be shut down. If it progresses beyond speech then we can talk about penalties. You don't fine and arrest people for speech. You educate them, or ostrize them from general society.

Racists tend to be raised by racists. You start locking them up you just begin a never-ending cycle of shit.

IaN_GAF · Sep 24, 2017

Crosseyes said:
We need a just state able to identify and suppress evil when it threatens it's citizens. Else then it falls to brave citizens to morally fight and destroy evil when they're not legally powered to do so.

With a moral government we could trust them to identify speech which leads to evil and deadly ideology and act to imprison and destroy it.

Unfortunately right now I see it becoming more likely that it will be necessary to kill police and other state actors if domestic conflict continues to brew and the Trump led response sides with evil.

I live in a country where inciting violence or crimes through speech is punishable and I'll tell you that last part will get you in trouble here, and rightfully so.

Not · Sep 24, 2017

Crosseyes said:
We need a just state able to identify and suppress evil when it threatens it's citizens. Else then it falls to brave citizens to morally fight and destroy evil when they're not legally powered to do so.

With a moral government we could trust them to identify speech which leads to evil and deadly ideology and act to imprison and destroy it.

Unfortunately right now I see it becoming more likely that it will be necessary to kill police and other state actors if domestic conflict continues to brew and the Trump led response sides with evil.

Can we stop talking about killing people? I think it should be the goal to achieve resistance through force without killing anyone.

BocoDragon · Sep 24, 2017

Teren_Kanan said:
No god damn it.

I don't want our future to be fucking Demolition Man.

I too fear the three seashells

Not to mention the restaurant franchise wars

I don't want to eat only Taco Bell

gogosox82 · Sep 24, 2017

No simply because it will come down to who is defining the hate speech. Is calling someone a neo nazi hate speech if they are symathetic to neo nazis but haven't labeled themselves neo nazis? What about criticizing religion? Would that be considered hate speech? Possibly because you can't just say that isn't hate speech just because you agree with the criticism. It has to be a standard that can applied in most if not all situations. I'd rather we not go down this road.

Not · Sep 24, 2017

I guess I should clarify my initial stance to say I agree that it should be an imprisonable offense depending on the severity, which would be for a court to decide just like every other crime.

besada · Sep 24, 2017

If your contribution to this thread is a one or two word ejaculate of emotion, just don't post. It contributes nothing and just makes worse the signal to noise problem. If you can't be bothered to actually address the topic, and all you can do is clutch your pearls at someone else's opinion, just go away.

Pusherman · Sep 24, 2017

No, absolutely not. You're crazy if you think hate speech laws aren't mainly going to be used against us instead of for us. Look at France, where everybody loves and protects Charlie Hebdo but the comedian Dieudonné was put on trial. Or look at the way Western governments have (tried) to use hate speech and hate crime laws against the BDS movement. Conservatives would without a doubt try to use hate speech laws against BLM.

nel e nel · Sep 24, 2017

TheUntamedLegend said:
No, absolutely not.
Ideas like this push "free speech" further into the alt-right's arsenal. They are already trying to co-opt the term for their rallies.
The law has been pretty consistent on what kind of speech is protected, The Supreme Court's imminent lawless action standard seems pretty fair and just.

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]

I mean, hate speech often incites people to punch Nazis the fuck out, so maybe they should be put into jail for their own safety.

mid83 said:
Look I doubt anybody here has any love for Nazis.

That said, how do you determine somebody is a Nazi? They dont have Nazi membership cards their carry. Do you toss everybody in jail who attends a rally like Charlottesville? Do you base it on what websites use or her goes to? Some people believe every Republican and/or Trump voter is a nazi, or at least sympathizes with Nazis. Does that mean we toss the tens of millions of GOP and Trump voters in jail?

We might as well become China or Russia at that point.

Well, these days they do a pretty good job of identifying themselves in public, whether it's organizing Trump rallys, quoting Hitler and doing Nazi salutes at conferences, or even wearing swastikas easily seen swastikas on public transportation.

C4Lukins · Sep 24, 2017

Trigonometrize. said:
I feel like the word "terrorism" is anything but simple. For instance, you said "promotes violence," but I could argue that something does not become an act of terror until the violence has already taken place and now we're onto the stage of fear, but you could also argue terror simply involves a threat.

It is a complicated issue.

But let's say you have a website, and followers.

And you say go and kill those people, how is that different from a husband telling someone to murder their wife?

Fantastapotamus · Sep 24, 2017

BocoDragon said:
You can't deny the holocaust here in Canada. Now the holocaust happened (do I need to say it?), and the people who deny it are usually pieces of shit....

But the idea that I can't say that is vaguely silly, nannying and anti-freedom.

"The holocaust did

did!

happen"

^ How ridiculous that I could be put in jail for typing something different there.

What exactly is ridiculous about this?

Support NeoGAF

Should Hate Speech Against Minorities Be Considered an Imprisonable Offense?

Banned

Member

Gold Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Member

Member

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Junior Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Member

Member

Banned

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Junior Member

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything

Similar threads