• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Pusherman
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:24 AM)
Pusherman's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xando

So what you're saying is you don't want hate speech laws because your courts are corrupt and cannot be trusted?

Originally Posted by Fantastapotamus

So your argument is that the US is too incompetent to enact laws that a lot of Western countries had for dozens of years.

The courts of France, Great-Britain and Canada aren't any more corrupt than the ones in the US, much less corrupt if you ask me. What I'm saying is that in those countries hate speech and hate crime laws have occasionally been used against minorities, instead of for them. I think the same will happen in the US. I mean, just look at the Blue Lives Matter legislation. You're naive if you think minorities won't be victim to those kinds of laws as often as they'd benefit from them.

IMO, the hundreds and sometimes thousands of people surrounding every white supremacist march to oppose them send out a much stronger message than any fine or prison sentence could ever do. By all means, ban every type of weapon from peaceful protests and put an end to open carry laws but I don't think to outlaw speech (unless it is a direct call to violence) is productive. However, I do believe white supremacist militias should be targeted by the authorities much in the same way Islamist terror cells are.
Drek
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:25 AM)
No. We lock too many people up as it is.

Hate speech should have punitive action similar to disorderly conduct and/or public indecency.

1. Because it's verbally defecating in the public space, so it should have a similar punishment to physically defecating in the public space.

2. There still needs to be a reasonable protection of free speech, even if it is something you might disagree with. So while active hate speech deserves to have repercussions skipping straight to jail time is clear overcompensation.

3. It is dangerous to conflate hate speech with acts of hate. This is like relating being a junkie to being a dealer. We use incarceration so heavily on even minor drug use as to have pushed users into a prison system that not only fails to treat their issue but actively teaches them how to move on to violent crime when they're next given the opportunity. So if someone tweets something hateful do you then want to send them off to prison where they can actually join up with the violent neo-nazi movement present in most major U.S. penitentiaries? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

4. Prisons are used as effective slave labor in many states still to this day as well as a great tool to move public funds into private hands via the for profit prison system. Meanwhile prisons are largely staffed by unions that are in 100% lockstep with police unions and work as a cooperative block to prevent any form of regulation or check on their power. This would only grow that.

5. No matter how you word it the ability to contort this into a weapon for suppression is immense.

6. Lastly, active incarceration should never be used as response to what someone thinks or might be capable of doing, only what they've done or are actively trying to do, and only then when those actions directly violate another's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All other infractions should be solved via financial penalties and/or counseling, community service, or similar meaningful reparations, not making someone a ward of the state when they aren't an active threat to the rights of the people of the state.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:26 AM)
Doctor_Thomas's Avatar
Depends what you want to define as hate speech.

If someone says "I don't like x minority because reasons", does that hold the same weight as "I want to kill all x minority"?

I think threats of violence should be covered anyway, not under hate speech, but as general threats of violence.

Being critical of something isn't hate speech - hating ideas is not hate speech, hating people can fall under hate speech. There's a difference between "I hate Islam" and "I hate Muslims".

If you think free speech should allow you to say "kill all Jews" and "kill all Muslims" or "kill all blacks" with no consequence, then your view of free speech is warped because you think threats of violence should be protected, yet you'd feel differently if someone said "I'm going to kill you" to you as a direct threat.

Also, a lot of hate speech is outright defamation and should be treated as such legally.
Farsi
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:28 AM)
Farsi's Avatar
Hell no, and thankfully this doesn’t have a chance of passing. As a minority I’d be scared shitless if it did.
The Kree
Banned
(09-24-2017, 11:29 AM)

Originally Posted by Kotetsu534

This. What do you think the other side will do when they get power after some of their number have been locked up (and portrayed as martyrs) for their views? They could be principled and overturn the legislation, but they won't. They'll expand it. There will be relentless pressure from all sides to expand the definition of what can be classified 'hate speech' (e.g. observing higher crime rates in particular groups) and 'minorities' (e.g. the super-rich will be considered a minority; Christian denominations, especially as religiosity declines; perhaps it'll be argued whites are a minority in particular states or cities in a couple of decades). Once you go down this road there's no going back.

