Support NeoGAF

[Not]

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

That's why you would have to find a way to clearly determine and define historically disparaged groups.

 

[Frodo]

The tittle should add "In the US", as some other countries already have laws against hate speech against minorities.

OT: yes (or fines, or public service).

 

[hodgy100]

Incitement of violence and hatred in general should be an prison able offence.

 

[Xando]

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

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

That's why you would have to find a way to clearly determine and define historically disparaged groups.

That's not how it works. If you have hatespeech laws they apply not only to nazis but to everyone.

 

[Prodigal Son]

no

 

[fushi]

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

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.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

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

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

 

[Salamando]

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

Spoiler

did!

happen"

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

Someone more knowledgeable that I should go over how well these laws work in other countries. I wouldn't think simply uttering an untrue statement commonly associated with hateful rhetoric would be enough.

Hate Speech is a large target - it would be more interesting to debate specifics...

Should it be illegal to publicly promote genocide and murder of specific groups?
Should it be illegal to publicly incite hatred against a specific group, with intent to "breach the peace"?
Should it be illegal to have non-private conversations that willingly promote hatred?

 

[Oppo]

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

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

surely not 100% absolute speech though? besides just threats? yelling fire in a theatre, all that?

it's a short list i'll grant you.

my take is: should be illegal to utter or incite public threats. should be extra illegal to do so against protected minorities.

i think folks are confusing 1st amendment notions with the idea of though crimes, there's an ocean of nuance between the two.

 

[Stilton Disco]

No.

Freedom of speech is a hard won, important right that should never be weakened due to contemporary, short term societal ills.

You combat ignorance and hate with education and engagement, not by criminalising it.

 

[Taramoor]

No. Hate speech shouldn't be illegal. But it should be classed as 'fighting words' so that if you use a slur and someone punches you in the damn face they're protected from the worst consequences.

Once the laws are on the books it only takes another tool like Jeff Sessions in a seat of power to start jailing minorities or academics for using slurs while ignoring the people who use it to punch down.

 

[BocoDragon]

What exactly is ridiculous about this?

We live in an otherwise free society where we can say anything we want, but deny one fact of history and you get thrown in a box. Utterly ridiculous anti-freedom.

Anyone should be allowed to say it, and you should be allowed to shake your head at the the crazy fools who do.

surely not 100% absolute speech though? overt threats? yelling fire in a theatre, all that?

As I've said in the thread multiple times... I do draw a line, at specific incitement to violence.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I wouldn't think simply uttering an untrue statement commonly associated with hateful rhetoric would be enough.

Of course not, at least as long as you are just some random guy on a forum

 

[PdotMichael]

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

Do you really want to defend Dieudonné?

 

[Kotetsu534]

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

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.

 

[mortal]

No.

Freedom of speech is a hard won, important right that should never be weakened due to contemporary, short term societal ills.

You combat ignorance and hate with education and engagement, not by criminalising it.

Exactly.

 

[BocoDragon]

Someone more knowledgeable that I should go over how well these laws work in other countries. I wouldn't think simply uttering an untrue statement commonly associated with hateful rhetoric would be enough.

Because this is Canada, I'm sure judges would "know it when they see it" and separate a trolling holocaust denial from full on anti-semitic hatefulness.

But to the strict letter of the law, yes, they could throw me in jail for just writing the words of holocaust denial here on GAF (note: I would never)... so if you had a strict or vengeful judge, god help you.

 

[Sibylus]

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

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

One of these is not like the other. A slate of terrorist attacks undertaken by individuals being rewritten does not pose the same existential danger as rewriting the memory of state-driven, systematic, industrialized genocides. One annihilates states, peoples, and thrusts the world into jeopardy.

And part of why I'm not a free speech absolutist is because it gives opportunity in an inclusive democracy for radicals to work that very system's destruction. We need not privilege those who look to destroy us.

 

[Xando]

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.

All these "What do you think the other side will do?" posts just show how fucked up the US is if you can't even trust courts to uphold basic laws of hatespeech.

