Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

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.

Instead of doing something about racists... we should just do nothing.

This incredible overreaction to laws that exist in just about every other first world country amuse me greatly.

Like something that functions pretty much in most first world countries to little issue is the most terrifying thing you’ve ever read.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

ignoring racists sure did a good job

 

[excelsiorlef]

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.

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.

Well yes sure opposing racism, it could be argued,is an anathema to the US. Your moral superiority and reducing the issue down to you being the adult and those in favour ignorant naive children does go part and parcel with how you outright dismiss that it functions elsewhere, part and parcel with you essentially framing the conversation all through a lens of American Exceptionaism.

When really if you’re gonna oppose it it should be on the grounds of the exact opposite of American Exceptionalism.


Btw love that you reduce bigotry and hate speech to just “things I don’t like”

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Absolutely not. Especially not imprisonment, at worst it'd be a financial penalty.

 

[pa22word]

A rather pointless debate in the context of the US due to the first amendment, especially in the sense of today as it's the republicans who are on the edge of gaining a Constitutional Convention Hyper Majority and not the dems.

At the least I consider Nazi rhetoric to clearly be incitement to violence though, and as such should get them sent away or at least fined for it.

 

[LordKasual]

lol no. Hell no.

first off, rigidly defining what "hate speech" would even be on paper is a really difficult thing to do. I can imagine the criteria either being unusefully rigid or dangerously loose.

then there's asking what this would even solve...true racists are already aware that their message, in its rawest form, is not tolerated. They're already roundabout enough to be tolerated, at least on paper. Even unorganized racists are smart enough not to be openly racist and hateful in public, seeing as it's social media and corporate suicide.

That's not even including the possibility for corruption or abuse of the law....black people get gunned down on camera, with the video playback on the television news, and nobody gets justice, Tomi Lahren recently tried to spin the Black Panthers as a terrorist organization, kneeling Kapernick is considered an unpatriotic son of a bitch that gets blackballed by one of America's biggest corporations, yet violent neo-nazis are basically condoned by our current president

And lets not forget how Black Lives Matter has been twisted and ridiculed by the media.


This is a terrible idea, it'd either be worthless at best, or actively counterproductive or detrimental at worse.

maybe in some idealized world this would work. but the concept is just way too shortsighted to have a chance in hell of doing what you'd actually expect it to.

 

[Palette Swap]

Definitely against imprisonment as a go-to solution as I’m generally against imprisonment. But yeah, hate speech laws mostly work. At least they can be dissuasive, particularly against very public figures who normalize it.

Seeing there’s already a number of limitations to free speech in the US, it’s strange that this somehow would be harder to deal with in a court than all these limitations. The biggest caveat is probably the courts themselves and how assholes would try to troll the system.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Hate speech against protected groups is punishable by prison in my country, I'm perfectly okay with that, and it doesn't impinge upon my freedoms because I'm not a racist or a homophobe.

 

[Daingurse]

I believe we should have hate speech laws, but I don't know if the punishment should be imprisonment. Definitely need to be some kind of consequences though. There's no legitimate justification that a person can give for using hate speech towards a person of a different ethnicity.

 

[Cagey]

Definitely against imprisonment as a go-to solution as I'm generally against imprisonment. But yeah, hate speech laws mostly work. At least they can be dissuasive, particularly against very public figures who normalize it.

Seeing there's already a number of limitations to free speech in the US, it's strange that this somehow would be harder to deal with in a court than all these limitations. The biggest caveat is probably the courts themselves and how assholes would try to troll the system.

Free speech limitations exist but are few and far in between, and tend to be narrow.

The SCOTUS just ruled in January, in a case involving the federal government denying a trademark (government restriction) for a racially offensive band name, that viewpoint discrimination to curtail free speech is unconstitutional.

That last bit is bedrock foundation stuff.

Justice Kennedy:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an ”egregious form of content discrimination," which is ”presumptively unconstitutional." ... A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Edit: other countries can do as they see fit. The laws other countries pass to achieve their goals, at their core, run afoul of America's most basic legal philosophy on government restriction of expression.

 

[Cybit]

Fun uses of hate speech laws in Europe in recent memory

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29...-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/

In 2015, France's highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — ”Long live Palestine, boycott Israel," the shirts read — which, the court ruled, violated French law that ”prescribes imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 for parties that ‘provoke discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion.'"