We already walk down this road every day once you acknowledge that existing laws are already applied unevenly to people who are not Christian white males. What people are actually asking for is for white supremacy to be dismantled. But white people have the amazing luxury of having everyone make slippery slope arguments because we all know that literally any set of laws put in place to correct the problem will always work to their advantage so long as they refuse to give up power.

Before you tell oppressed people that their suggestions for improving their predicament are crazy, you could try telling their oppressors that it would be better for everybody if they gave up their advantages. But you won't because you know that talking sense to the enemy is futile and you know that physically fighting the enemy is potentially life threatening and you naturally place your physical and mental well being above everyone else.

So when you have systems of oppression in place that are self sustaining in this way, impenetrable through appeals of moral sensibility alone because people with advantages will largely refuse to cede power willingly, oppressed people are eventually left with little recourse but to lash out. And then they die or are imprisoned, and you lament the violence and continued suffering, and you continue to insist that things would have been better if people had just talked it out and waited for white people to stop being crazy on their own, and you'll say that we'll never see meaningful change in our lifetime while probably ignoring the fact that the violence was necessary for any incremental change to occur at all because the advantaged people are just as afraid of getting fucked up and are willing to give away slivers of power in exchange for continued stability, all the while you continue to talk down to the disadvantaged about their crazy ideas that may lead to new slippery slopes with little thought given to what it's like to live on a preexisting slippery slope.

I don't think people who make slippery slope arguments are really worried that things'll get worse. I think you just don't see the point in trying to do anything because the process is too slow to enjoy.
Not
Banned
(09-24-2017, 11:30 AM)

Originally Posted by ShemhazaiX

As someone from the UK who watches the US from afar, yes you should have jail time for hate speech. The fact that this is even debatable confuses me. Hate speech here carries a maximum jail time of seven years and our society hasn't fallen to pieces.

White people want the freedom to say the N-word, like they used to be able to. Everything going on in America can be summed up as an insane overreaction to nonwhite people gaining a louder voice in the public discourse via the Internet and other technological advancements that naturally have a gradual progressive social effect on democratic societies.

It reveals just how firmly racism and class separation was and is entrenched in our society. It's going to take a LOT of work to fix this, if we ever do. That's why people are coming up with solutions such as this one, that obviously require refinement.
N7.Angel
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:34 AM)
N7.Angel's Avatar
No.
Dr.Phibes
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:35 AM)
Dr.Phibes's Avatar
As a German I can assure you that there is no slippery slope to be found here. And yes, you can make out quite easily if people are nazis
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
(09-24-2017, 11:36 AM)
BocoDragon's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dr.Phibes

As a German I can assure you that there is no slippery slope to be found here. And yes, you can make out quite easily if people are nazis

This is the same Germany that routinely censored video games that featured the Nazis as bad guys? There's some kind of a slope. Maybe a trivial one that ultimately harms nothing except artistic expression, but it's there.
Kittehkraken
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:36 AM)

Originally Posted by Fantastapotamus

Yeah, just look at dystopian nations like... Canada or....Austria and Germany.
The mere thought sends a shiver to my bones.

Huh? Canada has free speech. If you are openly calling for violence (like genocide) against a group of people in Canada you can be charged. That is hardly the government controlling what I can and cannot say. I live in an area where the Native Population is quite high. What people would call hate speech is VERY common on both sides of the fence. Nobody cares because its not against the law unless it becomes violent (which it often does in bars/clubs).
Hesh
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:37 AM)
Hesh's Avatar
I'm not sure how it would be enforced, but I would support the idea that outside the confines of the privacy of your home if you were to march/shout/advocate for the murder/eradication/de-humanization of any group of people that your hate speech would no longer be protected under the First Amendment and the offending person/s would be subject to arrest for terroristic threats.
EGM1966
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:39 AM)
EGM1966's Avatar
If it promotors violence or incities violence sure.
Jzero
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:39 AM)
Fuck yes.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
(09-24-2017, 11:44 AM)
Fantastapotamus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kittehkraken

Huh? Canada has free speech. If you are openly calling for violence (like genocide) against a group of people in Canada you can be charged. That is hardly the government controlling what I can and cannot say.

