We have hate speech laws here in Canada and I'm pretty sure we're not in danger of becoming some authoritarian dystopia

Audioboxer said:

If you say I'm going to go and kill/assault "x" and it appears there is some merit to what you're saying of course there should be legal precedent for you to be investigated. If you carried through your threat and were successful hindsight isn't bringing back the dead/maimed. I think you're one of the only people in this topic so far arguing credible incitement should still be protected. As I pointed out it's not even the case in America which has one of the most robust policies around free speech.

Click to expand...

Should I be investigated for saying I'm going to kill someone? Sure. If the threat is deemed credible, absolutely.

Should I be imprisoned for saying it when I haven't harmed anyone, and no attack is imminent? Of course not.

Also, the title of this thread specifically calls out "hate speech", which is not necessarily incitement.

Its fine in theory. Its fine in the rest of the world. In America, you'd have to contend with the fact that Republicans are going to be in a position to define what hate speech is. That is frightening to me.

Zekes! said:

We have hate speech laws here in Canada and I'm pretty sure we're not in danger of becoming some authoritarian dystopia

Click to expand...

But, but the laws are so vague. Surely you must walk on egg shells at all times in fear that the gestapo is around the corner listening to your every word and you might say asshole and wind up in prison for years.

Catphish said:

Should I be investigated for saying I'm going to kill someone? Sure. If the threat is deemed credible, absolutely.

Should I be imprisoned for saying it when I haven't harmed anyone, and no attack is imminent? Of course not.

Also, the title of this thread specifically calls out "hate speech", which is not necessarily incitement.

Click to expand...

Okay, you've clarified and I agree if after investigating and it's some dumb teenager tweet. Twitter should be handling that on their service, and obviously socially you open yourself up to condemnation from your peers for being an idiot. Most people who do stupid shit like this also end up getting fired from employment, and that's another acceptable consequence by a private firm exercising their contractual rights over an employee behaving in an unacceptable way.

I know that too, but incitement naturally gets discussed as it's one thing nearly everyone can agree should not be something that is ignored. Threat management makes sense, and sure, the majority may well be people emotionally venting, but it should never just be assumed everyone is. In the age of social media some attackers are bold enough to say on FB or Twitter they are away out to commit crimes. Then they actually go out and commit said crimes.

Trying to incite others to attack on your behalf, especially for political gain, is another thing you can get done for (at least investigated).

Until people are ready to talk about the underlying reasons, seriously and without getting their feelings hurt. This is a silly idea at best.

But there needs to be a law any person in government, especially in public safety should instantly be fired for racist/bigot comments.

Slayven said:

Until people are ready to talk about the underlying reasons, seriously and without getting their feelings hurt. This is a silly idea at best.

But there needs to be a law any person in government, especially in public safety should instantly be fired for racist/bigot comments.

Click to expand...

Of course in theory I can see this. But the devil is in the details, i.e. interpreting what is a racist/bigot comment...

Most gaffers would probably say that "All welfare is stealing from hard working people to give to lazy people" is a bigoted statement, or a "dog whistle" at the very least. Would that be a fireable offense for a public safety worker? No outright mention of race there....?

Can a born-again Christian mayor fire a public safety employee for being critical of Christians?

Tons of thorny issues there.

appaws said:

Of course in theory I can see this. But the devil is in the details, i.e. interpreting what is a racist/bigot comment...

Most gaffers would probably say that "All welfare is stealing from hard working people to give to lazy people" is a bigoted statement, or a "dog whistle" at the very least. Would that be a fireable offense for a public safety worker? No outright mention of race there....?

Can a born-again Christian mayor fire a public safety employee for being critical of Christians?

Tons of thorny issues there.

Click to expand...

Not really, they make themselves super obvious these days

Massive Duck said:

Word, thanks.

Oh, and it's on Kindle! nice.

Click to expand...

Read that book back in 2013, and it made the entire Trump / divisions in the country thing make much more sense in real time. That book is why I'm excited for both the Amazon / HBO series with the alternative history of the Civil War - I think the down-the-line consequences of a non-unified America during WWI and WWII changes things drastically. (Would a confederate south ally with the Axis powers, for instance? Would a declining US be unable to prevent Germany from conquering Europe, or does a Wakanda-like country in North America have WWII bring the US and US-Wakanda into it from the beginning?)

As for hate crimes in the US, it has been in decline for the last 10-15 years, especially against African-Americans

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/01/06/what_fbi_stats_tell_us_about_hate_crimes.html

You've had a recent (temporary as it seems, but won't know for sure until 2017 is done) uptick right after the election, but here's some interesting recent data.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/charts-explain-us-hate-groups/index.html

The number of hate groups focused on Muslims increased dramatically over the last half-decade, jumping after the GOP electoral wave in 2010 and then tripling over the last year. Only five groups focused on anti-Islamic beliefs in 2010. But now 101 hate groups focus mainly on Muslims, marking the third-largest category of hate group behind only black separatists and Ku Klux Klan organizations. "Muslims are depicted as irrational, intolerant and violent, and their faith is frequently depicted as sanctioning pedophilia, coupled with intolerance for homosexuals and women," the Southern Poverty Law Center said.