In May of last year, Canada's then-conservative government threatened to use the nation's rigorous hate speech laws to prosecute Israel boycott advocates on the ground that such activism is ”the new face of anti-Semitism." As Haaretz reported about the French prosecutions: ”Pro-Israel activists in neighboring Belgium are pushing for a similar law to Lellouche, hoping it might also put a dent in BDS activities in that country." Other French activists have been convicted of ”inciting racial hatred" for applying boycott stickers to vegetables imported from Israel.

In the UK, ”hate speech" has come to include anyone expressing virulent criticism of UK soldiers fighting in war. In 2012, a British Muslim teenager, Azhar Ahmed, was arrested for committing a ”racially aggravated public order offence." His crime? After British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, he cited on his Facebook page the countless innocent Afghans killed by British soldiers and wrote: ”All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F*****N SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soldiers grave & wish him hell because that where he is going."

In 2010, a militant atheist was given a six-month suspended sentence for leaving anti-Christian and anti-Islam fliers in a religious room of the Liverpool airport; according to the BBC, ”jurors found him guilty of causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment."

In Singapore, ”hate speech" laws are routinely used to punish human rights activists who criticize Christianity, or Muslims who have defended or promoted sermons from imams deemed too critical of other religions. Cases in Turkey are common where citizens have been prosecuted under hate speech laws for criticizing government officials or the military. Radical imams are prosecuted in Europe if they are too strident in their support for sharia law or their defense of violence against western aggression.

A leftist activist in France was convicted and fined for insulting former French President Nicolas Sarkozy by holding a sign that said ”get lost, jerk"; ironically, those were the exact words Sarkozy himself uttered when a citizen refused to shake his hand at a public fair

and the best one, because everyone likes to use Germany as the shining beacon example

EDIT: Was a bad example, here's another one

https://www.popehat.com/2017/02/10/erdogan-and-the-european-view-of-free-speech/

Critics of American free speech exceptionalism — which leads to the protection of some truly vile behavior — often cite Europe. Europe, they say, has reasonable limits on "hate speech," but hasn't descended into censorious tyranny. Why can't America accept some reasonable limits on hurtful speech like the Europeans have?

That proposition is questionable, and people can only make it with a straight face because the tyranny at issue is often so very petty. In our most recent example, Germany has banned a comic from reading a poem that's mean to a tyrant.

More fun
https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/

Exceptions to free speech don't get used to help the powerless. They get used to help the powerful. We see that in the case of blasphemy laws: imagined by some on the Left as a measure of respect for a multicultural society, actually primarily used to oppress religious and ethnic minorities and the powerless.

https://www.popehat.com/2013/10/13/another-year-of-blasphemy/

United Kingdom: British Muslims asserted that passing anti-blasphemy laws is necessary to combat "Islamaphobia."

More fun from the UK

https://www.popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/

Case in point: Bahar Mustafa, a "welfare and diversity officer" for a student union at University of London, is being charged with a crime for mean tweeting.

Mustafa rose to attention when she suggested that men and white people shouldn't come to a protest event. This, combined with her use of the ironic hashtag #killallwhitemen on her personal Twitter account, made her a target of right-wing pearl-clutching and hand-wringing. But she didn't engage in that fatuity in America, where she might have just been the talking point of the week. She foolishly did it in England, where trespass unto feels, particularly online, subjects you to actual criminal charges. As a result, she's been charged with two crimes: "sending a threatening letter or communication or sending by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message."

Seriously.

The hashtag "#killallwhitemen" is an in-joke, an example of somewhat belabored signalling and irony with a dash of trolling. It's meant in part to ridicule overblown rhetoric directed at people like Mustafa. It's not a true threat (no men are specified, no time or place is specified, no means are specified, and it's obviously not meant to be taken literally) nor a genuine exhortation to violence (ditto). In a sensible legal system it shouldn't generate anything more than an eye-roll. But in a feels-based legal system, it's actionable.

 

[Karkador]

Justice Kennedy:

The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

This is what it's all about. Hate speech laws aren't going to make them go away. They will simply adapt new codewords and do things behind closed doors. If you think "making them go back into their hole" is enough, it's really not. It will not remove the white supremacists in government and law enforcement. That's the problem we're facing.

