Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

Hey, if you want what your aloud to say to be micromanaged, then move to those countries. No one is stopping you. The beautiful thing about America is we are aloud to speak about anything we want. I don't really see how your trying to be sarcastic about a basic American right.

You have no basis to boast about American superiority on this subject. It's not "beautiful" that hatred is just considering a fundamental right.

 

[KillLaCam]

No we already have enough ppl in jails. Just make it a large fine with alot of community service. Make them do something productive.

 

[Cagey]

No we already have enough ppl in jails. Just make it a large fine with alot of community service. Make them do something productive.

Large fines that aren't paid result in jail time. It's a backdoor method of incarcerating the poor (see Ferguson, MO).

 

[The Maverick]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

 

[legacyzero]

You have no basis to boast about American superiority on this subject. It's not "beautiful" that hatred is just considering a fundamental right.

Yet, I'm not seeing any debate from you other than platitudes, like this post and posts like "nope". That's not what's being debated here. You're right that hate speech isn't "beautiful". But there's also a lot of speech that right wing nut jobs consider hate speech too. You're strangely not addressing the double edge sword in this subject that cuts you twice as hard. If you're going to debate about this, at least try and counter the legitimate fears that a majority of the posters in this thread have. Nobody in here disagrees that hate speech is terrible. The concern is that once you set that precedent, people who have no good business trying to dictate what "hate speech" is, will try to.

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

It does. But you're implying that people in this thread condone it. And it simply isn't true. Read my post above ^

 

[Alcoremortis]

I wouldn't want someone like Ted Cruz or Trump deciding what qualified as hate speech. They'd probably make rich people or Christians a protected class.

 

[thepenguin55]

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?

No. I’m anti-alt-right but this would be far too extreme. I could maybe get behind it being illegal for politicians to use hate speech but anything beyond that feels like a bridge too far

I wouldn't want someone like Ted Cruz or Trump deciding what qualified as hate speech. They'd probably make rich people or Christians a protected class.

^^^This. The definition of what hate speech is would likely change depending on who controls the White House.

I'd generally say no. We can't just start imprisoning people for words regardless of how despicable they may be.

^^^Also this

 

[Cagey]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

Say what you mean about those you mean it about. Don't be shy.

 

[Sain Drevia]

I'd generally say no. We can't just start imprisoning people for words regardless of how despicable they may be.

 

[KillLaCam]

Large fines that aren't paid result in jail time. It's a backdoor method of incarcerating the poor (see Ferguson, MO).

They'd need to do something other than just automatically sending ppl to jail but I have no idea what else they could do. Maybe forced community service in a community with the ppl they were using hate speech against?

 

[excelsiorlef]

I do find irony that certain American posters here are calling Canada and Europe authoritarian nightmares and drawing parallels to 1984, Demolition Man and Minority Report on the same day that Trump is actively calling for NFL Players to be fired for kneeling.


Here's the deal opposing hate speech laws on the basis that the United States is basically uniquely fucked up and conservative to the point where it would be a greater risk than reward is absolutely understandable and likely even factual. That's not opposing hate speech laws on the basis of morality though more on practicality.


But you should definitely reflect on yourself if you actually believe that just about every First World Country having them makes them 1984 Authoritarian nightmares or whatever scary Literary dystopia you can think of.

That American shouldn't have Hate Speech laws is not what makes it beautiful it's kind part of what makes it sad.

 

[Scrooged]

I do find irony that certain American posters here are calling Canada and Europe authoritarian nightmares and drawing parallels to 1984, Demolition Man and Minority Report on the same day that Trump is actively calling for NFL Players to be fired for kneeling.

You would have a point if Trump, you know, actually had authority in this situation. It's all bluster and you know it. Meanwhile the discussion in this thread is about passing laws that actually give the government authority to imprison people based on offensive language.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yet, I'm not seeing any debate from you other than platitudes, like this post and posts like "nope". That's not what's being debated here. You're right that hate speech isn't "beautiful". But there's also a lot of speech that right wing nut jobs consider hate speech too. You're strangely not addressing the double edge sword in this subject that cuts you twice as hard. If you're going to debate about this, at least try and counter the legitimate fears that a majority of the posters in this thread have. Nobody in here disagrees that hate speech is terrible. The concern is that once you set that precedent, people who have no good business trying to dictate what "hate speech" is, will try to.

