Do You Favor Hate Speech Laws?

I didn't vote. One, because I dislike "yes" or "no" responses.

Two, because it's damned peculiar how the board's resident scold on all things freedom-related believes how one votes should be disclosed and subject to public review.

you eat coffee beans by the fistful right out of the bag, don't you...

CassandraW said:

What I am attempting to do is to show how you could abuse the law, using the wording that is already in the law, without lying or inventing any facts.

If you were a corrupt official or regime that was trying to eliminate enemies or troublesome people, it would be a lot neater if you had vague laws already in place that you can point to in order to justify your actions than if you have to put new ones in place, or lie about facts.

How neat to dispose of a troublesome dissenter by saying he violated the hate speech law -- and to have the language of the law allow it.

Click to expand...

I get the idea and I am not disputing that, I am just curious from a writerly point of view how to do it (if it was a thriller). I'm sure it could be done, though I maintain you'd have to fabricate some sort of link between statement and ethnicity, or you haven't proven the statement was made by reason of his ethnicity, which is a requirement.

William Haskins said:

you eat coffee beans by the fistful right out of the bag, don't you...

Click to expand...

No. I don't.

I've worked the night shift for over 20 years and never so much as sniffed a coffee bean, never mind consume one.

What does any of that have to do with favoring or disfavoring hate speech laws?

Flicka said:

I get the idea and I am not disputing that, I am just curious from a writerly point of view how to do it (if it was a thriller). I'm sure it could be done, though I maintain you'd have to fabricate some sort of link between statement and ethnicity, or you haven't proven the statement was made by reason of his ethnicity, which is a requirement.

Click to expand...

If you said "white cops are racist assholes who are abusing black men", the race of the cops is in an inherent element of the statement. It's not just cops -- it's specifically white cops.

But I only used the cop example because of Ferguson/Garner/etc. If you prefer, since this is all theoretical, we could say that the offending statement was "white people are privileged racist assholes who are stepping on the rights of black people." And the crowd yelled "yeah! Privileged assholes! They're stepping on our rights and we've got to stop them!"

You don't think someone could argue that the communication incited hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their race?

nighttimer said:

No. I don't.

I've worked the night shift for over 20 years and never so much as sniffed a coffee bean, never mind consume one.

What does any of that have to do with favoring or disfavoring hate speech laws?

Click to expand...

everything, nt.

everything.

CassandraW said:

If you said "white cops are racist assholes who are abusing black men", the race of the cops is in an inherent element of the statement. It's not just cops -- it's specifically white cops.

But I only used the cop example because of Ferguson/Garner/etc. If you prefer, since this is all theoretical, we could say that the offending statement was "white people are privileged racist assholes who are stepping on the rights of black people." And the crowd yelled "yeah! Privileged assholes! They're stepping on our rights and we've got to stop them!"

You don't think someone could argue that the communication incited hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their race?

Click to expand...

If he said "white people are racist assholes" I would certainly think you've got it covered. There's a mention of ethnicity and an insulting statement that includes all people of that ethnicity. Clear cut case from the wording of the law, I should think, though it probably wasn't intended to be included.

That is exactly what I find to be problematic about the wording of most such laws: that you too often would have to twist yourself to interpret them in a way that wouldn't include something the lawmaker probably didn't intend to include. Maybe you manage and you get the narrower result the lawmaker wanted, but it's dishonest because you aren't really applying the law impartially, which is problematic even when the government isn't being nefarious.

Flicka said:

If he said "white people are racist assholes" I would certainly think you've got it covered. There's a mention of ethnicity and an insulting statement that includes all people of that ethnicity. Clear cut case from the wording of the law, I should think, though it probably wasn't intended to be included.

That is exactly what I find to be problematic about the wording of most such laws: that you too often would have to twist yourself to interpret them in a way that wouldn't include something the lawmaker probably didn't intend to include. Maybe you manage and you get the narrower result the lawmaker wanted, but it's dishonest because you aren't really applying the law impartially, which is problematic even when the government isn't being nefarious.

Click to expand...

I agree.

And now we've got that resolved, I might possibly be able to go out on my date and not type surreptitiously under the table throughout dinner. Maybe. Don't anyone say anything interesting in the next half hour or so.

Xelebes said:

Well, no. Read the last line.

Click to expand...

Right, and that's why I'm still against such laws...they're too flawed and open to interpretation.

Don said:

"Yes or no" questions eliminate ambiguity. Some people hate that.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, but then I'm not "some people." I also dislike "yes or no" questions because while they eliminate ambiguity, they enforce compliance and lock the respondent into an answer that may not fully encompass the complexity of the question.

You only pose a "yes or no" question when you want "yes or no" answer. There's no point for any subsequent debate except for explanation, clarification, or pontification.

Don said:

Freedom of action without corresponding responsibility for one's actions is an invitation for the abuse of freedom, IMO. I feel roughly the same way about opinions, particularly in this case. Opinions don't count for much with me if one is unwilling to own and defend them.

Click to expand...

That's not a problem I've ever encountered. What I'm unwilling to do is play ball.

