• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

quickwhips
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:49 PM)
quickwhips's Avatar
You shouldn't go to jail for hate speech. But if you act on it then yes you should go to jail.
entremet
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:50 PM)
entremet's Avatar
Absolutely not.

Do we expect that these laws will be meted out with equality in our current white supremacists' reality?

In truth, groups like BLM and the like would be targeted.

This complete trust in the government by progressives is extremely naive, especially in given this government more power to imprison with the warped incentives already at play in this country--for profit prisons and the like.
Last edited by entremet; 09-24-2017 at 01:53 PM.
g11
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:51 PM)
If the person/group is advocating violence or stoking it with hyperbolic rhetoric ("Mexicans are rapists and murderers", "Muslims are all terrorists who want to kill or convert Christians") then yes. Bigoted speech...no. It's ugly, but you aren't going to stop bigotry with jail time just like you won't stop drug use with jail time. Education and reform would go a lot further.
KernelPanic
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:52 PM)
KernelPanic's Avatar
To me it's incitement.
ssolitare
Member
(09-24-2017, 01:54 PM)
I'm a fan. Fines first though.
Emperor_Uriel
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:05 PM)
Emperor_Uriel's Avatar
No. You could, at most, fine them for disturbing the peace. Prison is already filled with too many nonviolent offenders as it is.

Originally Posted by entremet

Do we expect that these laws will be meted out with equality in our current white supremacists' reality?

In truth, groups like BLM and the like would be targeted.

This complete trust in the government by progressives is extremely naive, especially in given this government more power to imprison with the warped incentives already at play in this country--for profit prisons and the like.

Also this. The majority imprisoned would be POC, as all hate speech would have to be criminalized equally and not this fantasy of only "hate speech against minorities."
Nokagi
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:07 PM)
Nokagi's Avatar
No one should ever be put in prison for words.( Harassment is a different issue and there are already laws for that which I believe vary from state to state)
Last edited by Nokagi; 09-24-2017 at 02:21 PM.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
(09-24-2017, 02:08 PM)
andthebeatgoeson's Avatar
It's hard to get around the first amendment. And the history of this country let's us know that any speech that will be criminalized is minority speech. Just look at how people hand wave terrible lyrics by your fave music group but clutch pearls over rap lyrics.

That has real world implications. Various prosecutors are trying to use lyrics as evidence against various rap artists. Have tried it against big names and are currently using it against mix tape artists.

I find the alt right deplorable. But any weapon formed against them will be used against us. It's history. And some of y'all want to repeat it.
Spoo
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:18 PM)
Spoo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nokagi

No one should ever be put in prison for words.

I know what you're trying to say, so I'm not going to be deliberately obtuse about your statement, but you do need to consider language which is threatening of violence, in a direct fashion, and what the repercussions of those things should be.

I think the thing that is going to be easiest to gloss over is -- especially when people talk about "slippery slope" when it comes to speech -- they need to consider how language can be used against others, and *who* is most likely to have language be used *against* them. Let me give an example: it could be argued that one word that should go should be the N-word -- coming from a white person to a black person, it's basically hate speech against minorities, and many of us here would like to see people punished for using such language. Whether that's prison or some other punishment, I'll leave that aside.

Now, think about the power structures of the US. What would this *actually* accomplish? Rather, think about the difference between people who have good intentions, and those who don't? I'd envision of white power struggle which basically means to infer that the word, outright, needs to be banned. So, now, guess what? You're actually just hurting black people, since we know that the word means something very different in their in-group then it does white peoples.

So, when we talk about banning certain kinds of speech, the difficulty becomes differentiating minorities, and the majorities, and on what basis. Obviously, the *intent* of such a law is well-known to us, and why it would be a net-good on its face, but think for a bit about how devious people can be when it comes to contorting law *away* from its spirit, and instead to its letter.

It's for this reason, why I think trying to chisel in certain constraints into free speech can end up being bad. It's what I *think* people are talking about when they are referring to a slippery slope. Just think, how can things to be twisted in the world of speech to hurt those it is intentioned, initially, to help. I'm far from a lawyer, and can't honestly say what would happen, though.

I'm with the heart of the concept, but I am worried about how implementation can end up hurting those it is supposed to help.
entremet
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:21 PM)
entremet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Emperor_Uriel

No. You could, at most, fine them for disturbing the peace. Prison is already filled with too many nonviolent offenders as it is.



Also this. The majority imprisoned would be POC, as all hate speech would have to be criminalized equally and not this fantasy of only "hate speech against minorities."

People also forget who does the arresting in the country? Cops, who we've seen have more than a few bad apples.

