Support NeoGAF

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Most modern white nationalists don't engage in hate speech that would be legally actionable, anyway. I've never seen Richard Spencer or David Duke call for mass violence against minorities, as they are very quick to point out they "want" peaceful implementation of their reprehensible goals. I'm fairly certain one could go to Canada and argue for the validity of racial differences in IQ testing, no? This is the language of modern white supremacy.

 

[TheExecutive]

I would rather have it out in the open so that society can rightfully deal with it. Making something illegal doesn’t stop a problem it just pushes it where it cannot be reached by society. However, for that to work people need to not be complacent with racist actions by others.

Yes

It will hardly ever get enforced anyway in our white supremacist society; there should at least be a law in the first place.

I think calling the US a white supremicist society is ridiculous.

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.

Yes it would require a change to the 1st amendment which most likely will not happen in our lifetimes. Which is a good thing.

Indeed

Nah.

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

It would just push it underground.

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

What?

Explain to me the "slippery slope"

If you set precedent in the Supreme Court for banning certain types of speech it opens the door for interpretation. It’s easy.

 

[MUnited83]

Lol this thread

Let’s 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 whatever you’re dealing with.

Yep, this is correct.
It's really telling how no one gives a shit today about the Patriot Act, which takes away much more of your freedom and civil rights and it's actually a fucking threat.
But seemingly, abusing minorities is the one American freedom people are actually willing to defend to the end.

I would rather have it out in the open so that society can rightfully deal with it. Making something illegal doesn’t stop a problem it just pushes it where it cannot be reached by society. However, for that to work people need to not be complacent with racist actions by others.


I think calling the US a white supremicist society is ridiculous.


Yes it would require a change to the 1st amendment which most likely will not happen in our lifetimes. Which is a good thing.


Nah.


It would just push it underground.


What?


If you set precedent in the Supreme Court for banning certain types of speech it opens the door for interpretation. It’s easy.

Is "rightfully dealing with it" code for "electing the ones that spread hate speech into the seats of power"? Weird way of dealing with it.

 

[kazinova]

Yes I'm aware you did it purposely. I didn't think you trivialized bigotry and hatred by accident

I trivialized hate speech, (offensive jokes, stupid thoughts, saying dumb racist things) which does not rise to the level of hate crime. Not hatred, which is bad.

The thought that the OP's "law" could stand any real rigor is ridiculous. Imagine how hard it is to prove something was a hate crime and now extend that to "ANY HATEFUL THING SAID IN PUBLIC?" be it a joke, quote or accident. Yeesh.

 

[slit]

No absolutely not. It won't ever happen in the U.S. anyway unless a major constitutional change occurs which is why it was put there to begin with. People can't easily upend it whenever they get scared.

 

[MetaCircular]

I'm afraid legislation like this in the US would get co-opted by religious people.

I'm not willing to lose the right to say that religious beliefs are idiotic nonsense, make fun of Mohammed, etc. I don't consider that hate spreech, but somebody might.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I would rather have it out in the open so that society can rightfully deal with it. Making something illegal doesn't stop a problem it just pushes it where it cannot be reached by society. However, for that to work people need to not be complacent with racist actions by others.


I think calling the US a white supremicist society is ridiculous.

.

Really?

It's interesting, you want it out in the open but then deny it when it's in front of you.

I trivialized hate speech, (offensive jokes, stupid thoughts, saying dumb racist things) which does not rise to the level of hate crime. Not hatred, which is bad.

The thought that the OP's "law" could stand any real rigor is ridiculous. Imagine how hard it is to prove something was a hate crime and now extend that to "ANY HATEFUL THING SAID IN PUBLIC?" be it a joke, quote or accident. Yeesh.

Read up on the laws and how they work elsewhere...

It's clear you don't have any grasp on what hate speech means because what you describe would not end up as hate speech.

That said btw saying racist things (even those that wouldn't fall under hate speech laws) is also bad and shouldn't be trivialized or thought of as just a different opinion.