How is it "the other side" never fucked up hate speech laws (Which have been in place for decades) in european countries?

 

[reckless]

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

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

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

Uhhh... so everyone just gonna ignore the whole advocating for terrorism?


Back with the topic at hand, no. And its pretty scary how many people are fine with this idea. Slippery slope ain't a fallacy in this case, outlawing criticizing the police for example would surely be a pretty fast application of this law.

 

[aspiegamer]

Any hate speech that is a call to violence, and yeah I know that's extremely hard to define and it would be practically impossible to determine when a statement might go too far. One of those lousy "I know porn when I see it" things. But hey, there are no shortage of people who seem glad to brag about trying to spark violence or spreading hate so we might as well start there! I recall some recent survey that showed a majority of millennials supported limiting free speech in some ways. This is what we mean. It's not to try to shut down free thought, but it's to try to hold a progressively more toxic society together in the era of hatred the internet has helped breed.

The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy.

Indeed. Nazis and the KKK are already the bottom of said slope after people have passively permitted this to go on for decades. It can't really get any worse than those ideologies already are and they set up a pretty firm baseline.

Whatever. If you told me I might be held accountable for the stuff I said online some day and in exchange literal Nazis wouldn't be able to get away with their hate speech, I'll gladly give up my right to (effectively) unrestricted freedom of expression that Americans get away with now.

 

[Abinash117]

People aren't wrong in saying the criminalizing certain speech can be weaponize to be used against some groups. US like other Democracies experience changes in government from one ideology to the next. The government will usually be the ones that define what 'Hate Speech' or whatever, is. What would happen if an administration like the current have the power to (re)define what hate speech is?

Putting these types of laws in place and it be properly enforced, is assuming many, many things like a consistent liberal government, no politics inference, and a fair and justice legal system. Those are the few things.

 

[Kevtones]

Absolutely not.



There's a difference between terroristic threats / hate speech. The former is a crime, the latter should remain legal.

 

[Oppo]

Not sayin we have it "right" - at all - but, well, food for thought:

“It is time for us to take our masculinity back and beat the living hell out of these [Muslims]. Pin them down on the ground, and beat them until they pass out. And when they’re passed out, you beat them further; and when they’re on the ground passed out, kick them, break a kneecap, break an elbow, press their hands backwards turn their wrists sideways, start breaking these guys down.”

This is a particularly egregious excerpt from one of Kevin J. Johnston’s Freedom Report videos, in which he angrily encourages Canadians to attack and injure Muslims. Johnston was recently charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code because he is promoting hatred and advocating violence, not because he is criticizing Islam.

Inciting violence is where Canadian law draws the line on free expression. As Kevin Metcalf of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression points out, absolute free speech is an American concept. Metcalf’s suggestion is not merely his private opinion: it is a legal fact. According to Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, free expression in Canada, like all other Charter rights, is limited by “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The question we should be asking is where those reasonable limits lie.

sorry for amp link, on mobile and site is being weird
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.the...t-reasonable-limits-on-freedom-of-speech.html

 

[eizarus]

Yes. We've seen how bad things can get when it's left to spread (and it does spread and normalise itself quickly). At best we get a minority who feels like second class citizens. Good luck trying to integrate them and not generate an "us versus them" mentality on both sides. At worst we get full blown Nazis.

Having said that, even with Hate Speech laws, people always find a way around them to discriminate.

 

[gutter_trash]

The Prophet Mohamed is fair game to critique, cartoons and scrutiny. He was a real human being who did things during his life that affected history.

So religion should not shield that man from historical criticism for his war crimes that he committed

 

[SliceSabre]

Hell no.

What and give them more reasons to fatten up our prison centers?

 

[BocoDragon]

One of these is not like the other. A slate of terrorist attacks undertaken by individuals being rewritten does not pose the same existential danger as rewriting the memory of state-driven, systematic, industrialized genocides. One annihilates states, peoples, and thrusts the world into jeopardy.

And part of why I'm not a free speech absolutist is because it gives opportunity in an inclusive democracy for radicals to work that very system's destruction. We need not privilege those who look to destroy us.

