ChainedMaster
Banned
Looking at the kind of things people get persecuted for in the UK due to speech, no thanks.
Absolutely. Why wouldn't they?
-
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
Looking at the kind of things people get persecuted for in the UK due to speech, no thanks.
Absolutely. Why wouldn't they?
Stone Ocean
Member
I happen to live in one of those countries. Nothing I say is micromanaged.
It's really beautiful, specially considering that it leads to nothing bad like Trump being president and literal Nazi rallies.
Nice, thanks for jumping to conclusions and taking what I said out of context to fit your agenda. All I said is Americans have the right to say what we want without being micromanaged.
Which are?
Rejecting tolerance doesn't mean making intolerance illegal. It means not bringing people like Jeffery lord on CNN every day.A tolerant society needs to reject intolerance.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
It's already the case, and Free Speech means you cannot be censured. As far as i'm concerned, forbidding hate speech, defamation and insults is not censorship.
KernelPanic
Member
That's more of a discussion on how hate speech laws are written and enforced.
Just because someone has a twisted version of it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
There's a difference between society and government though. As a society, we should absolutely reject intolerance. The question is should government be allowed to punish those who spread intolerance, and that is a much trickier question.A tolerant society needs to reject intolerance.
ChainedMaster
Banned
See the post I quoted in that same post.
Which demonstrates that if you give the government power to limit speech, they will. It's imminent. They should not have the power to restrict offensive rhetoric. You give them that power and it's only a matter of time that they extend it. As I've been saying, it wouldn't solve anything to begin with.
The odds of perverting the law and the dangers thereof are vital aspects of evaluating a proposed law.
Kind of obvious really
Again the right to say what they want aka a right for a racist to spew racist shit at minorities. A right for a bigot to spew homophobic rants at people.
No agenda, if you are saying people have a right to say anything then that includee racist/ bigots etc being able to treat people like shit.
Do you have a two party system where the leader of the party in power has equated neo-nazis and those protesting them? Do you have state and local governments making "blue lives matter" laws because they got so angry black people were protesting being killed by police? Did your President say that there were nice people at a white supremacist gathering and call a peaceful black protester a son of a bitch for not acting right during the national anthem?
Yeah. America is fucking different.
ScatheZombie
Member
You definitely do not want this.
Our government almost consistently swings from left to right every 8 or so years. And you guys don't seem to realize that the powers you give liberal-leaning legislatures can be, and often is, easily abused by the conservatives. You might think this sounds like a good idea, one that everyone should, in theory, be able to get behind, like it should be obvious what is and isn't hate speech and who is and isn't a minority. But you're wrong. It's not even a slippery slope. You give any conservative the legal power to limit speech - especially imprisonment for 'reprehensible' speech and ya'll motherfuckers will be the ones in jail.
Because they think everything that comes out of your mouth is morally, ethically, and inherently reprehensible. And they consider themselves an embattled minority, with their supposed morals, religion, ethics, and ideology under constant 'attack' - regardless of whether or not that's actually true in reality.
EDIT: Also, LOL Europeans once again acting like they don't have racism.
Our government almost consistently swings from left to right every 8 or so years. And you guys don't seem to realize that the powers you give liberal-leaning legislatures can be, and often is, easily abused by the conservatives. You might think this sounds like a good idea, one that everyone should, in theory, be able to get behind, like it should be obvious what is and isn't hate speech and who is and isn't a minority. But you're wrong. It's not even a slippery slope. You give any conservative the legal power to limit speech - especially imprisonment for 'reprehensible' speech and ya'll motherfuckers will be the ones in jail.
Because they think everything that comes out of your mouth is morally, ethically, and inherently reprehensible. And they consider themselves an embattled minority, with their supposed morals, religion, ethics, and ideology under constant 'attack' - regardless of whether or not that's actually true in reality.
EDIT: Also, LOL Europeans once again acting like they don't have racism.
Bolivar687
Banned
Its certainly a slippery slope but I believe the U.S. should probably take a closer look at criminal culpability for incitement to violence. If otherwise "peaceful" demonstrations result in personal injury or property damage which would not have occurred but for the demonstration, it's principals potentially should be held accountable if there's a significant enough nexus.