Don said:

You certainly have the freedom not to participate in the poll, however, a freedom I see you're choosing to exercise and one which I heartily defend.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I guess.

nighttimer said:

I didn't vote. One, because I dislike "yes" or "no" responses.

Click to expand...

Seconded.

Two, because it doesn't ask "where".

I'm not wholly opposed to hate speech laws, but I don't think we should have them in the US, because it doesn't fit our cultural identity. I think hate speech laws might work perfectly well for other countries, particularly those that are more culturally homogenous. I'm not philosophically opposed to the idea. Different laws work better for different peoples.

Incidentally, that is exactly the same way I feel about gun bans.

nighttimer said:

it's damned peculiar how the board's resident scold on all things freedom-related believes how one votes should be disclosed and subject to public review.

Click to expand...

He does have a point, here, actually, Don? I was rather surprised to look at the voting and see the names displayed. It's your right to select that option, for a poll, of course, just as it's ours not to vote in it.

In America, just as in most (all?) of Europe you don't have unfettered "free speech". Try going into a packed cinema and screaming "Fire!" or standing on your soapbox in the local park and making a speech inciting racial hate-crimes. What you have is "free speech within the law".

kuwisdelu said:

I'm not wholly opposed to hate speech laws, but I don't think we should have them in the US, because it doesn't fit our cultural identity. I think hate speech laws might work perfectly well for other countries, particularly those that are more culturally homogenous.

Click to expand...

How so?

I don't have a problem with having my vote recorded publicly (or with being in the minority with it). Certain hate speech laws in Europe make a lot of sense to me and from what I've seen, applied in a extremely limited set of circumstances. (though some of the prosecutions were silly as well)

So as posed, with a simple yes or no, I voted yes.

asroc said:

How so?

Click to expand...

Different cultures have different value systems. In the US, freedom of speech is considered important enough it's enshrined in the First Amendment. In other countries, freedom of speech might not be valued so highly, and if the society is more homogenous, there might be less need for hate speech to be protected, and a greater need to protect minority groups.

Hate speech laws seem to work perfectly fine for many of the countries that have them, and their citizens are defending their existence in this thread, which I assume would not be the case if they didn't work for them.

kuwisdelu said:

Different cultures have different value systems. In the US, freedom of speech is considered important enough it's enshrined in the First Amendment. In other countries, freedom of speech might not be valued so highly, and if the society is more homogenous, there might be less need for hate speech to be protected, and a greater need to protect minority groups.

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is also enshrined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the European Convention of Human Rights, as well the constitutions of many countries, including Canada, Sweden, Germany and France.
I find it odd to put such a provision into your constitution only to add "except for this, this, this and all this other stuff we don't want to hear." And leave room for more.

I believe hate speech should be especially protected in homogenous societies with vulnerable minorities. Who decides what "hate speech" is? Why would hate speech only protect the minority from the majority? Neither the creation nor the interpretation of laws is always done with good intentions.

I'm heartened that there are so few 'yes' votes. I can only dream that the ratio was representative of the American electorate.

Don, I think you really need to define "hate speech" in the first post, since it means such different things in different countries. For instance, from the other threads, I've got the feeling that what you in America call hate speech just means pretty offensive speech: and that what we in Australia call "hate speech" and have sanctions against, you in America call "prohibited speech" and also have sanctions against.

If that clears things up.

ETA: Voting from my (non-American) perspective, with my (non-American) understanding of the meaning of the words "hate speech"- ie: should there be laws against inciting acts of violence based on things like race, gender or religion - I voted yes. After all, we've just seen what happens when an unhinged "religious leader" calls for the murder of cartoonists and journalists for reasons peculiar to a very small number of people. No amount of reasoned discussion protected the Hebdo writers.

Something about this topic makes me want to shriek bad and forbidden words. Yeah right, like y'all don't.

Don said:

"Yes or no" questions eliminate ambiguity. Some people hate that.
.

Click to expand...

That's because life would be intellectually dull without ambiguity. In fact, ambiguity is probably almost as essential to a healthy life as oxygen and water. Without it, probably PC&E wouldn't even exist.

mccardey said:

and that what we in Australia call "hate speech" and have sanctions against, you in America call "prohibited speech" and also have sanctions against.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that your hate speech laws are more restrictive. In the U.S., direct incitements to violence (e.g., "Go burn that mosque!") are prohibited, but spouting hateful things, even indirect calls for violence, are not.

I voted no, which is my default position unless the details of such legislation are offered. Then again, I feel about keeping free speech the way a lot of Americans feel about keeping guns.

asroc said:

I find it odd to put such a provision into your constitution only to add "except for this, this, this and all this other stuff we don't want to hear." And leave room for more.

Click to expand...

Yet even the U.S. does exactly that.

Amadan said:

My understanding is that your hate speech laws are more restrictive. In the U.S., direct incitements to violence (e.g., "Go burn that mosque!") are prohibited, but spouting hateful things, even indirect calls for violence, are not.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that you're right about that. Can you cite your source?