Education, critical thinking, and ensuring a platform for minorities is going to make a bigger dent than a law our current leaders probably wouldn't even enforce.

 

[Sinfamy]

Are atheists minorities?
Would it be hate speech when religious people insulin me?

 

[Waddle Dee]

It should be a crime to say hate speech against any kind of person, including PoC, Women, Men, People with mental or physical disabilities, anyone.

Hate speech is a hard thing to make a strict definition of, but it should be illegal and you should get locked up for some period of time. It's not something we should be allowing in any matter.

Considering where we're at (not just America), it'll never happen to the extent that it should.

 

[UncleSporky]

Are atheists minorities?
Can I be offended when religious people insulin me?

Only if you are Type 1.

 

[Jumeira]

Yes, freedom to spread hatred isnt a valid position to hold, on any terms. Hatred against any minority or majority.

 

[Dr.Phibes]

and the best one, because everyone likes to use Germany as the shining beacon example



There are no groups in the US that would have had at least a few members say that on the internet, right? None at all.

Get out. This had nothing to do with hate speech. The site was banned for calls to violence against LEOs.

 

[openrob]

The thing is, half of OT posters would be in jail quicker than you can say 'but I was in the right!'.

I'm not from the US, and I only have a partial understanding of what it is like there, but I see certain types in the extreme left turning full totalitarian given half a chance, and would be so self assured about their moral right to do so.

Point is, having freedom means having to wrestle with those you disagree with. Are some people ignorant and factually wrong - yes. Are some people impeding on the freedom of others - definitely. Just be careful that in your effort to work through that you don't start advocating for the thing that you said you were against.

 

[cromofo]

People, especially liberals, wanting the government to have more power baffles me.

Naive as hell.

 

[Cybit]

Get out. This had nothing to do with hate speech. The site was banned for calls to violence against LEOs.

Except in the US, there are definitely flat out calls for violence against US police officers in the more extreme FB groups / sites online. Hell, I've seen them on this forum. It's messed up, and it's wrong, but it doesn't get the site shut down and the people involved arrested. That's why I use that example - because everyone knows places where people get riled up and say really, really stupid shit. You don't throw people in jail and break it up using anti-association laws - because that would have been absolutely applied to groups here that are generally supported by many of the people advocating for hate speech laws.

 

[TedNindo]

Who defines what hate speech is?

Who are minorities? Does that include sexual orientation, race, any form of disabilities, beliefs, ideologies and religions?

Is a hurtful fact against any of these groups considered hate speech? If at a certain point in the future for instance science uncovers a fact that this minority cant swallow and is hurtful to them. Could that fact be considered hate speech? At what point can hard criticism be considered hate speech? And who are we to trust to decide these things?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The biggest problem with this thread is the premise is too far out. Obviously people shouldn't be imprisoned for just speaking. It almost feels like OP is trolling by even putting that out there.

In the more realistic context of many being opposed to there being any consequences for more extreme hate speech like advocating for the extermination of races, and ignoring how that functions as incitement to violence (e.g. Charlottesville), it's understandable that some people would like there to be some consequences for that, or a more tangible deterrent than the honor system. However, in America racial hatred alone is not only not illegal, but integral in maintaining order and the status quo. Combine that with a corrupted justice system and majority apathy and you're pretty much SOL.

Only thing we can legally do is clean up afterward.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This is such a laughably terrible idea. Who runs the current government? What do you think they would do with this kind of power?

 

[Karkador]

The biggest problem with this thread is the premise is too far out. Obviously people shouldn't be imprisoned for just speaking. It almost feels like OP is trolling by even putting that out there.

Some people are suggesting fines, but that's effectively as much of a violation of the first amendment as jail time.

In the more realistic context of many being opposed to there being any consequences for more extreme hate speech like advocating for the extermination of races, and ignoring how that functions as incitement to violence (e.g. Charlottesville), it's understandable that some people would like there to be some consequences for that, or a more tangible deterrent than the honor system. However, in America racial hatred alone is not only not illegal, but integral in maintaining order and the status quo. Combine that with a corrupted justice system and majority apathy and you're pretty much SOL.

Only thing we can legally do is clean up afterward.

I think people could make the argument that certain kinds of hate speech (which you can catch in recordings at Charlottesville, most certainly) are 'fighting words'. And that's already been deemed unprotected by the 1A.