I just don't get this implicit trust in the criminal justice system all of the sudden with these arguments to add more layers of criminalization. Have not we learned from the Drug War? Much of this ban hate speech rhetoric seems to come from sheltered white college kids who have a lack of historical perspective.
Meowster
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:22 PM)
Meowster's Avatar
They should be heavily fined imho.
Drek
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:40 PM)

Originally Posted by Spoo

I know what you're trying to say, so I'm not going to be deliberately obtuse about your statement, but you do need to consider language which is threatening of violence, in a direct fashion, and what the repercussions of those things should be.

Except then it isn't hate speech, it's either a threat, solicitation of criminal action, etc..

There is an existing difference between hate speech and harassment, threats, statements of criminal intent, etc.. The later already has punitive action associated with it. We don't see a lot of action on those fronts because in the areas where it is most policed (terrorism) it's more used as probable cause for solicitation/legally defensible entrapment, where people who really meant it get snagged for something far more serious than some social media shit posting.

We'd be far better off if instead of trying to police language we could get the FBI and other branches of the U.S. government to pursue similar measures as those used on suspected "Islamic" terrorists on white nationalists and similar. There are groups in this country who go to rallies/demonstrations looking for a reason to stir shit. It wouldn't take much for an FBI sting to sell them fake C4 or something, proving intent, followed by jailing the whole hive of fuck sticks on the grounds of criminal conspiracy. But even the national law enforcement agencies refuse to police white nationalist domestic terrorism with even the effort local departments use trying to trap black teenagers selling pot, let alone the efforts the three letter agencies expend to catch "Islamic" terror.

(note: I put Islamic in quotations to denote that while that is the terminology used by the FBI, etc. it is a misrepresentation as only certain sects of Islam are associated, and even then in a distorted fashion.)
y2dvd
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:45 PM)
y2dvd's Avatar
Hell to the no. Government does this shit in other countries talking shit about them and Trump already made similar remarks. Of course hate speech is worse but this is the slippery slope that would be taken.
Two Words
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:51 PM)
Two Words's Avatar
No, Iím against the notion of thought crimes and word crimes. That does change though if the hate speech is trying to incite violence or misfortune towards those people.
Merchandise
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:54 PM)
Merchandise's Avatar
Answer is of course no

If there were degrees of no, this would be an incredibly emphatic no based on your hypothetical race-based imprisonment system.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:56 PM)
Hello? This is Hailun!'s Avatar
Depends on what you mean by "Hate Speech". Conspiratorial and inciting manifestos against race and sex? Maybe.

Some doofus like PDP letting slip he's a closet racist? Probably not.

The Right Wing co-opts everything. The moment the "Left" puts something like this into measure and another Trump gets elected it will be used against women who turn a neckbeard down even though he's a totally nice guy.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
(09-24-2017, 02:56 PM)
You Are Viewtiful's Avatar
Advocating genocide or violence against vulnerable groups, or being part of groups that advocate as much (Nazis), should be illegal. Violence is anti-thesis to free speech.
Dice//
Banned
(09-24-2017, 03:01 PM)

Originally Posted by mid83

I know this will likely be a very unpopular opinion here but I donít 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.

I mean, sure, I'm a big fan of free speech but I can't think one good thing hate speech offers besides stirring bad thoughts with bad people.

So what's the point? Slippery slope is a bit hard to argue for.
ChainedMaster
Junior Member
(09-24-2017, 03:04 PM)

Originally Posted by besada

How do feel about something like a call to commit war crimes at some vague point in the future? Do you feel someone saying "At some point, we should round up black people and shoot them in the head," should be protected speech?

How often does this happen? Would it change anything? Instead of that they'll just say "we need to keep blacks out of those country". If you criminalize hate speech they'll start saying it in a way that circumvents the law. I don't see how that'd have any more meaningful impact. Slippery slope isn't a fallacy in this case. It's very real as groups will push the envelope on what is considered hate speech and you'll have to keep adding new laws to narrow it down.
TacoMasters
Junior Member
(09-24-2017, 03:12 PM)
TacoMasters's Avatar
Hate Speech towards anyone is bad.
RandomHopeInc
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:13 PM)
RandomHopeInc's Avatar

Originally Posted by Not

Yes

It will hardly ever get enforced anyway in our white supremacist society; there should at least be a law in the first place.

Originally Posted by Numb

Indeed

Originally Posted by br0ken_shad0w

But muh free speech!

Originally Posted by Evil Monkey DTT

Hate speech shouldn't be protected, it's not free speech it's bullying with the intent of inciting violence.

I'm very confused as to what is going on nowadays with extreme measures like this being suggested. It's like none of you ever understood what freedom is.

