Support NeoGAF

[Antiochus]

That is, within the context of the United States.

Recent months have shown growing right wing, white supremacist extremism within America. There is much documented evidence that routine hate speech, such as open support of neo-Nazism, genocide of minority peoples, and support for white secessionism have contributed an atmosphere of pushing the most extremist elements of those movements towards hate crimes. The most prominent example is perhaps what happened at Charlottesville. More troubling still, these extremist right movements have only grown year after year, despite public umbrage and ostracism. Many Western European countries and Canada have tough anti-hate speech laws. Could America possibly counter its own extreme anti-minority movements more effectively by burrowing these laws from Europe and Canada, but make tit tougher as well?

 

[HabeeNo]

Maybe in 2020, nowadays being a minority is already a imprisionable offense

OT: Absolutely

 

[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.

 

[JettDash]

Maybe it should but it would require a constitutional amendment or the supreme court to reverse long standing precedent so it isn't going to happen.

 

[Yoshimitsu126]

It's sad we have to think about this to stop people from doing it. Even if we get them to prions, we have to reform rehabilitation and the cops that are throwing people into jails.

 

[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.

 

[Numb]

Indeed

 

[Oppo]

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.

slippery slope is always brought up. but overt hate speech is pretty easy to define.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

But muh free speech!

 

[Volimar]

Nah. Steep fines instead. We'd restore our crippled infrastructure in a matter of months.

 

[PdotMichael]

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.

Explain to me the "slippery slope"

 

[Not]

Explain to me the "slippery slope"

When white people aren't allowed do whatever they want, soon white people won't be allowed to do whatever they want

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

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

 

[SolarPowered]

Worthy of prison? Depends on what type of speech. A call to arms in order to kill minorities and I'd say yeah. Just disparaging them and the standard insults should absolutely be worthy fines, though.

Voter suppression of any kind should be one of the few crimes that actually carries a minimum sentence (five years?). The USA needs serious voter protection and electoral reform.

 

[gutter_trash]

Depends what defines hate speech.

Racism is 100% bad and racism hate speech is bad.

But being critical of Ultra-Conservative Religions that are Anti-Liberal is not hate speech

Liberals should not defend Anti-Liberal Religions

 

[Inuhanyou]

uh, pretty sure freedom of speech protects against being able to imprison people because of speech OP. not that the government hasnt ripped up the constitution in most ways anyway..

No, i don't agree with the principle. Imprisoning people because of words that are not directly threats of violence is wrong. I know europe has blasphemy laws and speech laws, but we arent them in that way. And it would never work considering that a portion of America has been based in hate from its inception. You'd have to imprison quite a few people, and we have enough bursting prisons without such ill defined laws. Authoritarianism in itself goes down a horrible path. I say social libertarianism is best- to a point.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

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.

 

[Cepheus]

Yes. How can there even be a discussion about this? Shut it all down.

 

[Zabka]

Properly enforced you'd have to imprison at least 25% of the country.

 

[Vermillion]

Properly enforced you'd have to imprison at least 25% of the country.

Prrrreeeeettttyyy much.

 

[ChouGoku]

Outside of direct threats of violence I don't think you should be jailed for talking.

 

[Not]

Voter suppression of any kind should be one of the few crimes that actually carries a minimum sentence (five years?). The USA needs serious voter protection and electoral reform.

Now this and campaign finance and lobbying reform might actually fix shit around here.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

One of my very basic beliefs is that if we currently have the right to do something, we shouldn't legislate something unless the action is demonstrably harmful to other people. With hate speech, there's nothing inherent to the concept that is harmful to others at that level. While criminalizing it could be helpful overall, there are too many specific uses of hate speech that aren't much more harmful than calling someone an idiot, so it's not worth trying to cut through the first amendment to get that result. There are ways around it, like loosening up what we consider inciting violence, but I don't know about criminalizing hate speech through and through, let alone sending offenders to prison.

 

[Mutley]

The problem is that I can see there beimg variations of hate speech, some of which will be clearly hate speech and in certain scenarios where the rule will get abused and start to tread the water of censorship.

It would be a tricky one to enforce in conjunction with free speech because they're there two opposing ideas in the same vein. But really any talk of reconfiguring the first amendment, is when the government will want to push its own agenda and the dystopia train will ensue.

 

[Xe4]

Nooooope. I have a difficult enough time trusting any hate speech laws working within the US, even within the context of fines. Prison time though?
Noooo. Nooooo. Bad idea. Imagine the implications for a group like BLM. If some liberals were going to go after actual hateful individuals, imagine who conservatives would go against.
Inciting violence should be an imprisonable offense, but not because it's hate speech.
And that's outside my views of how giving your opinion should not be an imprisonable offense anyhow, no matter how gross the opinion. Assuming said opinion does not threaten or harass an individual or group that is.

 

[Oppo]

Yes. How can there even be a discussion about this? Shut it all down.

i know you're being coy but it's a pretty important discussion.

The classic slippery slope thing is arguing that something like Huckleberry Finn gets banned even though many agree it's a valuable piece of fiction to have around.

That said i am in Canada and do not feel like my speech is much abridged.

 

[mid83]

Well I don’t think we should be criminalizing people for an opinion, even abhorrent ones. Who determines the parameters for what speech is protected vs what speech isn’t? Who’s to say that definition won’t change in the future depending on who’s in power?

I’m sure I’ll be told I’m full of shit, but that’s fine. I doubt I’ll change any minds.