But like you said, if the justice system is also corrupt and racist, then nothing's gonna get done even with the strongest hate speech laws possible. It was already illegal for those lynchers in the parking garage at Charlottesville to do what they were doing. Are they in jail yet?

 

[dcll]

Racism/ignorance is not exclusive to whites, it exists in all races and locations

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Some people are suggesting fines, but that's effectively as much of a violation of the first amendment as jail time.



I think people could make the argument that certain kinds of hate speech (which you can catch in recordings at Charlottesville, most certainly) are 'fighting words'. And that's already been deemed unprotected by the 1A.

But like you said, if the justice system is also corrupt and racist, then nothing's gonna get done even with the strongest hate speech laws possible. It was already illegal for those lynchers in the parking garage at Charlottesville to do what they were doing. Are they in jail yet?

I believe one was arrested and that the Charlottesville PD declined extradition of a second one identified and living in either Illinois or Indiana.

 

[Audioboxer]

Are atheists minorities?
Would it be hate speech when religious people insulin me?

People in Malaysia would say so I guess http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1417256

In a more satirical take I guess you could say non-believers are still a minority in America too

The Pew Religious Landscape survey reported that as of 2014, 22.8% of the U.S. population is religiously unaffiliated, atheists made up 3.1% and agnostics made up 4% of the U.S. population. The 2014 General Social Survey reported that 21% of Americans had no religion with 3% being atheist and 5% being agnostic.

Of course, no one will take you "seriously" if you suggest an atheist is a minority in America, irrespective of the stats. It's a case of handle your emotions and feelings like an adult and be tolerant enough of anti-science and anti-reason as it's diversity of thought. I mean, it is, and no, I don't want people jailed for believing in/saying things I find idiotic to science and reason. I don't want Christians jailed for literal interpretations of the Bible, as repugnant as I think they are. We know Christianity and Catholicism are mostly fair game in most Western countries though, as they can't carry the "minority" tag. What's that thanks to?.... Years of freedom of speech/expression. We can criticise, satirise and ridicule. Although, I needn't say more than many within religions think that is hate speech itself. Cue the on-going arguments about what is hate speech when it comes to religions, rather than just accepting personal beliefs and ideas will be challenged/spoken about. Sometimes in offensive ways, but, that's life, and if it isn't a threat or incitement you need to be an adult and engage with your own speech or walk away/disengage if angry/emotional.

The battle of ideas when it comes to personal beliefs and views has to be fought/challenged with resisting/challenging speech. If you begin to try and criminalise speech at a Governmental level, such as a jail sentence, you're effectively saying you can't be bothered putting in the needed and constant effort to challenge shitty ideas with better ones. Just put the idiots, bigots and problematic speakers in jail, that'll teach them (and cost us taxpayers money to boot!). Unless it's incitement to violence or physically harmful and oppressive manifestations of someone's beliefs, most societies function best if a Government doesn't have wide spread reach to prosecute and arrest over speech. It's the height of good intentions getting met with a hacksaw of implementation. The battle of ideas has always required a scalpel knives precision since mankind could communicate. Private entities, firms, spaces and things like social media have always been able to obligate you adhere to terms and conditions and so on. That's fine. Banning/barring/firing can happen for speech in life outside of the Government being involved.

Bigotry, hate and racism hasn't ceased to exist in Europe just because Governments dash to introduce more and more speech codes/laws they can go after people for. It's primarily a tribalistic problem, as well as educational, and learnt, and it will be as long as humanity walks on earth. We have to fight it wisely, and understand it will never be eradicated, merely suppressed/challenged/resisted. Just remember the more powers and laws given to Governments doesn't always correlate to everything being peachy. As I posted on the previous page just look at what the UK Government is getting up to around privacy, speech and expression. A right wing UK government. It needn't be pointed out for the umpteenth time in democracies in Europe/West political parties of all leanings can be elected. America actually has the strongest protection into the foreseeable future from a Government being able to trash a citizens individual rights to expression. You might think all that matters in the world is the years of 1 to 90+ of your life, but anything up to 100 years is a drop in the ocean. Humans and civilization will be around for long after you're dead.