So you're saying the Nazis were a real existential threat, but Al Qaida wasn't?

Let's move the example: Isis is a state. People call their attacks on Europe inside jobs all the time.

I think you're just comfortable with the historically defined off-limits topics, while the idea of declaring the denial of newer atrocities to be illegal sounds ridiculous, because it is.

 

[Not]

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.

If things are appearing to get more extreme to you, change the world, not the response to it. Feel free to make a "level-headed" thread of your own, although treating a handful of posters as indicative of an entire community, as if you were referring to a monolith, isn't exactly a level-headed instinct.

 

[MWS Natural]

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.


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?

Ok but then how will white people ever be able to say the N-Word if you ban hate speech???

 

[Kevtones]

evil shit

These are terroristic threats and (I think) can be punishable in America.

 

[Xando]

So you're saying the Nazis were a real existential threat, but Al Qaida wasn't?

Let's move the example: Isis is a state. People call their attacks on Europe inside jobs all the time.

I think you're just comfortable with the historically defined off-limits topics, while the idea of declaring the denial of newer atrocities to be illegal sounds ridiculous, because it is.

Neither ISIS nor Al Qaida were commiting genocide of 6 million civilians and were responsible for another 40 million casualties.

 

[Not]

That's not how it works. If you have hatespeech laws they apply not only to nazis but to everyone.

OK. That's why it might be better to address voter subjugation/intimidation/restriction, Citizens United, and other threats to minorities and people in need in addition to creating neutral hate speech laws, so a group in power can't use said laws to oppress people.

 

[guggnichso]

The tittle should add "In the US", as some other countries already have laws against hate speech against minorities.

OT: yes (or fines, or public service).

Sorry, but I have to correct you and the OP here: we have laws against hate speech period. Not laws against „hate speech against minorities“. This is an important difference.


Edit: To make this clearer, especially for some of the community here that believe in that weird idea that PoC/minorities can by definition not be racist or guilty of hate speech: Here in Germany, quite a number of radical/extremist Muslim preachers were fined, some even sent to jail for a few months, because they were guilty of hate speech.

Of course, most of the people who break our hate speech laws are still NAZIs and anti semites, but keep in mind: such laws protect everyone here, regardless of gender, race, nationality etc. Even white people.

 

[Oppo]

i also recommend (highly!) this Hidden Brain podcast on the subject

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/08/549373754/study-looks-at-how-people-think-about-free-speech

entire transcript available at that link (which is amazing). my takeaway was the evolutionary response to "normalizing" behavior, observable even in young children

 

[Hip Hop]

This thread, and people wanting such thing make me sick.

Fast tracking "1984" huh?

 

[Sibylus]

So you're saying the Nazis were a real existential threat, but Al Qaida wasn't?

Let's move the example: Isis is a state. People call their attacks on Europe inside jobs all the time.

I think you're just comfortable with the historically defined off-limits topics, while the idea of declaring the denial of newer atrocities to be illegal sounds ridiculous, because it is.

Correct. AQ posed no serious threat to the survival of America... but America did and does by virtue of its response. And though it hasn't eaten itself wholly so far, its response has had disproportionate global impact. Private actors can't create the damage states can.

You're posing a hypothetical with ISIS, but I'll do one better and talk about something that's happened: the intended genocide of the Yazidi people. That clearly applies in my rationale of proscribing hate speech, particularly when it concerns genocide and crimes against humanity.

 

[Not]

Uhhh... so everyone just gonna ignore the whole advocating for terrorism?


Back with the topic at hand, no. And its pretty scary how many people are fine with this idea. Slippery slope ain't a fallacy in this case, outlawing criticizing the police for example would surely be a pretty fast application of this law.

The police are the state. You'd have to make a law defining them as a social group instead.

 

[BocoDragon]

Neither ISIS nor Al Quaeda were commiting genocide of 6 million civilians and were responsible for another 40 million casualties.

So that's what makes an denying an event bannable.. by how many people were killed? I think it's odd.