It’s all a moot point any ways because unless the Constitution is amended, you aren’t going to see hate speech laws like they have in Europe.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Yes. In all contexts and all countries. Democracy should not be the rule of the majority but the preservation of everybody's rights, including dignity.
It's the case in France for instance, so there is no openly racist demonstration or political parties. They have to hide and use covert discourse, like taking a cultural angle rather than a racial one. The Le Pen of the 80's would have been jailed in 2017.

 

[BocoDragon]

I believe in an absolute right to free speech. Only direct calls for violence or endangerment should be restricted.

 

[Apt101]

It's weird. Here in Virginia aggressive, disorderly verbal harassment is a class 1 misdemeanor (up to twelve months in jail, $2,500 in fines). But it's perfectly fine to go online on Facebook, et al, and horrifically insult entire ethnicities and religions - even while directing those insults towards an individual or specific group of individuals. In fact, as we saw, so long as it's in the name of "protest" or "demonstration", people can march down a public street and do the same.

I used to be all about 100% freedom of speech, but I have changed my views on how it relates to hate speech. I came to realize that it's not actually expression, and as OP suggests, it's incendiary. There's no point to it. It's nothing but harmful.

I'd like to see it become at least a minor, fineable offense - equal to what is a class 4 misdemeanor in my state. That would go a long way to squashing the casual hate we see flung about online and from groups like the alt right (because I'm fairly certain the vast, vast majority of those people/children could not afford even a $250 fine).

 

[PdotMichael]

Well I don’t think we should be criminalizing people for an opinion, even abhorrent ones.

You aren't criminalizing opinions. You are criminalizing speech with the solely goal to violate the dignity and/or right to physical integrity of people, groups and ethics.

 

[besada]

Well I don’t think we should be criminalizing people for an opinion, even abhorrent ones. Who determines the parameters for what speech is protected vs what speech isn’t? Who’s to say that definition won’t change in the future depending on who’s in power?

I’m sure I’ll be told I’m full of shit, but that’s fine. I doubt I’ll change any minds.

It’s all a moot point any ways because unless the Constitution is amended, you aren’t going to see hate speech laws like they have in Europe.

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?

 

[mid83]

You aren't criminalizing opinions. You are criminalizing speech with the solely goal to violate the dignity and/or right to physical integrity of people, groups and ethics.

Ok fine, short of direct threats, I don’t think we should be criminalizing words.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No way. Also, lol why would it only warrant jail time if it's against a minority? Hate speech is hate speech.

 

[JordanN]

I believe in an absolute right to free speech. Only direct calls for violence or endangerment should be restricted.

What do you think Nazism/white nationalism is?

Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa and the Confederate States both showed there is no room for peace.

 

[C4Lukins]

It really should be based on context, and not simply towards minorities.

But I believe in freedom of speech up to a point. If someone promotes violence towards another group, that to me is the same as hiring a hit man to kill your wife or their lover.

Or you could put it simply as terrorism.

Classifying does not matter. I am all for freedom speech, but that idea ends when you premote violence to your followers. You are a part of a murder plot at that point, whether or not your followers go through with it.

 

[PdotMichael]

Ok fine, short of direct threats, I don’t think we should be criminalizing words.

A fine opinion if your dignity was never threated.

 

[Inuhanyou]

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?

If its a direct threat of violence, promising to shoot black people in the head, the police should be called for threats and libel.

Otherwise, if its a vague calling,they should be outed, lose their job, castigated, maybe looked into by authorities for any suspicious activity. But not jailed outright

 

[SolarPowered]

Now this and campaign finance and lobbying reform might actually fix shit around here.

This was all stuff that was third or fourth tier talk back in the 2016 primaries when gaffers were talking about the Democratic party's goals and platform, but that was before Kobach, Russian interference in the election and Republican voter suppression really came to the fore. Our elections and voting rights are in mortal danger and tackling them has become just as important as tackling healthcare and climate change imo. Unfortunately this won't become apparent until Mueller wraps up his investigation and the truly damning details are revealed, though.

 

[BocoDragon]

What do you think Nazism/white nationalism is?

Nazi Germany and the Confederate States both showed there is no room for peace.

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

 

[Xando]

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?

It’s just a opinion bro

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Fuck this. So much.

The left: "We need prison reform!"
Some people who are also on the left: "Also, put people in jail for speech!"

You're out of your fucking mind

 

[besada]

If its a direct threat of violence, promising to shoot black people in the head, the police should be called for threats and libel.

Otherwise, if its a vague calling,they should be outed, lose their job, castigated, maybe looked into by authorities for any suspicious activity. But not jailed outright

I'm asking you to evaluate what I said there. You've given me two different opinions regarding it. If I were to say, "At some point, we should round up all the blacks and shoot them in the head," do you think that exact statement should be constitutionally protected. I'm not asking if it IS. I know the answer to that. I'm asking if you think it should be.

It's just a opinion.

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?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Fuck this. So much.

The left: "We need prison reform!"
Some people who are also on the left: "Also, put people in jail for speech!"

You're out of your fucking mind

Well, i believe it would actually better to make them do community service.

 

[PdotMichael]

It's just a opinion.

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.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

It really should be based on context, and not simply towards minorities.

But I believe in freedom of speech up to a point. If someone promotes violence towards another group, that to me is the same as hiring a hit man to kill your wife or their lover.

Or you could put it simply as terrorism.

Classifying does not matter. I am all for freedom speech, but that idea ends when you premote violence to your followers. You are a part of a murder plot at that point, whether or not your followers go through with it.

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.

 

[IaN_GAF]

Why would you possibly only want this "against minorities"?

 

[makingmusic476]

The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Heavy fines/community service at first. Imprisonment after repeated offenses.

 

[Jake.]

generally no.