I don't debate nonsense invocations of Orwell and such, notice I have not been dismissive of those not arguing on the basis of Rah Rah Americana and/or fear mongering over the concept itself. If you're issue is that American is uniquely fucked up and thus couldn't handle it I'm very much aware and understand that argument

But my point of contention is that it more or less works in other countries so to decry it on principle as being evil, wrong, bad Authoritarian, oppressive, etc... is false. You can find anecdotes to argue against it in other countries to the cows come home, but that laws might occasionally get misused doesn't make them bad and it doesn't maker America Great for not having them.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You would have a point if Trump, you know, actually had authority in this situation. It's all bluster and you know it. Meanwhile the discussion in this thread is about passing laws that actually give the government authority to imprison people based on offensive language.

Notice my point is the comparison between countries and which one is being called Authoritarian.


I can't say enough if you oppose it because America can't handle it, that's a completely understandable issue. If you oppose it everywhere else and thing those that have it are 1984 practitioners .... We have issues.

 

[Cybit]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

Come on, if you want to call all of us who were old enough to be brown and alive during 9/11 racists, just say it.

I've seen what happens when "safety" gets chosen over "freedom". Just all the folks who want it in here can't think it could possibly ever happen to them.

 

[GameAddict411]

Freedom of speech is definitely a double edged sword. I am with making strictly defined hate speeches illegal, but there needs to be a very robust mechanism so that it can never be abused by politicians with power. This coming from a person who is marginalized on several aspects of my identity here in the US and all over the world. All three branches of government in the United States have greatly expanded their power since the inception of the constitution to levels the framers themselves would be shocked.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Come on, if you want to call all of us who were old enough to be brown and alive during 9/11 racists, just say it.

I've seen what happens when "safety" gets chosen over "freedom". Just all the folks who want it in here can't think it could possibly ever happen to them.

There are plenty of people defending legal hate speech on the basis of it being morally just to allow it though and taking shots at countries that do have hate speech laws by calling them Authoritarian and invoking Orwell (a lot)

Again folks need to clearly differentiate between a moral argument, that hate speech laws are morally unjust and a practical argument that hate speech laws in America (and basically uniquely America) will be used far more to oppress those that they are supposed to protect.

 

[HellforLeather]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

Were.you intentionally trying to misrepresent peoples stances in here? Or are you dense?

 

[Romars202129]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

This wouldn't end hate speech. Its just giving up an inalienable right to the government in some ridiculously naive hope it somehow ends racism. Fat fucking chance. You can't ban hate speach without damaging free speach, and even if you could, the opposing force would push for stuff like "hating companies is hate speach,hating the president is hate speech'. They aleady gave companies human rights a while back, its a 1 2 punch to set that precident.
Nobody who's actually thought about this wants this.
And besides everything, I'd rather neonazi's out where I can see them, personally.

 

[legacyzero]

This wouldn't end hate speech. Its just giving up an inalienable right to the government in some ridiculously naive hope it somehow ends racism. Fat fucking chance. You can't ban hate speach without damaging free speach, and even if you could, the opposing force would push for stuff like "hating companies is hate speach,hating the president is hate speech'. They aleady gave companies human rights a while back, its a 1 2 punch to set that precident.
Nobody who's actually thought about this wants this.
And besides everything, I'd rather neonazi's out where I can see them, personally.

Excellent post 🔥💯🔥

 

[Zidy]

No. Waaaaaay too far reaching for government to punish people that use words.

I completely am against the use of hate speech but there are certain rights in this country that gives everyone a voice and it should not be silenced. We can hold our leaders to account but haters are gonna hate. Combat it on a private level, no need for government intervention.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

It's too late for America. Hate and racism are too integral to its existence.

Maybe next go round

And for everybody having allergic reactions to posts pointing out that hate speech is defended fervently, for every person making a valid point that the US government as it is should not be trusted with the power to determine and punish hate speech, there's someone opposed to it on much less intelligent grounds. Let's not insult each other's intelligence.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Cops get legislated as a minority.

Now a hate crime to badmouth cops.

 

[Rayis]

No, I like talking shit and insulting right-wingers so I wouldn't like it if when they're in power decide to label that hate-speech and jail me.

In any case, talking shit about minorities is in no way analogous and is actually a terrible thing to do so I'm ok with private entities firing bigots and banning them from places as they should for spewing hateful shit.