 

[excelsiorlef]

DP

 

[Caj814]

No

It would get mutated and turn on it's head so fast that it would throw anyone with an opinion in jail by bending that against them.

 

[squall211]

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.

A call to arms in order to kill minorites isn't free speech anyway and would be punishable with today's laws. Imminent threats of violence are not protected under free speech.

I can call you a bunch of horrible, despicable names, and it would be my legal right to do so.

If I tried to rally a bunch of people together in order to jump you when you leave your house, that would not be protected speech.

 

[entremet]

Most modern white nationalists don't engage in hate speech that would be legally actionable, anyway. I've never seen Richard Spencer or David Duke call for mass violence against minorities, as they are very quick to point out they "want" peaceful implementation of their reprehensible goals. I'm fairly certain one could go to Canada and argue for the validity of racial differences in IQ testing, no? This is the language of modern white supremacy.

That's the problem with these laws and why they're so easy to circumvent.

 

[legacyzero]

Lol this thread

Let’s 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 you’re dealing with.

You're really gonna distill it down to that, huh? With 10 pages of logical and compelling discussion, you're gonna jump in and yell "look at all these diet racists up in here!"

Meanwhile, there are a majority of posts in here that provide sound reason as to why America in its current climate isn't compatible with that kind of law, which could serve to become even WORSE for minorities in this nation that what it would intend.

Many examples have been given in this thread of hate speech laws being abused for mundane shit. I would even question if you've even read the thread at all?

And leave excelciorlef alone. It's not often I get to have good debate with them without snarking each other. It's been refreshing lol

 

[Audioboxer]

That's the problem with these laws and why they're so easy to circumvent.

Not to mention they have an end goal of winding up the left so much that the left falls over itself to implement 1984 like policies and laws (which in turn would ironically help far-right Governments if they get into power). Every time people on the left cry out for their freedoms to be eroded/tailored back, that fuels the modern far-right attack against the left eroding privacy and free speech/expression. This also picks up steam in the "normal" right (sorry, there is a distinction between far-right and "normal" right). It's no surprise if you look online at who is caping behind the defence of free speech almost exclusively its people who'd call themselves as being on the right, or centre-right or Conservatives. Many people seem to have switched sides from the politics of the 80s/90/s00s. Everything now seems to be about trying to sterilize populations by any legal means necessary. Cutting the nose off to spite the face, in many instances.

Or it's the case if you are actually on the left, and making nuanced arguments for freedom of speech/expression and privacy, many of your fellow lefties want so badly and quickly to infer you must somehow be someone from the right in sheep's clothing/infiltrating this side. How can you possibly be progressive if you don't fall in-line to hand over any legal powers imaginable to the state around speech? If only it were that simple. History shows otherwise. Populations need a lot of verbal freedom if they are to navigate this complex and messy world and challenge and debate each other. Let alone stop tyrannical, fascist or authoritarian/totalitarian Governments from abusing populations rights/privacy.

You'll find most people in law/academia in courses like biology/psychology/social sciences will argue for freedom of speech/expression, even offensive positions/speech. That seems to be an almost heretical position to be in these days, as just look at what happened to Brett Weinstein. Again, more free ammunition for the right... All of the social ills and problems facing humanity have been around for a long time, and while we slowly make progress, you can't reprogram all of humanity to never have any bad people. We need protections against actions/threats, yes, and most civil societies try to have well-thought out prison systems/rehabilitation/legal protections. We shouldn't, however, race towards a future where it's thought if we just keep creating more jailable offences around speech we'll reach the nirvana where all of humanity coexists without any friction/dispute/hate/offence.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Yep, this is correct.
It's really telling how no one gives a shit today about the Patriot Act, which takes away much more of your freedom and civil rights and it's actually a fucking threat.
But seemingly, abusing minorities is the one American freedom people are actually willing to defend to the end.