So many Americans seem to hate the 1st amendment but at times I think some are cutting off the nose to spite the face. Just remember those Malaysians referenced at the start of this post would probably be overjoyed to have a 1st amendment. Then also remember as I said the world doesn't begin and end with you being born and dying. Time will tell how the societies end up that continue to go after more and more speech laws and codes. We already have many examples of said countries in the world, but of course, your country and your favourite political party could never get it wrong. Just keep legislating more and introducing more bills and surely eventually all the bad speech will go away? I'm not convinced, and as the premise of this topic started at the level of prison, I'm really not convinced with that suggestion.

Edit: For a stupid example of a UK hate crime sentence which could result in a year of jail look up Nazi pug guy. The person is a moron and deserves whatever social ire and criticism comes with making the YouTube video (that is still live - "M8 yer dug is a nazi"), but jail? No. Waste of money and the height of crazy. Dumb jokes and satire should be challenged and spoken about, not criminalised. Unless there is serious incitement. Being offended shouldn't just lead to someone being put in prison. That's how it goes in some countries... Yeah, we criticise said countries, which are usually dictatorships and insanely hostile to free expression.

 

[kazinova]

Btw love that you reduce bigotry and hate speech to just “things I don’t like”

I did that purposefully. To emphasize that until someone has violated another person's rights, that's all it is. Something I don't like.

I also don't like when people spend too much time video games. Or drink too much soda. I'm not passing a law for it. Until they harm another with their actions they get the all clear from me.

And, yes, hate speech can cross that line. But we have laws for when that happens and don't need another vague hard to define one on top of existing legislation.

 

[Cybit]

As excelsior laid out earlier, many of us don't like the idea because we are pretty sure it would be applied pretty poorly anywhere, including the US.

As always, I will leave it to popehat to state far better my philosophy on this

First, you censorious Guardians of Feels on the Left: if you thought that the norms you created wouldn't be used against your "own side," you're fools. It is apparently your theory that the law is sexist, racist, and every other -ist, driven by privilege and wealth, and that free speech norms serve to protect rich white guys — yet somehow exceptions to free speech norm will be imposed in an egalitarian, progressive way. That is almost indescribably moronic. Go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.

https://www.popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/

 

[excelsiorlef]

I did that purposefully. To emphasize that until someone has violated another person's rights, that's all it is. Something I don't like.

I also don't like when people spend too much time video games. Or drink too much soda. I'm not passing a law for it. Until they harm another with their actions they get the all clear from me.

And, yes, hate speech can cross that line. But we have laws for when that happens and don't need another vague hard to define one on top of existing legislation.

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

 

[legacyzero]

Fun uses of hate speech laws in Europe in recent memory]

Holy shit. Yep, I feel much better on my stance seeing that crap. This is exactly why we should just leave it as is.

 

[Muffin1611]

and the best one, because everyone likes to use Germany as the shining beacon example



There are no groups in the US that would have had at least a few members say that on the internet, right? None at all.

Your Germany example is way off. The site had instructions to make explosives/weapons on it. To say that hate speech was the factor for taking it down is false, no specific reason was cited. There were several.

 

[Angelus Errare]

No.

 

[Eylos]

This was in front of the house of a black lawyer house today:

"Black, communist, antifa, voodoo Priest.
We are watching you"

Yeah, hate speech shouldnt be allowed is my view.

 

[Ecto311]

lol no. Hell no.

first off, rigidly defining what "hate speech" would even be on paper is a really difficult thing to do. I can imagine the criteria either being unusefully rigid or dangerously loose.

then there's asking what this would even solve...true racists are already aware that their message, in its rawest form, is not tolerated. They're already roundabout enough to be tolerated, at least on paper. Even unorganized racists are smart enough not to be openly racist and hateful in public, seeing as it's social media and corporate suicide.

That's not even including the possibility for corruption or abuse of the law....black people get gunned down on camera, with the video playback on the television news, and nobody gets justice, Tomi Lahren recently tried to spin the Black Panthers as a terrorist organization, kneeling Kapernick is considered an unpatriotic son of a bitch that gets blackballed by one of America's biggest corporations, yet violent neo-nazis are basically condoned by our current president

And lets not forget how Black Lives Matter has been twisted and ridiculed by the media.


This is a terrible idea, it'd either be worthless at best, or actively counterproductive or detrimental at worse.

maybe in some idealized world this would work. but the concept is just way too shortsighted to have a chance in hell of doing what you'd actually expect it to.