Uh, no this is exactly what this is about


Originally Posted by BocoDragon

This is the same Germany that routinely censored video games that featured the Nazis as bad guys? There's some kind of a slope. Maybe a trivial one that ultimately harms nothing except artistic expression, but it's there.

Yeah, that might be because of certain historical events...
Xando
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:45 AM)
Xando's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

This is the same Germany that routinely censored video games that featured the Nazis as bad guys? There's some kind of a slope. Maybe a trivial one that ultimately harms nothing except artistic expression, but it's there.

Germany doesn't ban nazis in video games. Don't make shit up.

What is actually banned is the swastika since they're banned by the constitution and videos games are not seen as artistic expression (Which they probably would if a publishers would sue but they don't care).
Bad_Boy
time to take my meds
(09-24-2017, 11:49 AM)
Bad_Boy's Avatar
It wouldnt happen in trumps america. Maybe after hes in jail.
Trigonometrize.
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:52 AM)
Trigonometrize.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Dr.Phibes

As a German I can assure you that there is no slippery slope to be found here. And yes, you can make out quite easily if people are nazis

No offense, but I don't think one person from a completely different country with different values and court systems and race relations and everything can assure the US on how hate speech application will play out.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
(09-24-2017, 11:52 AM)
BocoDragon's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xando

Germany doesn't ban nazis in video games. Don't make shit up.

What is actually banned is the swastika since they're banned by the constitution and videos games are not seen as artistic expression (Which they probably would if a publishers would sue but they don't care).

Speaking of "making shit up", re-read what I said. I said they routinely censor games that feature Nazis. That's a fact if they're removing swastikas.

And many games haven't made these drastic and unreasonable changes to the games and have been, in effect, banned in Germany.

http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/List_of..._games#Germany
Typhoon_Ex
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:53 AM)
Typhoon_Ex's Avatar
Yea... No.
Hate speech and minority are pretty broad terms
Infinite
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:56 AM)
Infinite's Avatar
Wouldn't trust this country with a another reason to throw more people in prisons
Maximo
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:57 AM)
Maximo's Avatar
Jail time.. im not sure if the prison system was better we would be using it to educate and rehardwire because I do consider them not *mentally* broken but socially, that someone who is that hateful that racist to spread hate speech should have mandary and I guess yes *jail time* for them to have mental and social evaluations/education until a trained professional thinks they can be let back into society.
Xando
Member
(09-24-2017, 11:58 AM)
Xando's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

Speaking of "making shit up", re-read what I said. I said they routinely censor games that feature Nazis. That's a fact if they're removing swastikas.

And many games haven't made these drastic and unreasonable changes to the games and have been, in effect, banned in Germany.

http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/List_of..._games#Germany

Again, as i said before.

If publishers would actually challenge the ruling in court this would get overturned since these laws were made long before videogames existed.

Even the leader of the agency deciding on bans asked publishers to challenge this to get it overturned and see videogames as artistic expression.

Video games are no priority for politicians so there won't be any change without a push by the industry which as i said earlier can't be arsed.

it doesn't have anything to do with freespeech anyway.
Red Arremer
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:05 PM)
Red Arremer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

Speaking of "making shit up", re-read what I said. I said they routinely censor games that feature Nazis. That's a fact if they're removing swastikas.

And many games haven't made these drastic and unreasonable changes to the games and have been, in effect, banned in Germany.

http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/List_of..._games#Germany

That has to do with the German laws about the ban of propaganda and symbols for anti-constitutional organizations. Something that, by the way, the Allies demanded of Germany to institute in the aftermath of WW2.
This law mainly is about Nazis and associated organizations. Exempt are forms of media or communication that are relaying historical information as well as artistic expression - those may display swastikas, SS skulls and the Hitlergruß. Video games are not historical and, by current German law standards, also not viewed as artistic expression.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
(09-24-2017, 12:05 PM)
BocoDragon's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xando

Again, as i said before.

If publishers would actually challenge the ruling in court this would get overturned since these laws were made long before videogames existed.

Even the leader of the agency deciding on bans asked publishers to challenge this to get it overturned and see videogames as artistic expression.

Video games are no priority for politicians so there won't be any change without a push by the industry which as i said earlier can't be arsed.

it doesn't have anything to do with freespeech anyway.