Is "rightfully dealing with it" code for "electing the ones that spread hate speech into the seats of power"? Weird way of dealing with it.

Protecting the first amendment as it is currently interpreted is defense of a freedom more fundamental to the American system than the Patriot Act's curtailments, yes.

 

[kazinova]

It's clear you don't have any grasp on what hate speech means because what you describe would not end up as hate speech.

You still misunderstand me. I'm saying that you could never be specific enough to not make such a law easily abused.

Kind of like how consolidating power in the executive office over the course of the last century, turning it into an all-encompassing far-reaching bureaucracy, seemed like an okay idea as long as the president was somewhat principled.

I'm done, you clearly think everyone that disagrees with this thought is a racist, backwoods hilljack. I'll take my foresight and go home. You win.





...
#thisishowtrumpwon


lol j/k


(or is it?)

 

[legacyzero]

Yep, this is correct.
It's really telling how no one gives a shit today about the Patriot Act, which takes away much more of your freedom and civil rights and it's actually a fucking threat.
But seemingly, abusing minorities is the one American freedom people are actually willing to defend to the end.

Straw man.

This has nothing to do with The Patriot Act. As a matter of fact, I bet if you polled GAF, they'd be overwhelmingly against it. What an odd conflation.

It's not about defending "abusing minorities". it's about not giving motivation to the extreme right to do even worse than words could ever do.

Want proof? Look no further than RIGHT NOW. If the current administration and congress had their way, Colin Kaepernick would be in jail for "insulting the flag", it'd be legal to run over protesters, ICE would be all up in people's shit worse than the Patriot Act could be, Fundamentalist Christian ideology would infect every level of where it shouldn't be (schools, courthouses, etc), Trans rights would be crushed, Gay rights would be hurt, Women's rights would be set back, Libel laws would be rolled tightened and the press even further attacked, etc etc.

Me? Sure I'm a token straight white dude. I have nothing to worry about for racial injustice or hate speech, aside from being shamed for it on the internet. But I'm also Atheist. Doesn't that make me a minority or sorts? Not racial, but to theists and hard right fundamentalists? To me, religion is exactly what's wrong with the world.

If we set the precedent that we should limit speech, both the left AND the right would want "bi-partisan" input. Do you really think a far right Christian would want me to be able to say "religion is exactly what's wrong with the world."? I highly doubt it. Fuck, they don't even wanna make a goddamn cake for a gay couple!

That's all we're saying. Words are not nearly as harmful as action. That's not my way of saying "man up minorities". But I'm trying to say- if that's where the hatred stops, why not let it stay there? Otherwise, you may inadvertently give the same ammo to people who would do so much worse with it than we would. Moral high ground doesn't mean shit anymore when you allow people like Trump/Pence into power. They don't care.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

In sports, when you're following your game plan and you're up in the score, you don't abandon your game plan. You redouble your efforts and your commitment to the strategy that got you there. A losing opponent will fight back desperately, so you have to focus and stick to the plan.

America sucks for minorities. It does. It's also one of the best countries in the world for minorities. I've gotten to travel a bit in my life and racism is so much worse, and often even more violent, outside of the US.

We haven't won yet. But we have the lead. We have the lead against the world, and we have the lead against where we started from. The principles that gave us the lead include protected speech. We have a losing opponent now in bigotry and white supremacy, flailing desperately for one last hoorah. Let's stick to the game plan and focus up and double our efforts.

 

[boiled goose]

Threats should be a crime.

Criticism no matter how hateful or stupid shouldn't be a crime. There should be consequences though (social, professional, etc.)

 

[excelsiorlef]

Threats should be a crime.

Criticism no matter how hateful or stupid shouldn't be a crime. There should be consequences though (social, professional, etc.)

Hate speech isn't criticism... even if you oppose hate speech laws don't couch it into the language of criticism.