Click to expand...

Some racist hate groups -- including neo-Nazis, white nationalists and their more violent counterparts, a group dubbed racist "skinheads" -- have seen declining numbers over the last half-decade. The number of white nationalists fell from 146 groups in 2011 to just 100 groups today, according to data from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The number of neo-Nazi groups fell from 170 to 99, and racist "skinheads" fell from 133 to 78 over the same time span. Still, the overall number of hate groups has increased, largely due to increases in anti-Muslim groups and black separatist groups.

Click to expand...

But neo-Confederate and black separatists have seen their numbers increase over the last few years. The number of neo-Confederate groups inched up to 43 -- the highest figure since early in Obama's presidency but still far from its 21st century high of 124 groups in 2001. Meanwhile, the number of black separatists has rocketed from 81 groups a decade ago to 193 groups now -- the largest subgroup of hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Also, it should be noted that neo-Nazis and white nationalists, both mentioned in the previous section, bucked their yearslong trend and saw their numbers tick up just slightly in 2016.

Click to expand...

The data bears out that there was a worldwide uptick in hate crimes, and that having anti hate-speech laws or not had no bearing on the magnitude of the increase. There's zero evidence that hate speech laws have actually worked.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/germany-failing-to-tackle-rise-in-hate-crime/

...how 16 times as many crimes were reported against asylum shelters in 2015 (1,031) as in 2013 (63). More generally, racist violent crimes against racial, ethnic and religious minorities increased by 87% from 693 crimes in 2013 to 1,295 crimes in 2015.

Click to expand...

Cybit said:

The data bears out that there was a worldwide uptick in hate crimes, and that having anti hate-speech laws or not had no bearing on the magnitude of the increase. There's zero evidence that hate speech laws have actually worked.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/germany-failing-to-tackle-rise-in-hate-crime/

Click to expand...

Sorry, but your article/data doesn't give that. It says that hate crimes rose (duh, we had a refugee crisis), and nothing else.

Maybe link me to a study which actually researches if hate speech laws have influence on the magnitude hate crimes increase in cases like this instead before making that claim.

Slayven said:

Not really, they make themselves super obvious these days

Click to expand...

So should the guy who makes the welfare "dog whistle" comment be fired?

Cybit said:

Read that book back in 2013, and it made the entire Trump / divisions in the country thing make much more sense in real time. That book is why I'm excited for both the Amazon / HBO series with the alternative history of the Civil War - I think the down-the-line consequences of a non-unified America during WWI and WWII changes things drastically. (Would a confederate south ally with the Axis powers, for instance? Would a declining US be unable to prevent Germany from conquering Europe, or does a Wakanda-like country in North America have WWII bring the US and US-Wakanda into it from the beginning?)

As for hate crimes in the US, it has been in decline for the last 10-15 years, especially against African-Americans

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/01/06/what_fbi_stats_tell_us_about_hate_crimes.html

You've had a recent (temporary as it seems, but won't know for sure until 2017 is done) uptick right after the election, but here's some interesting recent data.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/charts-explain-us-hate-groups/index.html

The data bears out that there was a worldwide uptick in hate crimes, and that having anti hate-speech laws or not had no bearing on the magnitude of the increase. There's zero evidence that hate speech laws have actually worked.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/germany-failing-to-tackle-rise-in-hate-crime/

Click to expand...

Bigots and racists tend to get empowered when there is a political win or result that they feel favours them. In the world of social media you get waves of idiots jumping online to spew fuckery when something like Brexit goes ahead, or Trump wins.

As the sails have widened around what constitutes a hate crime, there is an uptick of religious mockery/criticism/satire/ridicule that is now being included. Especially when it comes to social media being searched. Look at this statement from the UK police

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...

On face value, great, the police want the internet to all be friendship and love. "Posting offensive material". Okay, broad definition. I'm sure Muhammad cartoons, mocking Ken Hams Ark for looking gay as fuck lit up with pro-LGBT rainbow lights or saying Priests need to stop fiddling kids as lots of them do is offensive material around faith. Post it in an aggressive, loud-mouth and confrontational way on FB/Twitter and probably be reported for hate crime against people of faith.