I'm sure all that's true. But it sounds to me like the definition of a slippery slope effect from this one limited ban on free expression. A serious of "reasons" that lead to bans of expression in an entire medium that isn't even new at this point.

Maybe it doesn't matter compared to the necessity to combat Nazism. But yeah... this one little exception to freedom of speech did go places no one expected.
Kittehkraken
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:16 PM)

Originally Posted by Fantastapotamus

Uh, no this is exactly what this is about



Yeah, that might be because of certain historical events...

Canada does not have as the OP stated; "tough anti-hate speech laws".

We have Neo-Nazism and white supremacy in Canada and nobody is throwing them in jail for it. Why? Because we have laws allowing free speech, thought, beliefs, expression etc...

What Canada has legal wise, wouldn't change a thing about what is happening in America. Because we deal with the same idiotic bullshit just on a much much smaller scale. All it might do is clog up the judicial system with people looking for loop holes.

Nothing has changed in America but peoples intolerance towards one another. Whether its race or politics people want to beat the shit out of each other for being different. Making new laws isn't going to help that problem.
PaulloDEC
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:16 PM)
PaulloDEC's Avatar
Aren't overcrowded prisons kind of a huge issue in the US already?

If you wanna go down that road, surely there's more practical punishments you could go with.
eizarus
Banned
(09-24-2017, 12:17 PM)

Originally Posted by Infinite

Wouldn't trust this country with a another reason to throw more people in prisons

Wouldn't be surprised to see American cops throwing minority activists into prison for hate speech.
Red Arremer
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:19 PM)
Red Arremer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

I'm sure all that's true. But it sounds to me like the definition of a slippery slope effect from this one limited ban on free expression. A serious of "reasons" that lead to bans of expression in an entire medium that isn't even new at this point.

Maybe it doesn't matter compared to the necessity to combat Nazism. But yeah... this one little exception to freedom of speech did go places no one expected.

These laws have been effect for over 60 years now, and there never have been any unfounded punishments.
Video games are pretty much the only exception, because their definition within the space of German law hasn't been a priority. And since censoring swastikas out of flags isn't that much of an investment compared to setting up a court case, nobody really has given much of a shit about challenging that blurriness of the legal status of games.

Besides, most of the censors come from taking out blood and gore anyway. The reason why so many game developers censor gore out of their products is because if they didn't, their game would be part of the index, which bans the sale to minors, as well as the display and advertisement of these products.
cromofo
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:19 PM)
cromofo's Avatar
No, it shouldn't.
Izuna
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:21 PM)
Izuna's Avatar
I hope you mean hate speech against anyone.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
(09-24-2017, 12:25 PM)
Fantastapotamus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kittehkraken

Canada does not have as the OP stated; "tough anti-hate speech laws".

We have Neo-Nazism and white supremacy in Canada and nobody is throwing them in jail for it. Why? Because we have laws allowing free speech, thought, beliefs, expression etc...

What Canada has legal wise, wouldn't change a thing about what is happening in America. Because we deal with the same idiotic bullshit just on a much much smaller scale. All it might do is clog up the judicial system with people looking for loop holes.

I don't know that much about Canadian law, I was mostly basing my post on this one

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

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.

Koomaster
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:26 PM)
Koomaster's Avatar
Absolutely. We love for profit prisons here. Why waste all that space on petty drug offenses when we can fill them with people who actually deserve to be there?

Kinda done living in a society where someone can go; 'It's just a word/words.' Maybe show them that words actually have consequences by throwing them in jail. Let them feel the effects of their own hate speech.
SyenceLabb
Member
(09-24-2017, 12:33 PM)
SyenceLabb's Avatar
This is a great idea. The 1st amendment was a horrible idea anyway. Giving the government more power to throw people in jail is the answer to all of our problems. Giving the government more power in general does wonders. And the U.S. prisons have such a good track record in rehabilitating people, I’m sure most people who physically assault others with words will be model citizens when they get out.
Kittehkraken
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:27 PM)

Originally Posted by Fantastapotamus

I don't know that much about Canadian law, I was mostly basing my post on this one

As a Canadian, I've never heard of people being charged/jailed for denying the holocaust. I know of Civil Rights Groups openly calling for people to be charged/jailed for such things, but I don't think law enforcement actively does anything about it.