And leave excelciorlef alone. It's not often I get to have good debate with them without snarking each other. It's been refreshing lol

To be fair we're pretty much done. I've said numerous times my line of debate is simply on the complete moral opposition level, you seem to oppose more on the practical level and for that I'm not all that interested in arguing because I don't necessarily disagree.

 

[excelsiorlef]

DP

 

[Audioboxer]

Hate speech isn't criticism... even if you oppose hate speech laws don't couch it into the language of criticism.

Is burning a Koran criticism or hate speech? Or a poppy? It's hate speech in the UK. What about that man in the tshirt I posted on the previous page? Criticism of the police or hate speech? I did say that one was really testing political dissent as it can be viewed as incitement, but that some nuance is needed occasionally on a case by case basis.

 

[Beefy]

Is burning a Koran criticism or hate speech? Or a poppy? It's hate speech in the UK. What about that man in the tshirt I posted on the previous page? Criticism of the police or hate speech? I did say that one was really testing political dissent as it can be viewed as incitement, but that some nuance is needed occasionally on a case by case basis.

You will find rules being used for dodgy shit everywhere. I have lived in the UK for over half my life and not been called nigger etc etc more times then I have visiting fam in NY. Basically what a lot of people are saying in this thread is they don't like racism but are ok with racist/ bigots etc abusing minorities etc because of free speech. Free speech shouldn't be free to racially abuse people.

 

[Miles X]

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

Exactly this. Don't stop people from calling out shady shit within religion.

There is no excuse to be racist, sexist, homophobic though, I'd rather steep fines though.

 

[Audioboxer]

You will find rules being used for dodgy shit everywhere. I have lived in the UK for over half my life and not been called nigger etc etc more times then I have visiting fam in NY. Basically what a lot of people are saying in this thread is they don't like racism but are ok with racist/ bigots etc abusing minorities etc being abused as free speech is more important.

But if people want to use the argument of "innocent" people might be put behind bars in the pursuit of speech justice that's similar to the lines of thinking around the death penalty might have a few wrong killings but think of all the bad people it would put down. Legal systems have to be debated on the merits of not taking the rights away of those who do not deserve for their rights to be taken away. The argument isn't anyone saying they are OK with racists and bigots. That's unfair and not being honest. The argument is what I said at the start, not having the Government take the rights away of people they shouldn't be.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is burning a Koran criticism or hate speech? Or a poppy? It's hate speech in the UK. What about that man in the tshirt I posted on the previous page? Criticism of the police or hate speech? I did say that one was really testing political dissent as it can be viewed as incitement, but that some nuance is needed occasionally on a case by case basis.

My post wasn't about challenging them to believe in hate speech laws. it was simply asking that we don't downplay just what it means to make bigoted speech by calling it criticism.

We can argue the outliers but what I was speaking to was racism, sexism, homopohiba, transphobia, etc...

That kind of speech even if legal should never be given cover by calling it criticism... we should be if you oppose hate speech laws honest abut what you're asking the law to protect.

 

[Beefy]

But if people want to use the argument of "innocent" people might be put behind bars in the pursuit of speech justice that's similar to the lines of thinking around the death penalty might have a few wrong killings but think of all the bad people it would put down. Legal systems have to be debated on the merits of not taking the rights away of those who do not deserve for their rights to be taken away. The argument isn't anyone saying they are OK with racists and bigots. That's unfair and not being honest. The argument is what I said at the start, not having the Government take the rights away of people they shouldn't be.

As a black dude I see it differently. I hate the Tories for twisting laws to fit their views. But I also hate how free speech allows people like me ( and the lgtbt+) to be treated like total shit.

 

[Audioboxer]

My post wasn't about challenging them to believe in hate speech laws. it was simply asking that we don't downplay just what it means to make bigoted speech by calling it criticism.

We can argue the outliers but what I was speaking to was racism, sexism, homopohiba, transphobia, etc...

That kind of speech even if legal should never be given cover by calling it criticism... we should be if you oppose hate speech laws honest abut what you're asking the law to protect.