The thing there though is historically one of the reasons why the Evangelicals and conservative Catholics were "marginalised" when it comes to their ability to act out was years and years of constant criticism/pushback/satire & ridicule. Especially from the left, who were all about free speech in the 80s/90s/00s. Now I agree people should try and not go out of their way to be needlessly antagonistic or directly target others. It's just not worth it, but religion being a protected class always brings up issues. Governments themselves have even had to become more tolerant regardless of faith/conservative religious values. Even the Conservative right-wing party in the UK, with some MPs who are religiously inclined, have had to accept homosexuality/gay marriage in the UK. Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrat party even stepped down because the public roasted him over his fumbling of homosexuality. Theresa May had to go on the defensive after her deal with the homophobic DUP party saying the UK won't rollback LGBT rights. There are still MPs with terrible personal opinions and voting records, but the majority of the UK population, as well as many decent MPs, have pushed for social progress, and acceptance and tolerance are now legislated in law (equal marriage). We can and do make progress, as much as everyone keeps wanting to say the world is ending tomorrow. You'd rather live now than 50~100 years ago, even with all the issues we still face. In another 100 years some things will probably have inched forward a bit more.

That is largely how society socially reforms bigots. Either by constant pressure via speech/education, or they get marginalised so that the "genie" is kept in the proverbial bottle. They can think their own ridiculous things at night when putting their head on the pillow, but they can't actually act (incitement/attacking/violence/physical harm/credible threats) or legislate with law. Politicians as they are supposed to represent the people, and be servants, should have higher scrutiny from the point of view of being dismissed/disciplined for outbursts of abusive speech. I do agree with that. I just don't say said politicians deserve to be jailed for being assholes. The consequence in terms of having to step down/be fired, sure. Prison/jail? I'm just clearly not on-board with any society being quick to praise putting people into the system/costing the taxpayer money for what some societies are terming hate crimes. I don't have an issue with a lot of it being called an act of hate, but a crime? Not always convinced. At least not for a few of the examples I have given in this topic of people who were put behind bars for things like burning religious books, poppys, mocking cops or creating dumb ass YouTube videos.

edit: If someone wants my proof for UK attitudes towards LGBT, read this study I cite on here often ~ http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/

Same sex equality issues, such as civil partnerships, adoption and gay marriage, have been the subject of considerable debate in recent years as governments have passed various laws on the matter. These measures have sometimes elicited apprehension or critical responses from the leaders of various faiths and denominations as well as religiously-based campaign groups. However, the attitudes of ordinary religious adherents have changed significantly in recent decades, as the data presented here will show. This section provides a visual presentation of over-time data on gay rights issues, taken from various social surveys, looking at on the attitudes of religious groups. It uses the same set of categories for religious affiliation across social surveys: Anglican, Catholic, other Christian, and no religion.

The figures presented below are organised into the following areas:

general attitudes towards same-sex relations and equality;
attitudes towards same-sex individuals holding particular roles and occupations;
attitudes towards adoption by same-sex couples; and
attitudes towards same-sex marriage.

Click to expand...

The above wasn't achieved by jailing people, especially religious people, for being homophobes. It has been years and years of education and chipping away socially in the battle of ideas, to try and replace bad ideas around homosexuality with better ones. Including scientific and medical reasoning. We jailed anyone who attacked/assaulted/acted violently against homosexuals, but that is all into the realms of violence/threats/incitement.

No.

Within the context of the United States (as OP asks), no, hate speech is protected speech under the First Amendment, so it should not be an imprisonable offense. We have a body that interprets the constitution and it has set up a framework for what speech is protected and unprotected.

Practically speaking, I do not trust our government or law enforcement to fairly adjudicate 'hate speech' and criminal sentences. With Jeff Sessions being the head of American Law Enforcement and with Law Enforcement's tendency to target people of color, are all of you saying "yes" comfortable with the idea of Sessions, racist cops, and racist district judges determining what is hate speech and what isn't? Or, who minorities are and who aren't? Do you want to give that much power to a guy like Jeff Sessions who reports directly to Donald Trump, or on the local level Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

Outside of the context of the United States, outside of the context of the US Constitution, sure, why not.

A bit late to the party.

Hate speeches should be punished. All of them.

Against minorities ? Even if I understand the motive, How do you define "minorities" ? When do you stop being part of a minority, and so on ? Is there an objective list of all minorities ? If it exists, is it maintained ? etc

For example, hate speeches against jews are punished, because jews is a recognizable community without consideration of its importance.

Legal laws are very strict in their definitions, they should not tend to misinterpretation.

Look at the movie "Denial" to see what it means in practice.

Muffin1611 said:

Sorry, but your article/data doesn't give that. It says that hate crimes rose (duh, we had a refugee crisis), and nothing else.

Maybe link me to a study which actually researches if hate speech laws have influence on the magnitude hate crimes increase in cases like this instead before making that claim.

Click to expand...

Little bit of googling..