I'd rather think WWII led to a wartime mentality that was all too willing to restrict good freedoms like free speech in its aftermath. They were making a lot more sacrifices to freedom than that.

 

[Xando]

OK. That's why it might be better to address voter subjugation/intimidation/restriction, Citizens United, and other threats to minorities and people in need in addition to creating neutral hate speech laws, so a group in power can't use said laws to oppress people.

What kind of court is going to allow laws that restrict a part of the citizens? I don't know what kind of system you guys have but if you have hatespeech laws everyone should follow them.

So that's what makes an denying an event bannable.. by how many people were killed? I think it's odd.

I'd rather think WWII led to a wartime mentality that was all too willing to restrict good freedoms like free speech in its aftermath. They were making a lot more sacrifices to freedom than that.

What the Nazis did was the biggest crime ever commited and everyone should be properly educated on it for it not to happen again. This education includes denying someone the right to lie about this and create a false narrative.

Laws banning Holocaust denial are not hatespeech laws btw.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

This thread, and people wanting such thing make me sick.

Fast tracking "1984" huh?

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

 

[BocoDragon]

Correct. AQ posed no serious threat to the survival of America... but America did and does by virtue of its response. And though it hasn't eaten itself wholly so far, its response has had disproportionate global impact. Private actors can't create the damage states can.

You're posing a hypothetical with ISIS, but I'll do one better and talk about something that's happened: the intended genocide of the Yazidi people. That clearly applies in my rationale of proscribing hate speech, particularly when it concerns genocide and crimes against humanity.

Well, I see your logic. I guess we just have different order of priorities. I'd protect freedom first as a rule before patching up the ills of society with various speech restrictions. I think the list of speech topics we could restrict in the name of some laudable goal or another seems endless.

 

[reckless]

The police are the state. You'd have to make a law defining them as a social group instead.

You literally have states like Louisiana passing "blue lives matter" bills making public servants protected classes. You have all branches of the federal government and a majority of states controlled by the republican party. Shit like those bills are what would be passed not whatever everyone here wants to define as hate speech.

 

[Not]

What kind of court is going to allow laws that restrict a part of the citizens? I don't know what kind of system you guys have but if you have hatespeech laws everyone should follow them.

The heterogeneity, inherited xenophobia, and corporation-sustained ignorance of most US citizens make putting together a neutral court system that doesn't further the agenda of the groups already in power much more difficult than I'd imagine it would be in Germany.

You literally have states like Louisiana passing "blue lives matter" bills making public servants protected classes. You have all branches of the federal government and a majority of states controlled by the republican party. Shit like those bills are what would be passed not whatever everyone here wants to define as hate speech.

Well I don't know about the OP, but I'm not advocating we do this anytime soon in our immediate political climate. Like we even could.

 

[Forkball]

Uh, no. You shouldn't go to jail just for saying something. Not to mention how easily it can be twisted. I'm surprised people haven't learned that conservatives in general are at least good at twisting speech and nitpicking to push their narrative.

 

[Hip Hop]

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

As if I want the US to become like those countries to begin with.

No thanks.

 

[BocoDragon]

What the Nazis did was the biggest crime ever commited and everyone should be properly educated on it for it not to happen again. This education includes denying someone the right to lie about this and create a false narrative.

Laws banning Holocaust denial are not hatespeech laws btw.

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

 

[reckless]

Well I don't know about the OP, but I'm not advocating we do this anytime soon in our immediate political climate. Like we even could.

No matter when it would be done, we'd only be 4 years away max from those types of laws.

 

[Sibylus]

Well, I see your logic. I guess we just have different order of priorities. I'd protect freedom first as a rule before patching up the ills of society with various speech restrictions. I think the list of speech topics we could restrict in the name of some laudable goal or another seems endless.

Hate speech law forms but one component of what I see as necessary to combat those ills. America needs an infiltration and subversion program for shit like the nazis and militia groups (à la the Klan) yesterday, for instance. I don't believe Nazi parties and the like should enjoy political franchise, in another. Mandated inclusion of genocide and crimes against humanity education in high school (and onward) curricula, etc.

 

[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.