Well I agree with that. Societies should be fighting/challenging that at all costs. We do for the most part. Professionals in fields of education, helping problematic teens and any sorts of rehabilitation help too. Anti-social behaviour is a problem in every country. This topic started on the merit of putting people behind bars.

As a black dude I see it differently. I hate the Tories for twisting laws to fit their views. But I also hate how free speech allows people like me ( and the lgtbt+) to be treated like total shit.

To the extent of putting people in prison for said speech? That is what the topic started on.

 

[Beefy]

.To the extent of putting people in prison for said speech? That is what the topic started on.

I posted at the start it shouldn't be prison time, unless they do it over and over again. More community service or fines. Dudes need to learn that their hate filled talk isn't tolerated. ATM in the US it is just seen as some dudes opinion, which is disgusting.

I also said that you can't always rely on minorities etc standing up to it. There comes a time when a group is so broken down many will just have no energy left to fight.

 

[Audioboxer]

I posted at the start it shouldn't be prison time, unless they do it over and over again. More community service or fines. Dudes need to learn that their hate filled talk isn't tolerated.

I also said that you can't always rely on minorities etc standing up to it. There comes a time when a group is so broken down many will just have no energy left to fight.

The laws as they are do allow people to be put in prison though. As I said above if that is seen as a "required" collateral in the pursuit of justice that will be a line of argument that causes some to criticise said laws. People seem to be concerned about incarceration rates when it's around things like personal drug use. Okay, it's "easier" to argue people shouldn't be in jail for smoking weed than it is publicly state your claim people shouldn't be in jail for burning a Koran, poppy or offending a religious person. Unfortunately, when it comes to the law being egalitarian and everyone having rights society does need to try and prevent anyone being behind bars that shouldn't be there, not just the people we like. This is the same conundrum that has Americans praise the ACLU one minute, then say it's the organisation of the alt-right the next. Failing to understand what it means to argue law and the legal system as rights for everyone involved.

 

[Muffin1611]

If you just wanna call everyone racist, do it. Come on. Don't be shy. Call us all bigots and racists. Those of us that don't get to live or grow up in blue bastions, welp, tough luck I suppose. Gonna suck to be a gay kid not in a major city. Or from the Middle East the next time an attack happens in the US.

If they break laws about harassment and violence, punish them with those laws.




Fair enough, but I would argue those are free speech issues and hate speech is inherently a free speech issue. How long did they sit on that law before it got used in a completely inane way and they realized they should have gotten rid of it a while ago. These are the kinds of things that slip by a society that doesn't rigorously protect free speech. Stupid shit gets left alone, or gets by, and you just hope the application of it is never abused. Someone, somewhere, at sometime, decided that insulting a leader was a speech crime.

If you want to go specifically into modern hate speech

You could do stuff like this, where you raid people's houses over postings on social media

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/...ed-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

I mean, when the Russians look at your laws and go "great idea!"...you might want to reconsider the law.

https://rsf.org/en/news/russian-bill-copy-and-paste-germanys-hate-speech-law

Oh hey, how's that hate speech thing working anyway...

http://www.dw.com/en/far-right-violence-rising-sharply-in-germany/a-19363359



The repeated historical consequence to trying to actively suppress speech in any kind of democracy or republic is the rise of the very thing you are trying to squash. Current example: AfD.

Another argument against Germany that is off. Jesus Christ.

Yes, you can raid peoples homes over threats and hate speech here on social media. Why the hell should the law not apply online for you? If somebody reports your account at the police and they are allowed to trace it back based on how severe the postings were, of course they're getting arrested. What do you expect?

And acting like the Russians like Germanys law like it is is extremely dishonest. They like the way they could use it in their fucked up state and needed an easy excuse. "Germany is doing it too!" is easy to say even if it's not true and almost nobody is going to look further if they already want to believe Russia in all they do.