People can be charged for hate speech in Canada, but it very rarely happens because of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless that intolerance turns violent, law enforcement stays out of it. And Canadian law enforcement charging someone for violence under our "hate speech laws" is more or less the same thing as somebody being charged for a hate crime in America.
TesUsa
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:30 PM)
TesUsa's Avatar
ALL hate speech should be imprisonable.
Hollywood Duo
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:37 PM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar
Depends on your definition. Is it violent or meant to incitement violence from others? Absolutely. However once they are in they need to be aggressively rehabilitated.
Amory
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:41 PM)
Amory's Avatar
No. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. For better or worse.

Anyway throwing people in jail for saying racist things won't make them not racist, or make them stop saying racist things. Theyll just be more careful about where they do it
Vlaphor
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:46 PM)
Vlaphor's Avatar
The main question here is what hate speech is and who defines it. If you start making laws against a certain type of speech, then those laws are malleable and can be examined and changed by each administration...and do you really want this current administration defining hate speech...

How long before kneeling during the national anthem is considered hate speech?

How long before criticizing the police is hate speech? Hell, several places in America have "Blue Lives Matter" laws that say attacking the police is a hate crime on par with assaulting minorities.

How long before speech that offends conservative sensibilities is hate speech? The people currently in power have already convinced their base that straight, white, christian men are the most oppressed and persecuted people in the United States, so how hard would it be to convince them to pass laws preventing people from "persecuting" them.

Free speech is an absolute in the United States, and needs to be kept that way. Now, I'm all for bigots and nazis getting shamed, fired, and even physically assaulted in public as a way to push them into the shadows, but that's because there's nothing that can generally be done by the government to stop that; However, I can guarantee you that if anti hate speech laws were on the books prior to Trump taking office, they'd be some of the first laws he would be "taking a look at".
Htown
STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
(09-24-2017, 01:55 PM)
Htown's Avatar
Absolutely not. This country is too screwed up for that to work.

The US is a country where the current sitting President pulled some "many sides" nonsense when talking about white supremacists and counter-protesters, even after a woman was killed. There are plenty of people in government right now who would like nothing more than to label Black Lives Matter as a hate group.

If hate speech legislation were to happen tomorrow, it would be the Republican-controlled Congress approving it, and Donald Trump signing it, and if you want those people deciding what constitutes prison-worthy hate speech you're a fool.
Llyranor
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:04 PM)
Llyranor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xando

Laws banning Holocaust denial are not hatespeech laws btw.

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

They certainly are in the country I am writing from: Canada.

I looked into this more into detail, and it doesn't seem to be entirely correct.

Hate speech laws correspond to Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code. One of the more famous Canadian Holocaust denial cases was Ernst Zündel, who was convicted on Section 181 of the CC, which was a law against spreading fake news (a law which was later struck down by the Supreme Court because of this case, it seems).

The other famous case is James Keegstra, a teacher who was convicted by those hate speech laws.

In 1984, Keegstra was stripped of his teaching certificate and charged under the Criminal Code with "wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group" by teaching his social studies students that the Holocaust was a fraud and attributing various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that the Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Keegstra, the Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy" and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. He taught his students the myth of a Jewish world-conspiracy whose blueprint allegedly came from the Talmud.[4] Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.[5]

So no, it's not as straightforward as simply holocaust denial being hate speech.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
(09-24-2017, 02:17 PM)
BocoDragon's Avatar

Originally Posted by Llyranor

I looked into this more into detail, and it doesn't seem to be entirely correct.

Hate speech laws correspond to Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code. One of the more famous Canadian Holocaust denial cases was Ernst Zündel, who was convicted on Section 181 of the CC, which was a law against spreading fake news (a law which was later struck down by the Supreme Court because of this case, it seems).

The other famous case is James Keegstra, a teacher who was convicted by those hate speech laws.



So no, it's not as straightforward as simply holocaust denial being hate speech.