All of you sound like Trump saying Kapernick should be fired for kneeling during the anthem. Of course hate speech is horrible, but the idea of a government defining those guidelines and how extreme they can get in their hands, to the point where they limit what you can say against the government, that's what people mean by slippery slope.

I'm so glad you guys aren't in office.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:16 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

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.

Hey man if you want to preach to the rest us how we're less free than the US because we can't deny the holocaust by all means have fun.

It's not anti-freedom jesus
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
(09-24-2017, 03:16 PM)
Crossing Eden's Avatar

Originally Posted by RandomHopeInc

I'm very confused as to what is going on nowadays with extreme measures like this being suggested. It's like none of you ever understood what freedom is.

All of you sound like Trump saying Kapernick should be fired for kneeling during the anthem. Of course hate speech is horrible, but the idea of a government defining those guidelines and how extreme they can get in their hands, to the point where they limit what you can say against the government, that's what people mean by slippery slope.

I'm so glad you guys aren't in office.

Tell that to the places that have hate speech law that are a proof of concept of this never actually happening. Hate speech laws aren't even remotely extreme, they're incredibly basic as a concept.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:20 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by fushi

What?

No.

This community has seriously gone off the deep end.

...

Dude. These laws exist in other countries and members of this community are from those countries
Last edited by excelsiorlef; 09-24-2017 at 03:38 PM.
KernelPanic
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:22 PM)
KernelPanic's Avatar
A tolerant society needs to reject intolerance.

Last edited by KernelPanic; 09-24-2017 at 03:26 PM.
Derwind
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:23 PM)
Derwind's Avatar

Originally Posted by mid83

I know this will likely be a very unpopular opinion here but I donít 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.

Condoning hate speech can be a slippery slope too. That hate speech can become motivation or inspiration for a hate crime.

I'm sure if there was an ISIS support rally the FBI would shut that shit down and those that organized it would be facing some consequences, maybe charged with making terroristic threats.

But White Nationalist/Supremacists, the KKK & even literal Nazis are using their soap boxes to make similar genocidal & terroristic threats and know that the highest office has their back.
Tracygill
Junior Member
(09-24-2017, 03:23 PM)
Tracygill's Avatar
Threats, fighting words and "advocacy of the use of force" are already illegal. Just extend it to its logical conclusion.
Jakten
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:23 PM)
Jakten's Avatar
Jail no, maybe a fine. But if you are organizing or are part of a hate group you absolutely should be fined and put on some sort of watch list similar to a sex offender.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:24 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by fushi

I read the OP and responded to it. Most don't even bother to do that.

And let's not pretend that bizarre threads and posts with thoroughly illiberal ideas haven't taken a serious hold on this community. It's a very worrying trend that stands in stark opposition to the very level-headed left-leaning opnions, which used to make the sociopolitical discussions in this community a great read.

You speak as if American liberalism is the only definition of liberalism.
Strangelove77
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:24 PM)
Strangelove77's Avatar
Koren
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:25 PM)
Koren's Avatar

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

It's not anti-freedom jesus

It's not (and I'm fine with this), but I find it strange to have specific cases in the law. Like, ideally, I think you should handle "hate speech" the same, be it towards minorities or not.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:27 PM)
You Are Viewtiful's Avatar

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

...

Dude. These laws exist in other countries and members if this community are from those countries

Seriously. I'd like to see these people argue why my country should legalize advocating for genocide or inciting violence. They can't.
hey_monkey
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:30 PM)
hey_monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by SeanTSC

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.

Originally Posted by Sibylus

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.

These two posts come close to my own thoughts here. When orgs are throwing up posters and forwarding messages of racial genocide or otherwise skirting the incitement of violence, that should be actionable. The how is tricky, though. Our justice system is pretty fucked.

Which leads to the other problem. How many minority activists would get arrested by racist cops for talking about white supremacy? How often already do people get called racist for talking about racist systems? It would be abused.

As much as I want this, I think it's maybe a recipe for disaster in a society with deeply embedded racist structures.
UraMallas
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:30 PM)
UraMallas's Avatar

Originally Posted by entremet

Absolutely not.

Do we expect that these laws will be meted out with equality in our current white supremacists' reality?

In truth, groups like BLM and the like would be targeted.

This complete trust in the government by progressives is extremely naive, especially in given this government more power to imprison with the warped incentives already at play in this country--for profit prisons and the like.

This isn't my main objection with the OP's question, but it's one that immediately struck me as very possible here in the US as soon as the point was raised.
Muffin1611
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:35 PM)
Muffin1611's Avatar
The real question for Americans here that needs to be asked seems to be how their justice system would have to be reformed before they'd feel comfortable with hate speech laws which punish with fines or even jail time.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:36 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

GAF: Mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders is terrible!