The AfD argument is also ridiciolous. How would allowing hate speech have made it better? How do you know that hate speech laws didn't help to keep the party this low? You don't.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think also what needs to be understood, more so for the folks who think this is 1984 and what not, is that there are more First World Countries with hate speech laws than there are without.

 

[Principate]

Well I agree with that. Societies should be fighting/challenging that at all costs. We do for the most part. Professionals in fields of education, helping problematic teens and any sorts of rehabilitation help too. Anti-social behaviour is a problem in every country. This topic started on the merit of putting people behind bars.



To the extent of putting people in prison for said speech? That is what the topic started on.

I do wonder how people in this thread honestly think how hate speech laws are inforced western countries that have it like Europe etc. It's not about putting random racist teacher's behind bars, they are just fired the good fashioned way in the majority of countries it exists in. It exists for organisations like the KKK and people that have active detrimental agenda against citizens, minorities to prevent them from recruiting and expanding.

The US has and does it too, how many ISIS demonstrations and the like do you honestly see actively going on. The difference is the US is perfectly fine with the effects, Nazi's, KKK and various white nationalists groups that roam around. Fair less so with everything else.

 

[Shai-Tan]

You will find rules being used for dodgy shit everywhere. I have lived in the UK for over half my life and not been called nigger etc etc more times then I have visiting fam in NY. Basically what a lot of people are saying in this thread is they don't like racism but are ok with racist/ bigots etc abusing minorities etc being abused as free speech is more important.

I haven't read through the thread so this is just my understanding:

The reason why in a liberal order hateful speech tends to be tolerated in law is not because it's social acceptable, but because of the problem of the censor and the value of open dialogue in a plural society to move the culture in a positive direction. So there's the question of what is best left to law, and what is best left to social convention and norms about what is acceptable.

I am in support of the hate speech laws in Canada where I live but "hate speech" in law has a specific legal definition. I think expansive (illiberal) definitions of hate speech would tend towards weaponizing political differences which rest on substantive disagreements about how the world works and what policies are ideal.

That said as a consequentialist I am open to arguments for more restrictions (e.g. more expansive denigration laws) if a persuasive argument was made against the liberal understanding of speech, which is an empirical question that should draw on social science as much as it is philosophical.

ref:

Wayne Sumner. Hate Speech: North and South
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2454729

 

[Zekes!]

I think also what needs to be understood, more so for the folks who think this is 1984 and what not, is that there are more First World Countries with hate speech laws than there are without.

Yup

 

[Beefy]

The laws as they are do allow people to be put in prison though. As I said above if that is seen as a "required" collateral in the pursuit of justice that will be a line of argument that causes some to criticise said laws. People seem to be concerned about incarceration rates when it's around things like personal drug use. Okay, it's "easier" to argue people shouldn't be in jail for smoking weed than it is publicly state your claim people shouldn't be in jail for burning a Koran, poppy or offending a religious person. Unfortunately, when it comes to the law being egalitarian and everyone having rights society does need to try and prevent anyone being behind bars that shouldn't be there, not just the people we like. This is the same conundrum that has Americans praise the ACLU one minute, then say it's the organisation of the alt-right the next. Failing to understand what it means to argue law and the legal system as rights for everyone involved.

I get what you are getting at. But here in the UK we don't have hate groups like the KKK walking around etc. What really needs to happen is a middle ground. Minorities and the lgbt+ shouldn't have to put up the shit they put up with in the US.

 

[Audioboxer]

I get what you are getting at. But here in the UK we don't have hate groups like the KKK walking around etc. What really needs to happen is a middle ground. Minorities and the lgbt+ shouldn't have to put up the shit they put up with in the US.

The EDL, UKIP, Farage, Tommy Robinson, Hopkins, some of the leave voters and so on are a small collection of what the UK has to offer. We're not as religiously dogmatic as the US, but the landscape in the US does continue to face further secularisation. Actually partly thanks to the 1st amendment as Evangelicals couldn't just shut down all criticism and social progress under the guise of being offended/hated on/discriminated. Legal gay marriage went through and there isn't much crybabies can do about it.