ChainedMaster
Banned
Violent threats are illegal, though. Violent rhetoric isn't.
Romars202129
Member
Hell no. Wth is the matter with you thinking this is a good idea.
I don't care how bad racists are, being arrested for words is tyranical no matter how pure your intentions.
I don't care how bad racists are, being arrested for words is tyranical no matter how pure your intentions.
legacyzero
Banned
Because right now, a hate group leads the country, and that hate group says that minorities shouldn't protest.
I imagine the UK is more compatible with it in a way. Here in America, if you give somebody an inch, they'll take a lightyear. Sure, maybe hate speech would be blocked. But I'm not sure I want a republican to define hate speech either. Because then I'd be fucked as a Progressive Atheist who wants "THE GAYS!" to have rights, a woman to have control making choices for her own body, Transgender people to not be harrassed, that "christian" bakery to make that fucking cake for that gay couple, etc etc.
But I'll play devils advocate for a second too. In a culture that wants safe spaces and protection against "micro-aggression", There may be some folks on the left who shouldn't be able to dictate what hate speech is either.
So I really see setting this kind of precedent as potentially more harmful to minorities than words can ever be.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Should aspects of free speech be illegal? Should we stuff prisons with these "offenders" and thus radicalize these people even more?
No.
No.
plagiarize
Banned
No. But getting punched for it should be legal.
I never said anything about if the government would change up the rules to hurt minorities. I get why people would be worried if people like Trump are the ones doing the rules. All I am saying is hate speech needs to be stopped some how in the US. You can't keep on relying on minorities having to step up to combat it the whole time.
No. It should not be a jailable offense.
That doesnt mean ignore the signs if something criminal is going on. If someone makes a threat with genocide, or murdering minorities (or even non-minorities) it should be a jailable thing or at the very least there should be a very serious investigation.
If theyre just being assholes and / or want to claim superiority? Meh.
That doesnt mean ignore the signs if something criminal is going on. If someone makes a threat with genocide, or murdering minorities (or even non-minorities) it should be a jailable thing or at the very least there should be a very serious investigation.
If theyre just being assholes and / or want to claim superiority? Meh.
Do other countries hate speech laws even work? Germany is cited frequently in this thread but they have a massive amount of right-wing extremists and attacks. Just from this year
Neo nazis in the military:
After Arrests, Germany Confronts Issue Of Far-Right Extremism In Its Military,
http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...-issue-of-far-right-extremism-in-its-military
Neo nazis marching (way more people here than there was at Charlottesville):
http://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-marchers-in-berlin-matched-by-counterprotesters/a-40159169
Far right Violence on the rise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/world/europe/germany-crime-far-right.html?mcubz=1
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-far-right-violence-and-islamist-threat-on-the-rise/a-39534868
This are much more violent right wing attacks in Germany than they are in America, looking at this graph. Is Germany's approach working?
Neo nazis in the military:
After Arrests, Germany Confronts Issue Of Far-Right Extremism In Its Military,
http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...-issue-of-far-right-extremism-in-its-military
Neo nazis marching (way more people here than there was at Charlottesville):
http://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-marchers-in-berlin-matched-by-counterprotesters/a-40159169
Far right Violence on the rise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/world/europe/germany-crime-far-right.html?mcubz=1
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-far-right-violence-and-islamist-threat-on-the-rise/a-39534868
This are much more violent right wing attacks in Germany than they are in America, looking at this graph. Is Germany's approach working?
Rumblebones
Banned
I'd support imprisonment for certain types of hate speech such as rhe speech employed by leadership figures inciting hatred and violence.
Garden variety racists though, I want them banned from the electorate on a life time basis, banned from public office and service, banned from owning fire arms and mandatory enrolled into rehabilitation classes.
Garden variety racists though, I want them banned from the electorate on a life time basis, banned from public office and service, banned from owning fire arms and mandatory enrolled into rehabilitation classes.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It won't eradicate the problem AND it can be easily abused when your political opponents take power. It's the perfect far left policy proposal AKA "congratulations, you played yourself."
You'd think the election of Donald Trump and his group of cronies would teach us all a valuable lesson in being very certain in the powers we give the federal government.
