excelsiorlef
Member
Well it's certainly more than just calling someone an asshole.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should Hate Speech Against Minorities Be Considered an Imprisonable Offense?
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
Well it's certainly more than just calling someone an asshole.
excelsiorlef
Member
I live in a society with hate speech laws and it functions fine.
My point was simply that.
I simply pointed out that you basically took those cherry picked examples and decided to feel even more justified opposing hate speech laws in general... which again more or less work where they exist. I've said I understand the practical argument against but I will argue till I die against the moral argument against. I pointed out the ACA and other examples because that is the type of behaviour you were expressing. Pick up on the extrwme examples (which may or may not even be fully accurate) to condemn the concept.
Also there literally is no such thing as a perfect law. That's an actual reality. It comes down to is the benefits better than its imperfection... here in Canada hell yes it is. In America maybe not but that doesn't make hate speech laws a wrong concept. That they might not work in the US is not a condemnation of hate speech laws but of the US
And I've never said all accused of rape should automatically go to jail... but ues I do temd tp express that I'm more inclined to believe women when they say they've been raped and I do feel the justice system fails them... qu'elle horreur.
User Name Here
Member
It should maybe hold a similar punishment as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. But then again, knowing this country, you'd just see black people getting arrested for retaliating with hate speech after being subjected to it.
DontTouchMe
Member
honestly, it shouldn't
snickothemule
Member
You really don't want this.
You cannot be serious.
Ok, please define it then. Where is the line?
You say this as if there aren't several countries with hate speech laws that don't arrest people for saying asshole. Is it really a zero sum for you?
legacyzero
Banned
You live in a society more compatible with it. America is a melting pot of idiocy, hipocrisy, and ideological fuckery. And yes, on both sides of the spectrum.
And as far as the first amendment goes, I like to equate it with people bitching about the M16 w/ red dot sight in Call of Duty 4 everybody bitches about it, but everybody has access to it.
In the "land of the free", setting a precedent that you can limit free speech may accomplish your goal, but it will also carry the unintentional effect of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Right wing fundamentalist nut jobs would try that shit too, and they are the LAST fucking people I would want to give that ammo to.
The justice system should fail no one. And I'm unwilling to accept even just a handful of people being unfairly effected by it if it's well within our power to prevent it.
excelsiorlef
Member
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html
Spoilers it ain't calling someone an asshole.
Without looking into the case law, this on its face seems insanely broad. Do you think none of your statements on NeoGaf have willfully promoted hatred against US Republicans? Or Bernie Bros?
Edit: well it's at least better than it looked at first, as "identifiable group" is defined as:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-318.html
legacyzero
Banned
This is so damn nebulous though. And yeah, I've seen people get called asshole and it breached the peace. It can and will be done.
That language just leaves it so open for... well ANYthing
Renegade Frost
Banned
It'd never happen anyway.
I'm not to concerned about hate speech really.
If these people want to get clapped I say let them.
I'm not to concerned about hate speech really.
If these people want to get clapped I say let them.
excelsiorlef
Member
So before I continue debating with you, do you oppose it on a general level as in even in countries like mine or on an implementational level as in what you said above about the US.
Because if it's B I have no real qualm.
As to the bolded again that thought while absolutely correct can apply to literally every law. I'm not seeing what makes hate speech laws unique here as a general concept.
Do you really think the US is "unique" in kind here? How long has Europe been a completely safe bastion of liberal thinking? How long do you expect it to continue that way? Indefinitely? What about the rest of the word?
No, I'm asking, because everyone is clearly on a different page here.
Ok, under that calling to punch Nazis is hate speech.
excelsiorlef
Member
Do I think it is unique right now in the world of first world countries?
Yes more or less. Does that mean I think racism and bigotry don't exist in the rest of the first world? Fuck no and my post history documents that I fight against that sentiment any chance I can.