Lots of advocacy groups, protest, debate, education and so on is improving things, even in the US. A lot of what we fight for can help us in our lifetimes but some of the effort and work as I mentioned earlier will be for future generations with the time it takes to inch societies forward. We're definitely a lot better off than society was before our life times. Even if there are some stumbles here and there right now.

 

[Beefy]

The EDL, UKIP, Farage, Tommy Robinson, Hopkins, some of the leave voters and so on are a small collection of what the UK has to offer.

Lots of advocacy groups, protest, debate, education and so on is improving things, even in the US. A lot of what we fight for can help us in our lifetimes but some of the effort and work as I mentioned earlier will be for future generations with the time it takes to inch societies forward. We're definitely a lot better off than society was before our life times. Even if there are some stumbles here and there right now.

None of them groups get anywhere close to the pure hate and violence the racist groups in the US get too. Racism/bigotry is never dying out, only way it can be kept low is laws, just how I feel. Way too many straight white men will carry it on through the generations.

 

[Shai-Tan]

I get what you are getting at. But here in the UK we don't have hate groups like the KKK walking around etc. What really needs to happen is a middle ground. Minorities and the lgbt+ shouldn't have to put up the shit they put up with in the US.

One problem with the contrast is whether there is a substantive difference Most of the regulation of speech comes from social norms about what it is acceptable to say. Prosecutions for violation of hate speech provisions are relatively rare despite numerous violations by the letter, in addition to ambiguity in most speech.So the question is whether law or culture is more responsible for differences in attitudes.

 

[Audioboxer]

None of them groups get anywhere close to the pure hate and violence the racist groups in the US get too. Racism/bigotry is never dying out, only way it can be kept low is laws, just how I feel. Way too many straight white men will carry it on through the generations.

The IRA were responsible for a lot of terrorism and Ireland is still divided over religious bigotry and hate. The UK does have a bloody history too. Violence and terrorism is outside the realms of free speech mind you, I'm just saying in any country with humans there is always hate, violence and aggression.

Lots still think there is more merit in verbal offences being tackled with social consequences and being challenged. But okay, there's quite a few in this topic who think it should be legal and the Government with laws going after people for speech infractions.

As you said the UK is seeing what happens when a right wing Conservative government keep winning in elections. We can't force people to vote in certain ways and this is why when the Government has the power to do things like the Tories are doing we're almost at their mercy. When they have a majority that is. Look what they've done with the DUP, speaking of Ireland, to keep a majority. For all the problems America has there are things happening in the UK that couldn't happen there, or would be harder to get through a court/passed as a bill.

 

[Beefy]

One problem with the contrast is whether there is a substantive difference Most of the regulation of speech comes from social norms about what it is acceptable to say. Prosecutions for violation of hate speech provisions are relatively rare despite numerous violations by the letter, in addition to ambiguity in most speech.So the question is whether law or culture is more responsible for differences in attitudes.

I would say both help. UK isn't amazing and I am treated like shit for another issue. But I feel treated like a human far more here. The US is way into it's history, it doesn't help you have a party that makes the Tory party in the UK look good.

 

[HellforLeather]

Let's just say that in America, anti-minority hate speech and the violence that it incites are considered acceptable consequences of free speech.

No, incitement of violence and violence itself is not protected and nobody is arguing that they should be.

But seemingly, abusing minorities is the one American freedom people are actually willing to defend to the end.

Anybody else wanna chime in with their glib misrepresentations of peoples viewpoints?

 

[Shai-Tan]

I would say both help. UK isn't amazing and I am treated like shit for another issue. But I feel treated like a human far more here. The US is way into it's history, it doesn't help you have a party that makes the Tory party in the UK look good.