KernelPanic
Member
Just about any law can be twisted to something other than it's original intent. Especially if it's poorly written.
And how does society(as a whole) reject something like intolerance if there are no laws to support it.
Lastgengamer
Member
Free Speech has enabled many positive changes in American history for minorities, like when it was used during the civil rights movement to bring great changes. That free speech wasn't free however, as many lost their lives trying to use that right.
Honestly though we just need to keep on shaming these hateful people back into the hole they've come from. Ask them if Jesus would've been so hateful, that worked for me in the past personally.
Honestly though we just need to keep on shaming these hateful people back into the hole they've come from. Ask them if Jesus would've been so hateful, that worked for me in the past personally.
There are laws.
What's discussed here is a particularly draconian, anti-liberal (small L) proposal. Curtailment of free speech via state sanctioned imprisonment when the speech isn't inciting violence or otherwise part of developing and conspiring to commit a crime is authoritarian, despite what any meme posts saying "muh (bastardized spellings of free speech)" want to claim.
It's pure fantasy anyway given First Amendment jurisprudence and American values on government regulation of expression.
I understand what you're saying. I didn't take into account how the US criminal justice system as well as the political apparatus are so staked against minorities, that such laws would more than likely still be used to fuck with PoC and other disenfranchised groups.
legacyzero
Banned
But that's not what the thread is about. And it's not just monorities who are standing against hate.
This thread is discussing that there should be law against hate speech, in a country governed by those who would do even more harm to minorities, and who DAMN sure shouldn't be defining hate speech at all.
Vicetrailia
Member
What's especially different about America is that it didn't go through a brutal home turf war where everyone was fighting. Here the majority are not targets and don't understand the lesson that most Europeans know. POC are targets but don't have the power.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Look at our current presidency and recent events.....
Like it's had on other places that're more progressive than the U.S.? It's basically fearmongering that the U.S. isn't mature enough to become more progressive.
legacyzero
Banned
Are you agreeing with me? It's confusing. I agree, the US SHOULD be more progressive. But it's NOT. It's not fearmongering at all. Are you blind? Do you not see who's leading the United States right now? Do you not see their actions? Don't be naive. I mean, you actually said the same thing in the same post.
And no. As long as minority/social issues take a backseat to everything else as a political issue in this country, no- it's not mature enough.
legacyzero
Banned
That's a strange question. I'm not sure "hate speech" from minority to minority is a thing that minorities are upset with. I mean, I have no data on that other than- it's just not something I've heard/read.
I think a better question would be- hate speech from minorities against majority.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Nope.
White people (of which I am one) will not cede power easily. You make a law criminalizing hate speech, get ready for every PoC who speaks up about white privilege to be arrested for hate speech against white people. Get ready for every member of BLM to get locked up for hate speech against white people. Get ready for a shitload of prisons to be built to hold all the extra brown people we now can legally imprison for speaking.
The entire purpose of this law and who its intended to help will shift rather quickly once white folks realize they can use it to benefit themselves.
White people (of which I am one) will not cede power easily. You make a law criminalizing hate speech, get ready for every PoC who speaks up about white privilege to be arrested for hate speech against white people. Get ready for every member of BLM to get locked up for hate speech against white people. Get ready for a shitload of prisons to be built to hold all the extra brown people we now can legally imprison for speaking.
The entire purpose of this law and who its intended to help will shift rather quickly once white folks realize they can use it to benefit themselves.
Audioboxer
Member
It's good intentions that end up in authoritarian practices. If you can be arrested for burning a Koran, can you be arrested for burning a Bible? I'd rather people didn't burn anything, but the whole point in discussing proposed bills/amendments to law is how will they work in every single testable situation imaginable? Speech laws inevitably either require wide sweeping bills/laws or end up using very generic language in order to allow Government flexibility.
The worst dictatorships/authoritarian regimes in the world have laws against all sorts of speech. From criticism to satire to dissent and is often the case, against the religion of Government choice being criticised/mocked. I'm not saying you go from 0 to 100 for simply trying to propose some speech laws, but even in Europe in the countries that are trying speech laws there is some really stupid examples of taxpayer money being wasted or resources being used to go after people who shouldn't be in prison.