So good job Google on firing that James Demore dipshit.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's too late for America. Hate and racism are too integral to its existence.

Maybe next go round

And for everybody having allergic reactions to posts pointing out that hate speech is defended fervently, for every person making a valid point that the US government as it is should not be trusted with the power to determine and punish hate speech, there's someone opposed to it on much less intelligent grounds. Let's not insult each other's intelligence.

Precisely

 

[Cagey]

Cops get legislated as a minority.

Now a hate crime to badmouth cops.

You don't even need to draft legislation declaring police officers as a minority; legislators wouldn't need to get that Orwellian with the English language.

In this dystopian timeline where the SCOTUS upholds imprisonment or fines for the sort of hate speech contemplated here as permissible under the First Amendment, any governing body can use the precedent to establish what's "hate" speech. After that, upon challenge, you get an Equal Protection mess evaluating the previously upheld laws and the new laws that have a different (or opposite) target in mind.

 

[timetokill]

No, because I don't trust hate speech being defined appropriately through time, and also is like to focus on ways to substantially reduce our prison population, not increase it dramatically.

 

[Mass Effect]

No, but I would be completely for community service, especially for and involving groups that the person was directing their hate speech against.

That and maybe fines.

 

[Kimawolf]

Yeah, because thats exactly what happens in countries that criminalize hate speech.

Stop overthinking shit, America. You wouldn't be the first democracy with hate speech laws.

But America has no parliament system. Our government can (and has) shift DRASTICALLY in one term. And when it does then you have people with vastly different views on hate than what you think (as right now). To all saying the government should control speech you would be fine with Obama or Hilary or maybe even GWB cause they are sensible. But today Donald J Trump is president.

Are you REALLY comfortable with him and Jeff Sessions controlling what is and is not hate speech if it was fineable or jailable?

 

[Abinash117]

I assume the conversation about hate speech laws takes place in the context that we don't have a living cheeto in office.

It is assuming that Trump is president, but the US changes ideologies from one term to the next. Just because Trump won't be in power doesn't mean another conservative won't come into power. In four years, the president can be vastly different. There is not even getting into what state or local governments might do.

Conceding that power over to the government is assuming so, so much that everything would be fine. I don't get the fascination that some liberals have to transfer some power to the government.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

I'm certainly not advocating for imprisonment, but simply adopting what the European and first nations have certainly won't turn the US into an authoritative state or dystopia or other hyperboles like that.

If anything it speaks volumes how shitty and broken the US government is if there's fear that the Trumps and other people can and will abuse it. Since that means checks and balances system has failed.

 

[ZackieChan]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

This post is a great example of the lack of nuance and critical thinking on the "ban hate speech" side. Thanks!

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

We don't need more people in jail.

 

[FiggyCal]

I'm certainly not advocating for imprisonment, but simply adopting what the European and first nations have certainly won't turn the US into an authoritative state or dystopia or other hyperboles like that.

If anything it speaks volumes how shitty and broken the US government is if there's fear that the Trumps and other people can and will abuse it. Since that means checks and balances system has failed.

I think people underestimate how weak the left is in America. Republicans basically dominate all levels of government and I really don't trust them to determine what hate speech is. If we're lucky, the worst we'll get is "White Christians are now a protected class of people".

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Freedom of information saved my life.

I'm gay. I also grew up in a Catholic school in a Catholic family in the south. I was also one of the first generation of queer people that had access to the internet during our formative years. It was my window into a different moral universe - one where I wasn't broken, or sick, or damaged. And America's willingness to allow this moral minority to carve out a small space for themselves, form communities, and ultimately take their case into the sunlight of the mainstream, and win, was invaluable. It's how moral progress is made.

I obviously don't think the people that want to put me in a gas chambers have much to improve our already existing morality. But I do know that any form of censorship has to pass the gay rights test. Would these tools, placed in the hands of a socially conservative, southern state government, circa 1960-2000, stop the gay rights movement from happening? If the answer is yes, then you need to consider the possibility that people just as bad are going to seize the apparatus you have created.

 

[LegendofLex]

I don't think it's possible to come up with a standard for hate speech that is impossible to abuse, therefore I'm against it.

I'd also like to remind everyone who labels this a slippery slope argument that the slide has already happened.

 

[Big Blue]

As minority I say, as long as it doesn't incite violence, then definitely not.