The question of culture is also complicated because it includes the political economy. Racist and xenophobic ideas are to some extent a "solution' imagined for other problems and political parties stoke resentment about urban/rural, white/black, working class/undocumented to get votes. Far right parties in Europe feed on those fears despite hate speech laws, framing it as the undermining of traditional values and economic security

 

[Catphish]

No speech should be an imprisonable offense.

None.

Free speech applies to all speech, not just the nicey bits.

 

[Angelus Errare]

No

It would get mutated and turn on it's head so fast that it would throw anyone with an opinion in jail by bending that against them.

Pretty much. America has a storied history in unevenly applying shit. I don't trust this to be any different.

Like they'll classify police as a protected group and congrats even more black folks in jail!

 

[Sweeney Tom]

Absolutely

 

[Takuan]

No. If you're going to make it an imprisonable offense, apply it to everyone.

 

[JoeBoy101]

People who begin to verge into authoritarian practices always think if only I/we can control who the Government imprisons/censors, we'll get it right. If only I/our political party is in charge, we'll/they'll get it right. We can't make mistakes with taking people's rights away, we're perfect in our pursuit of justice! We just want to stop people being mean. Again, heart in the right place, head possibly not. Whether you like it or not laws and Government powers are supposed to be egalitarian. For everyone.

 

[Audioboxer]

No speech should be an imprisonable offense.

None.

Free speech applies to all speech, not just the nicey bits.

It does actually apply to speech with incitement to imminently break the law (violence is the often used example). Read about the Brandenburg case where there was a conviction and jail sentence in America. I referenced it on the previous page.

So saying it applies to no speech isn't actually correct, even in America.

Edit: I'll just paste it here

Can speech be regulated if it encourages violence?

In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to “imminent lawless action.”

The operative word is “imminent.” Following Brandenburg, the high court clarified that vague threats of violence were protected by the First Amendment.

Brandenburg was found guilty of violating Ohio state law, which prohibited “advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” His penalties included a $1,000 fine and a 1-10 year prison sentence.

The Supreme Court made a legally and morally compelling decision in insisting that hateful speech be permitted so long as it is not likely to cause imminent harm. In doing so, it reiterated a principle long ago argued by J.S. Mill, who wrote: “An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” So long as the rights of individual to be free from physical harm are not imminently endangered, the law ought to protect as wide a sphere of free expression as possible.

However, while it is true that the law ought to permit Klansmen to articulate their ideals, it does not follow that we ought to listen politely to their insidious messages without vigorous response. Condemnatory counter-speech is essential. We must never forget that the eponymous protagonist of the Brandenburg case was a white supremacist. How rich, indeed, it is for someone like him – who would have keenly destroyed the free speech protections (and much else) afforded to racial minorities were he appointed ruler – to complain that his right to advocate genocide was improperly abridged. As has been recently argued, our law on free speech must be conjoined with a robust ethic of free speech according to which we ought to criticize and condemn the enemies of civilisation who live among us.

http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/

 

[Catphish]

It does actually apply to speech with incitement to imminently break the law (violence is the often used example). Read about the Brandenburg case where there was a conviction and jail sentence in America. I referenced it on the previous page.

So saying it applies to no speech isn't actually correct, even in America.

Edit: I'll just paste it here







http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/

Well it shouldn't. Speech is words. There's nothing words can do that should be imprisonable. The responsibility and liability should lie with action, not words.

Now, if we're talking about defamation, where real, tangible harm can occur, that's another story. But some asshat spouting off general dumbshit about whatever people are butthurting him, no. As much as I detest idiots, you can't just go around locking them up for talking shit.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well it shouldn't. Speech is words. There's nothing words can do that should be imprisonable. The responsibility and liability should lie with action, not words.

Now, if we're talking about defamation, where real, tangible harm can occur, that's another story. But some asshat spouting off general dumbshit about whatever people are butthurting him, no. As much as I detest idiots, you can't just go around locking them up for talking shit.

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.