Canadian newspapers described Ernst Zundel's prosecution as being primarily a matter of holocaust denial. It was the headline in his obituary article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...5/?service=amp

Of course he did more than that to be a nuisance and that's why they prosecuted him in particular. But it was predicated on his holocaust denial.
norog
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:32 PM)
norog's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

Canadian newspapers described Ernst Zundel's prosecution as being primarily a matter of holocaust denial. It was the headline in his obituary article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...5/?service=amp

Of course he did more than that to be a nuisance and that's why they prosecuted him in particular. But it was predicated on his holocaust denial.

Well, that's it exactly. Making one dumbass statement won't get you convicted. But it occurs in a broader context, where actual holocaust deniers are responsible for a lot of other despicable statements and 'incitement of hatred'. That is what the law is about. Pretending these statements occur in a vacuum with no other problems and it's just 'freedom of speech' is disingenuous at best.
Llyranor
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:39 PM)
Llyranor's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

Canadian newspapers described Ernst Zundel's prosecution as being primarily a matter of holocaust denial. It was the headline in his obituary article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...5/?service=amp

Of course he did more than that to be a nuisance and that's why they prosecuted him in particular. But it was predicated on his holocaust denial.

Yeah but he was not prosecuted under hate speech laws. Furthermore, he got the section of the criminal code under which he WAS prosecuted struck down by the Supreme Court.

Looks like he was even free until he got extradited to Germany. So, I'm not seeing anything regarding Holocaust denial being in and of itself illegal in Canada

If anything, those two main examples (Zundel and that POS teacher) reassure me even more about hate speech laws
Kittehkraken
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:42 PM)

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

Canadian newspapers described Ernst Zundel's prosecution as being primarily a matter of holocaust denial. It was the headline in his obituary article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...5/?service=amp

Of course he did more than that to be a nuisance and that's why they prosecuted him in particular. But it was predicated on his holocaust denial.

Simply denying the holocaust isn't what got him in trouble. How he went about his views and beliefs is what eventually did him in. Even America kicked him out.

A few extreme cases doesn't make denying the holocaust in Canada illegal.

Holocaust denial a troubling trend in Canada: Organizations

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/09...-organizations

^ Pretty damning article for a Country that supposedly has tough anti-hate speech laws and convicts holocaust deniers.
Late Flag
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:43 PM)
Late Flag's Avatar
Definitely no. I think the first amendment gets this one right, and I do not want the government deciding what views we should imprison people for. In my view, the Trump administration is a good illustration of why this is a bad idea. It's bad enough that the president is going around trying to get people fired and blacklisted for expressing the wrong views. Adding criminal sanctions to the mix makes this an order of magnitude worse.
Spork4000
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:44 PM)
Spork4000's Avatar
As a minority who’s gotten hate speech to his face, absolutely not, “slippery slope” might be a fallacy, but there already has been a major push for oppressors to adopt the language of the oppressed. No one should want this unless you want to wind up in jail for “blue racism.”
The Wart
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:46 PM)
The Wart's Avatar
GAF: Mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders is terrible!

Also GAF: this thread.
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
(09-24-2017, 02:47 PM)
WaffleTaco's Avatar
Imprisonable? Hell no. Fined? Maybe, but probably not.
ReplacementPelican
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:48 PM)
ReplacementPelican's Avatar

Originally Posted by mid83

I know this will likely be a very unpopular opinion here but I don’t like the slippery slope of criminalizing speech, even for those who express abhorrent and disgusting views. Plus, the 1st amendment makes it pretty tough for something like this to even be legal.

You can say ‘slippery slope’ all you want but when there’s real world examples of countries having these laws and not turning into Orwellian nightmares, i’s not too aapplicable.

Prison is probably too far.

Originally Posted by The Wart

GAF: Mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders is terrible!

Also GAF: this thread.

I know you probably feel super smug for saying this but Gaf isn’t a hive mind, difference of opinion is allowed and if you want to point out what you feel is hypocrisy then find the individual posters that have done this and not just some lazy straw man.

Also, incitement to racial hatred and violence is not a non-violent crime in the way you’re suggesting.
Torokil
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:48 PM)
Torokil's Avatar
Im not a fan of going to prison for talking about white privilege - which would be the end result of such a law in America.

Thread Tools