This post has it right. At least to me. The most recent Rogan podcast has Dave Smith on and he basically said all this to some extent. There should be no prison for any type of speech and just the idea of it is insane. What if it is said sarcastically? Who decides what is and isn't "hate" and how would you even begin to set up terms for uses of that speech? Also what constitutes a minority? Numbers on charts somewhere? Just blanket "not white" people? This would be such a clusterfuck it is too hard to even consider let alone put into action.

Also what about where that speech is said? If it is online how do you know the intent behind it? Reading text can come off a ton of different ways. If it is in person then what? What if it's said around friends about a close minority friend and to the general public it is hateful but to that person it is a joke and they all get it and are comfortable.

And let's say you do jail people for this - then what? Jail them forever 1984 style and just hope the hate goes away? Edit those words and usage out of the dictionary? Fine people into poverty because they said a thing? I understand that speech today can get you in trouble but to officially put limits on any form of it is 100% nutty.

 

[Mutant]

Hate speech laws didn't stop the alt-right from prospering in Europe, it didn't stop Brexit from happening.

 

[entremet]

Instead of doing something about racists... we should just do nothing.

This incredible overreaction to laws that exist in just about every other first world country amuse me greatly.

Like something that functions pretty much in most first world countries to little issue is the most terrifying thing you’ve ever read.

Laws don’t win hearts and minds. And many posters already mentioned that lack of effectiveness of current hate speech laws in the U.K., Canada, and Germany.

Yes, bigotry needs to be eradicated, but I don’t know if legal means are the best way to do this. They are poor tools for that.

 

[Clefargle]

I think once you make a "call to action", or incite people to hurt/kill any person or specific group of people, you've crossed a line that should be enforced. People that say this shit and then act like they can't be held accountable when others in their movement or not carry out acts of violence against minority groups. There is a direct line between the vitriol these hatemongers spew and the action taken by their followers. I think it should be improsonable but I'd like to err on the side of caution and protecting satire, so I'd like to draw the line at a call to violence/ threats. There is a fine line between legitimate effigy and mock lynchings that people carry out. It's a little grey, but calls for genocide and death to ethnic/political minorities shouldn't be tolerated. Intolerance shouldn't be tolerated, and if you can't see how that works, you're being willfully ignorant.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Holy shit. Yep, I feel much better on my stance seeing that crap. This is exactly why we should just leave it as is.

See this I love. Want me to pull up examples of how ACA failed a few people and claim this is why we need to repeal it? Or how about the occasional violent protest to argue why protesters are terrorists or something.

All laws get misused at some point.

Again oppose laws on the grounds of the uniquely effectiveness of the GOP but don't start looking at a handful of examples to disparage what other countries have done with their laws. It is not a good thing that the US can't handle hate speech laws.

And let's say you do jail people for this - then what? Jail them forever 1984 style and just hope the hate goes away? Edit those words and usage out of the dictionary? Fine people into poverty because they said a thing? I understand that speech today can get you in trouble but to officially put limits on any form of it is 100% nutty.

Y'all seriously need to stop perverting Orwell

Laws don’t win hearts and minds. And many posters already mentioned that lack of effectiveness of current hate speech laws in the U.K., Canada, and Germany.

Yes, bigotry needs to be eradicated, but I don’t know if legal means are the best way to do this. They are poor tools for that.

Murder laws haven't stopped murder from happening either sooo...

It's not about eradication

 

[Cybit]

Your Germany example is way off. The site had instructions to make explosives/weapons on it. To say that hate speech was the factor for taking it down is false, no specific reason was cited. There were several.

Changed the example - the "making the Turkish leader angry with a poem" one is a pretty good one too.

See this I love. Want me to pull up examples of how ACA failed a few people and claim this is why we need to repeal it? Or how about the occasional violent protest to argue why protesters are terrorists or something.

All laws get misused at some point.

Again oppose laws on the grounds of the uniquely effectiveness of the GOP but don't start looking at a handful of examples to disparage what other countries have done with their laws. It is not a good thing that the US can't handle hate speech laws.

Y'all seriously need to stop perverting Orwell

Murder laws haven't stopped murder from happening either sooo...