Also GAF: this thread.

Hate speech isn't non violence
ChainedMaster
Junior Member
(09-24-2017, 03:38 PM)

Originally Posted by UraMallas

This isn't my main objection with the OP's question, but it's one that immediately struck me as very possible here in the US as soon as the point was raised.

Of course. At what point does it become hate speech? If "Fuck black people" is considered hate speech so will "Fuck white people". If merely advocating for genocide is outlawed there are numerous ways to advocate for ethnic cleansing without actually citing murder. "Keep blacks out" etc. And we'll all still know ethnic cleansing is their desire. I just don't see how it'd change anything. Maybe people won't be able to outright say "All black people should be killed" but honestly, how often do people outright say that? Even Neo Nazis aren't so overt. At least not publically.
tensuke
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:38 PM)
tensuke's Avatar
No. That's the entire point of this country.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
(09-24-2017, 03:40 PM)
Crossing Eden's Avatar

Originally Posted by tensuke

No. That's the entire point of this country.

That minorities get very little protection from the law?
Arttemis
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:41 PM)
Arttemis's Avatar
Only if the imprisonment happens in Sheriff Arpaio prison standards.
Mammoth Jones
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:41 PM)
Mammoth Jones's Avatar

Originally Posted by entremet

Absolutely not.

Do we expect that these laws will be meted out with equality in our current white supremacists' reality?

In truth, groups like BLM and the like would be targeted.

This complete trust in the government by progressives is extremely naive, especially in given this government more power to imprison with the warped incentives already at play in this country--for profit prisons and the like.

Preach. This is the truth! They'll flip it and criminalize black folks in a heartbeat
RinsFury
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:45 PM)
RinsFury's Avatar
Yes, as should participating in white supremacy in any of its forms. This shit cannot be allowed to continue to fester. Do I trust the government to actually do this right? No.
hey_monkey
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:48 PM)
hey_monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by tensuke

No. That's the entire point of this country.

No, the entire point of this country was not to allow someone to preach about the inferior status of race x and how race y should be preserved and it would be nice if they were all killed or removed.

Don't be ridiculous.
Scrooged
Totally wronger about Nintendo's business decisions.
(09-24-2017, 03:48 PM)
Scrooged's Avatar
Jesus, some of you people are literally authoritarians. Slippery slope isn't an inherent fallacy. We have an entire history of civilization and governance to look at to see how those in power can use that power against people. You give this power to someone like Trump and you will damn well see it used against minority groups like BLM.
maxiell
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:49 PM)
Caucasians will be a minority in the United States within a few decades. Any hate speech law will simply be turned on the people you want to protect, even if it were constitutional, which it most likely would not be.
HellforLeather
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:49 PM)
HellforLeather's Avatar
Its already illegal to incite violence, people who want "hate speech" punishable have an extremely loose definition of it thats hugely anti 1st amendment. Lets face it, the left calls everybody a Nazi these days. Whats scary is the authoritarian bent the left has been on these last few years. Its funny to me that in the same breath people will say that the government is racist and horrible but they want it to also give it the Orwellian authority to determine what speech is punishable with jail time.
whitehawk
leeches are the best bait when attempting to land bass
(09-24-2017, 03:52 PM)
whitehawk's Avatar
I can't believe there are people saying yes in this thread.

Absolutely not.

Only exception is if they are encouraging/inviting violence and/or specifically using their speech to harass a specific person/group. This is already e forced though.
Tigress
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:52 PM)
Tigress's Avatar

Originally Posted by mid83

I know this will likely be a very unpopular opinion here but I donít 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.


I agree here. Though I think it totally fine they get ostracized by society for saying it. That I think would discourage that kind of thinking more than just imprisoning people where you can make them look like martyrs to those who would agree.
entremet
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:54 PM)
entremet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Scrooged

Jesus, some of you people are literally authoritarians. Slippery slope isn't an inherent fallacy. We have an entire history of civilization and governance to look at to see how those in power can use that power against people. You give this power to someone like Trump and you will damn well see it used against minority groups like BLM.

They cite examples like Germany and Canada forgetting the inherent brutality of the US criminal justice system.

Itís shallow reasoning.
HellforLeather
Member
(09-24-2017, 03:56 PM)
HellforLeather's Avatar

Originally Posted by hey_monkey

No, the entire point of this country was not to allow someone to preach about the inferior status of race x and how race y should be preserved and it would be nice if they were all killed or removed.

Don't be ridiculous.

WTF. So people speaking words...yes ugly and hate filled but still just simply words and not inciting violence...these people are worthy of being killed by the state? Some of you have lost your fuckin minds.

Thread Tools