As I pointed out in the post you quoted, the UK has been under a Conservative/right-wing Government for a while now, and look at the links I posted for other examples of expression/speech/privacy erosion. Governments love playing Big Brother and controlling the populations. Some protections against that are welcome.
Remember most of us live in democracies and even if you beg really hard, and say your prayers to your sky God, the general population can keep a right-wing Government in charge regardless of what you voted. Just ask us in the UK how long we've been trying to escape Tory reign now. The investigatory powers bill, let alone the porn bill, should have been shot down. Or shot down in their current form. Thanks to the Tories having a majority, boom, passed. It's my understanding the Republicans control a lot of American Government right now, so maybe that 1st amendment as flawed as it is, is a good thing as it stands to curb some of what they could do. Like it or not there are individuals in some countries that would be desperate for America's strident adherence to the 1st amendment/free speech and expression/satire/mockery/ridicule the Government cannot touch you for. It's an extreme example, and as I said you don't go from 0-100 overnight, but try asking people in Malaysia if they'd rather have America's speech laws. You'd like to think there is a middle between America and Malaysia, and of course, there is, but there are still arguments to be made against the Governments having more and more creeping powers/law over citizens speech.
People argue about speech laws/codes emotionally, and I get it, if we can stop the mean bad guy's let's do it now! Passing motions to change or reform some laws need to be thought about with the head, not the heart. It's a long game for the populations to come, not just an immediate shot for a band-aid to on-going social problems. Everywhere needs to have laws against incitement to violence/calls for violence, but where you go from there with speech has to be debated because it's not a simple emotional decision. Speech has consequences, such as being fired from work, barred from a club/event or discipline of some sorts. This topic is based around prison and Government legal action against you as a citizen, not private institutes exercising their rights to exclude/ban/bar you.
mortal
Gold Member
What you're citing is in reference to a published statement being considered slander. Which cannot be defined the same way from case to case, and is also dependent on whether that published statement is, in fact, true or not true.
As far as you're concerned?
So, you get to decide what can be considered hate speech on the grounds of being insulted. Which is arguably a subjective thing, depending on the parties in question and what is even said.
With that argument, most comedians are inciting hate speech since some people have felt personally insulted or found a joke offensive. Should they be forbidden to tell their jokes freely under the protection of the First Amendment?
That same argument can be used against you in the cases where you're making posts about a person, calling that person a Nazi or fascist, even though they aren't.
That's technically defamation, even more so you if cannot provide the proper evidence for such a claim.
That sounds like censorship. I'm honestly confused how you can even say that it's not.
No. I think South Africa handles it pretty well in theory - not in execution mind you. A prison sentence is only mandated if the person holds public office in government. Hate speech is defined as the publicly stated intent for fellow citizens to harm the liviliehoods or physical state of members of a sector of society. One is in breach of one's oath of office if one uses hate speech and depending on the veracity, liable to imprisonment.
George Washington
Member
No. Even if it were enacted, it wouldnt solve the fundamental problem.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
I assume the conversation about hate speech laws takes place in the context that we don't have a living cheeto in office.
Fighting words laws are dumb as hell. Laws that can be flexibly interpreted and enforced do not work out in favor of the disenfranchised, almost definitionaly.
excelsiorlef
Member
It shouldn't
Wasn't there just recently an event in Germany where a far left website was raided and shut down by the government? I think being able to censor hate speech even is a bad idea because it leads to other political opinions which aren't so mainstream being censored as well. But obviously it doesn't mean racists deserve a platform, that's a separate issue and one people can resolve outside government action.
m_shortpants
Member
I remember reading an interesting thought: that free speech was protected in the time of the founding fathers because dueling laws were still a thing, should someone be too excessive.
excelsiorlef
Member
legacyzero
Banned
But.... we do. And even if we don't, there are more calculating and worse people who could do just as bad or worse. If Trump gets impeached and removed, and we get Pence? Buckle up. At least Trump can barely get shit done. Other, more sane (dare I say) republicans could easily take office and clamp down hard on minorities.
Similar threads
- Locked