You assume I'm calling the rest of the first world anything like a safe haven for progressive thought. I'm not. I'm saying the US is more or less far more conservative than the rest of the first world. That really shouldn't be that controversial
Nazis aren't a protected group but nice try.
Alrighty then. Moving on from this with you if you read this and think it includes being called an asshole
Yes. Identifiable group is the same criteria as hate crime laws.
Who cares about "right now"? Constitutional rights persist far beyond "right now." The fear over free speech laws isn't that they will be abused immediately and only immediately. The fear is that they provide the opportunity for abuse in the wrong hands - whether or not those wrong hands are in power now or later.
I'm on the fence with the subject and trying hard to come to a conclusion. But I'm struggling.
In reading this, I'm trying to understand how, say, an atheist group strongly shitting on, say, the Catholic Church in a public forum wouldn't qualify as hate speech. Or a fuck Scientologist and their piece of shit religion, type protest.
Or, how Ice Cube performing Horny Lil Devil (or several songs from his albums Amerikkka's Most Wanted or Death Certificate) wouldn't qualify as hate speech. Or Ras Kass performing his hip hop song Nature of the Threat, which he gleefully states "all whites must be perceived as potential predators."
I guess I need to read some case studies.
excelsiorlef
Member
So what you're saying is Canada is going to regret hate speech laws when it eventually becomes a white supremacist nation?
No one said they were. I'm going by what you posted, which calls out hate speech against "identifiable groups". If you want to modify your definition, go ahead.
It absolutely would be. And if hate speech laws some how pass 1st amendment challenges but then didn't cover specific religions the law would fail under 14th amendment challenges. This isn't just a 1st amendment issue.
Is your argument that the far right will never rise in Canada? Or that the far right will only ever rise in the "uniquely" situated US?
excelsiorlef
Member
Identifiable groups is also defined under the law. Read above. I just assumed that people would be familiar with which groups are say protected under hate crime laws... because those are the same.
Like my mistake for not predicting someone would think it means Nazis are protected.
ChainedMaster
Banned
So you think phrases like "Fuck white people" and "fuck black people" should be worthy of jail?
excelsiorlef
Member
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission
It is my argument that yes Trump level right wing government is unlikely to rise in Canada.
I mean you realize the US is also basically the only first world country without some form of Universal Healthcare right?
Well, according to the definition posted above it sure seems like most extremist political groups are...
excelsiorlef
Member
[57] Second, the legislative term hatred or hatred or contempt is to be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words detestation and vilification. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effect
excelsiorlef
Member
Again same groups as hate crime laws. Do you see people getting charged with hate crimes when they punch a Nazi.
Since you don't want to read up on this literal page alone.
It was unlikely to rise in the US too. Far right groups are already on the rise in Europe, and there are still people alive from the last time the far right rose there last time.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Lol this thread
Lets just say that in America, anti-minority hate speech and the violence that it incites are considered acceptable consequences of free speech.
That way no one has to embarrass themselves with hypotheticals.
Excelsior, take a break. You know what youre dealing with.
Lets just say that in America, anti-minority hate speech and the violence that it incites are considered acceptable consequences of free speech.
That way no one has to embarrass themselves with hypotheticals.
Excelsior, take a break. You know what youre dealing with.
excelsiorlef
Member
People who recognize that political winds change, dangerous groups rise to power, and suppression of free speech is a classic, powerful tool of oppression?
I appreciate that at least excelsiorlef engages with arguments instead of wink wink nudging that everyone who disagrees secretly hates minorities.
Edit: I guess I can take that last statement back.
excelsiorlef
Member
Cheers... yeah you're pretty much bang on.
Until moderation decides to actively discourage those sorts of vacuous unsubtle insults, just use the ignore feature. Can't help you from seeing a quoted post, but it's better than nothing.
ChainedMaster
Banned
That helps to an extent, I suppose. But we've seen that countries whose government has the power to restrict speech often times abuses those. The UK with numerous strange convictions and Germany are big ones. Germany, where even arguing history is considered a crime, is not ideal. At least not in my opinion. Then again I'm not a fan of nanny states. The fewer laws the better, I feel.