19% in the UK (2015-2016)
87% in Germany (2013-2015)
3.6% in Germany (2015-2016), with a 14.3% increase in far-right violent hate crimes
8% in US (2014-2015)

From 2006;

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence

The horror of the Holocaust serves as the founding narrative legitimizing European integration, and it's the key motivation for hate-speech laws on the continent. The European Union has called on all its member states to pass laws criminalizing Holocaust denial. This European narrative is based on a widely accepted interpretation of what led to the Holocaust. It basically says that anti-Semitic hate speech was the decisive trigger, that evil words beget evil deeds, that if only the Weimar government had clamped down on the National Socialists' verbal persecution of the Jews in the years prior to Hitler's rise to power, then the Holocaust would never have happened. I was confronted with this argument during the Danish cartoon crisis, in 2006. People condemned the cartoons as Islamophobic, and warned that the demonization of Muslims might trigger mass violence. "We know what happened in the twenties and thirties," critical voices argued, referring to the seemingly inevitable link between speech and violence.

Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews.In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.


I have yet to be presented with evidence for the proposition that hate-speech laws are an effective instrument to prevent violence. Seen from Europe, the history of free speech in the U.S. undermines those who insist on a causal link between legalization of hate speech, on the one hand, and racist violence and killings, on the other. Throughout the twentieth century, the U.S. witnessed a gradual relaxation of restrictions on speech; nonetheless, today racism and racial discrimination is less of a problem than it was a hundred years ago.

Click to expand...

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. 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.

Click to expand...

The devil is in the details and it seems foolish to give a nation who would elect a racist president the power to arrest people if they say speech that the country finds offensive.

It's a great idea, but I have zero faith the US could implement it in any intelligent way.

I'm not sure about imprisonment, but it would be good to define terms.

If self-professed Nazis are on my street, chanting Nazi shit, and I'm a member of a group Nazis once targeted for genocide, they aren't just talking on my street. They're advocating a for an organization that rationalizes and promotes the murder of people like me in the name of genetic purity.

There's a line where "speech" becomes the fomentation of a threatening, hostile environment.

I recognize that threats and intimidation are already illegal, but we are rather liberal in how we interpret those statutes.

Cybit said:

Little bit of googling..

19% in the UK (2015-2016)
87% in Germany (2013-2015)
3.6% in Germany (2015-2016), with a 14.3% increase in far-right violent hate crimes
8% in US (2014-2015)

From 2006;

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence

Click to expand...

Soooo... You don't have one.

First you're citing an increase in hate crimes, as if an increase can't happen while hate speech laws exist. That's nonsense.

The article you cite: Um, okay, so hate speech laws existed (in different form, I know) and the Nazis still rose to power. That tells us what? That hate speech laws don't work? Um, not at all. It tells us that even hate speech laws weren't enough for the country in a catastrophic economic situation following WWI to curb rising right-extremism.

You still can't draw conclusions about ineffectiveness of hate speech from it.

Muffin1611 said:

Soooo... You don't have one.

First you're citing an increase in hate crimes, as if an increase can't happen while hate speech laws exist. That's nonsense.

The article you cite: Um, okay, so hate speech laws existed (in different form, I know) and the Nazis still rose to power. That tells us what? That hate speech laws don't work? Um, not at all. It tells us that even hate speech laws weren't enough for the country in a catastrophic economic situation following WWI to curb rising right-extremism.

You still can't draw conclusions about ineffectiveness of hate speech from it.

Click to expand...

I'll bite - what would it take to show effectiveness or ineffectiveness?

Trump's textbook racist comments about Mexicans should have disqualified him from the presidency.
I dont agree with jailing for hate speech, but there should be some hefty fines handed down to repeat offenders.

No, never.

theignoramus said:

Trump's textbook racist comments about Mexicans should have disqualified him from the presidency.
I dont agree with jailing for hate speech, but there should be some hefty fines handed down to repeat offenders.

Click to expand...

We should at least live in a society where this is the case.

Cybit said:

I'll bite - what would it take to show effectiveness or ineffectiveness?

Click to expand...

I mean, normally you would look at studies undertaken by researchers in the country. Not really out of the norm.

Muffin1611 said:

I mean, normally you would look at studies undertaken by researchers in the country. Not really out of the norm.

Click to expand...

The problem is that no one can define what success vs failure is. There are studies that talk about the accidental people it ensnares, etc. There's a study from India that talks about how there's no evidence online hate speech has an actual negative impact on society (because of the causal vs correlative phenomenon) "Intermediary Liability and Hate Speech" - but no one has a consistent definition of "success".

wazoo said:

Legal laws are very strict in their definitions, they should not tend to misinterpretation.
.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all. No matter how precise we draft laws, they are usually open to interpretation and the subject of confusion when hit with actual test cases. Look at the large amount of appellate cases heard every year - often they are deciding on a new point of law based on facts that don't fit correctly.