It's not about eradication

The issue is that people think Europe is "handling" it, when the far right is basically on the warpath everywhere in Europe. Everyone is being pushed to the right, and no amount of "hate speech" laws have changed a damn thing. I mean, there's a super interesting subcurrent running through this thread, which is that racism against Arabs/Muslims is 100% ok and doesn't count as "issues" when it comes to deciding how Europe's hate speech laws are working, but that's another whole conversation.

It just doesn't appear to us because we don't live there, and they isn't a huge fight going on over there bringing every issue to the forefront. I think people forget that just because something appears more in the news doesn't mean that it is happening more often. Think of Chicago - no one hears about Chicago not because it got better, but that it became old hat.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Every man should be able to call any other man an asshole without governmental consequence.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Changed the example - the "making the Turkish leader angry with a poem" one is a pretty good one too.



The issue is that people think Europe is "handling" it, when the far right is basically on the warpath everywhere in Europe. Everyone is being pushed to the right, and no amount of "hate speech" laws have changed a damn thing. I mean, there's a super interesting subcurrent running through this thread, which is that racism against Arabs/Muslims is 100% ok and doesn't count as "issues" when it comes to deciding how Europe's hate speech laws are working, but that's another whole conversation.

It just doesn't appear to us because we don't live there, and they isn't a huge fight going on over there bringing every issue to the forefront. I think people forget that just because something appears more in the news doesn't mean that it is happening more often. Think of Chicago - no one hears about Chicago not because it got better, but that it became old hat.

And Canada where I live?

Also if far right is on a war parth in Europe what do you call what's happening in the US?

 

[Autoignition]

The fuck? No.

How are you supposed to teach history if you can't use the words associated with it?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Every man should be able to call any other man an asshole without governmental consequence.

Hate speech is far more than calling someone an asshole.

Please don't trivialize like this.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Hate speech is far more than calling someone an asshole.

Please don't trivialize like this.

My post was to imply you should be able to call anyone anything and the government take no action.

Threats are a separate matter.

 

[NomarTyme]

Fuck no.

 

[excelsiorlef]

My post was to imply you should be able to call anyone anything and the government take no action.

Threats are a separate matter.

Then why did you open up with comparing hate speech to being no different than calling someone an asshole.

 

[legacyzero]

See this I love. Want me to pull up examples of how ACA failed a few people and claim this is why we need to repeal it? Or how about the occasional violent protest to argue why protesters are terrorists or something.

All laws get misused at some point.

Again oppose laws on the grounds of the uniquely effectiveness of the GOP but don't start looking at a handful of examples to disparage what other countries have done with their laws. It is not a good thing that the US can't handle hate speech laws.

What a strange false equivalence. We get it, you aren't for hate speech neither are we. None of that is the point. If you want to struggle in delivering your point with loose comparisons, I'll play ball.

I don't believe in the death penalty because even just one person being innocent and being put to death in horrible to me. And there's a shocking amount of cases where hat was proven. No person she be viewed as guilty before proven innocent in a rape case just so the accuser can feel more comfortable in their accusation, while not bearing the burden of proof. Again, a shocking number of that has happened.

And I've seen you post stuff like that. Defending dumb and imperfect laws or processes with "All laws get misused at some point". I'm sorry- but this argument is so WEAK, and serves only to harm you more than help. You're literally saying that you're ok with people being subjected to bullshit nuanced interpretation of upholding the law, as long as the law protects a certain few groups.

I'm just not sure where the moral ground in that argument is located.

 

[Arkage]

Hate speech is far more than calling someone an asshole.

Please don't trivialize like this.

I didn't know you had personal claim over a globally agreed upon, clearly understood definition of "hate speech." Guess we all just need to get with your program.

So many of these posts remind of the level of discourse that was found in my freshman ethics class back in the day. Poorly thought out and poorly defined platitudes, mixed with a large dose of emotional reasoning. Ugh.

 

[rjinaz]

Probably not jail, no. There could certainly be levels depending on severity and number of offenses. Things like community service at a first offense would be A OK in my book.
My idea of freedom isn't being able to incite or direct hate on others. I've never said hate speech in my life and yet somehow I feel free. It's slippery slope nonsense people use to justify this shit. "I believe in freedom and you won't take away my rights!" I'd be fine with the approach many other countries have taken with hate speech to great success. Is it perfect? No. But then neither is having children living in a country where grown people can say they want them dead because they were born with the wrong skin.