I don't know why you keep asking me to read that when it's the very section I've been referring to in my last three posts.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I dont know or care if you hate minorities, but I find think American exceptionalism has somewhat blinded you to the degree where you cant conceive of a functional society where hate speech isnt protected.
Cagey, I hope one day you find peace.
excelsiorlef
Member
Everyone nah? And that's not what that post says.. but there have been plenty of people here who have absolutely engaged in the trivialization of hatred and bigotry by comparing it to say not like people drinking soda, o just a difference of opinion or calling someone an asshole.
And furthermore that post is 100% accurate in saying exactly that open and oppressive bigotry against minorities is considered an acceptable side effect of the 1st Amendment.. That's not wink wink nudging anything that's just a literal legal fact.
Because there's nothing in there that says Nazis are a protected group, notice not even political party is in there?
It should be self evident that a hate group would not itself be protected by hate speech laws.
By arguing history do you mean Holocaust denialism?
Of course I can conceive of a functional society where hate speech isn't protected. I can also conceive of a functional society ruled by a dictatorship. Singapore is doing great. That doesn't mean that there aren't inherent dangers of dictatorship that should be grappled with.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
excelsiorlef
Member
Why go to such an absurd jump...
Like we're talking about Canada, Germany, etc... not dictatorships.
Amibguous Cad
Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement
Prison abolition is supported by a bunch of people, and yes, it's much more practical than, say, anarchism. It doesn't mean going without a penal system. Prisons are a relatively new invention and their use on such a widespread scale is very new one. There are lots of ways to punish criminals that don't involve locking people in cages with a bunch of other criminals.
I feel like we're having a miscommunication here. Singapore is doing great. And it's largely credited to Lee Kuan Yew acting as benevolent dictator for decades.
My point was very narrowly tailored to Massive Duck, C.M's comment that I can't conceive of a "functional society" where hate speech isn't protected. Specifically, that being able to conceive of a functionality society utilizing a particular norm doesn't mean that the norm doesn't present inherent dangers.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
It really boggles the mind.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Well of course not, but thats why its up to people to remain vigilant. Laws require enforcement and fair application.
I understand the argument that the current US government as it is, especially under Trump, should absolutely not be given the authority to dictate and punish with regard to hate speech. But there are people who also just seem to be against the idea on an ideological level, no matter what. As I said before I dont think jailing for hate speech is feasible, but I think we need to at least get to a point where for example, people whove previously engaged in racial violence, targeted harassment, etc. are denied permits to hold racist rallies. I think having some tangible consequences for being a known inciter is something that could be done.
Bill R Boggess
Member
The true test of freedom of speech and expression is when you cant stomach somebodys viewpoint but you acknowledge their right to espouse it just the same because you understand on a fundamental level that they still have a right to say it openly and publicly and by respecting their rights however odious their opinions may be you are preserving your own.
Of course, there are limits, specifically when somebody incites or invites direct violence but generally, hate speech is protected under the Constitution and rightfully so.
The good news is we have the right to rebut, rebuke, and attack their viewpoints with vigor and vitriolic gusto and collectively drive them back.
Truthfully, as much as itd be enjoyable to jail some of these assholes, all that would do is turn them into martyrs for a bullshit cause.
Better to give these nitwits a measure of rope and point them in the direction of the nearest tree and let them self-destruct.
Of course, there are limits, specifically when somebody incites or invites direct violence but generally, hate speech is protected under the Constitution and rightfully so.
The good news is we have the right to rebut, rebuke, and attack their viewpoints with vigor and vitriolic gusto and collectively drive them back.
Truthfully, as much as itd be enjoyable to jail some of these assholes, all that would do is turn them into martyrs for a bullshit cause.
Better to give these nitwits a measure of rope and point them in the direction of the nearest tree and let them self-destruct.
Similar threads
- Locked