 

[UncleSporky]

I can't help but remember this thread from earlier - California's Sexual Assault Law Will Hurt Black Kids, basically arguing that any new or stricter laws will disproportionately affect those who are already often treated under the assumption of guilt. Picturing a lot of people getting arrested for posting "fuck white people" to Facebook etc.

Now of course this thread specifically says hate speech against minorities, meaning hate speech against majority groups would still be expressly non-punishable by law, but I think drawing a line like that would be a really tough sell. Even if it was done, you'd find tons of groups suddenly applying for minority status under the new law.

 

[appaws]

I guess I am not that surprised, but this is the most terrifying gaf thread I have ever read.

Whatever side feels themselves in the ascent tries to outlaw dissent. For example, the medieval church. Now it is modernist/secularist egalitarianism emerging into that stage and feeling its oats.

This is why I can't trust the right on privacy or criminal justice issues, or the left on self-defense, freedom of property, and I guess now self-expression issues. Anti-statism is the only way.

Fuck racists...but no need to outlaw them. We should just be ignoring them, looking at them the same way we look at flat-earthers or anti-vaccination people.

 

[timetokill]

Even if it was done, you'd find tons of groups suddenly applying for minority status under the new law.

Yeah it would take about 5 minutes before cops were declared a protected group/minority and then every "pig" or "fuck cops" comment would land you in jail.

GAF would lose most of its members overnight.

 

[Mathieran]

I dunno about prison, but I think some court mandated community service would be good, especially make them serve poor communities, it might help them get out of their bubble.

 

[entremet]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

How cute.

 

[Cybit]

I'm certainly not advocating for imprisonment, but simply adopting what the European and first nations have certainly won't turn the US into an authoritative state or dystopia or other hyperboles like that.

If anything it speaks volumes how shitty and broken the US government is if there's fear that the Trumps and other people can and will abuse it. Since that means checks and balances system has failed.

This is where I point out that the far right and communist parties have had massive gains in Germany, despite all these "amazing laws". The part that frustrates me about this discussion is this assumption that things are magically better in Europe w/r/t race, when they frankly, aren't once you take into account the scale difference and decide to include Muslims / Arabs in the discussion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41384550

 

[GeordieMark]

The hate speech laws we have in the UK don't really achieve much. It's basically like moderation, in that people quickly learn to be more subtle and smarter about how they word things, and the laws only catch the idiots, like abusive twitter trolls and loudmouths. The overall effectiveness is negligible and the real insidious stuff still goes on. That said, they haven't been used in a questionable way as far as I know, and they do at least give a mechanism to deal with some scumbags.

 

[UncleSporky]

Hate speech sure gets a lot of defense.

This post has already been jumped on a lot, but I wanted to point out that supporting a law as laid out by the OP would by definition be a defense of hate speech. By outlawing hate speech against minorities, you are implicitly condoning or tolerating hate speech against majorities.

And this is no "oh nooo who will think of the poor embattled white people" post. I'm not saying majorities need defense or equality on this particular basis, or that it's even something that happens at all. But I am saying that going out of your way to punish one type of hate speech means that, to some extent, you went "ehhhh hate speech against the others is alright, they can deal with it."

 

[adamsapple]

I'm a minority and even I think making it an imprison-able offense is maybe a little too much.

It should be sternly condemned but shouldn't lead to imprisonment immediately.

 

[kazinova]

One day GAF will find a way to prove that you can legislate thought. Or one day GAF will grow up.

Stay tuned to find out which one happens.

 

[FiggyCal]

One day GAF will find a way to prove that you can legislate thought. Or one day GAF will grow up.

Stay tuned to find out which one happens.

Probably a little disrespectful considering many countries are already doing this. Even if I don't agree with it.

 

[kazinova]

Probably a little disrespectful considering many countries are already doing this. Even if I don't agree with it.

I think it's a reasonable amount of snark. It's clearly not a line of thinking concerned with an enforceable logical line from action to government exerted reaction.

This is a matter of "can I get people to stop doing a thing I don't like through means of government control?"

Which is short-sighted and naive. Whether it's implemented abroad or not. Though it comes from an honest place, it's just a really anathema to the US. Which was the focus of the OP.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I'm amazed (and somewhat frightened) by how many people are saying "Yes." This is the definition of free speech! The government cannot bar you from speaking your beliefs, unless you are literally and directly inciting violence.

It's perfectly fine to bar these types of people from universities, businesses, online platforms, etc. But jail? No.