3 ms·

Sure but the definition of anything is subject to interpretation/context/intent etc. If you dealt only in absolutes it would be impossible to have any laws at a

by retube 10y ago

Sure but the definition of anything is subject to interpretation/context/intent etc. If you dealt only in absolutes it would be impossible to have any laws at all. Even defining something like "murder" has plenty of room for grey areas. But still I hope we agree that having a "no murder" law is probably desirable in society.

talmand 10y ago
Ok, no definition then. That's fine. The point I'm making is that once you've opened the door to banning speech on completely subjective topics that a subset of the group gets to decide, then things will go bad. But murder is a hugely different subject than something so abstract as "hate speech". I can define murder, I ask one to define hate speech. There is definite evidence of harm when it comes to murder, a person has been deprived of life by another. I fail to see how "hate speech" itself deprives anyone of anything nor causes real harm. Of course, incitement to violence due to speech is a potential problem, but that's already covered by existing laws.
- retube 10y ago
  Dude - abuse based on ethnicity, religion, disability etc can have a devastating impact on people, particularly the young. It can lead to social division, discrimination & violence. So absolutely it can a negative impact, not just on one persons' mental state, but wider society. It might not be as bad as murder, but still have horrendous consequences. You say you can define "murder" - but that's my whole point: I can also define, and enshrine in law, something called "hate speech". Both definitions will be subject to interpretation, intent, mitigating circumstances etc, and it will be for the court and jury to thrash out whether an incident should be classed as "murder" or "hate speech". Of course some incidences may be clear cut. Lots won't be.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Ok, then I'll ask again, please define "hate speech". To add to this based on your response, please define "hate speech" in the same easily understood definition of "murder". I'm not saying that hate speech does not have a negative impact on people, of course it does. It's why people discuss trying to outlaw it in the first place. I'm simply saying that it's such a subjective topic that there is no way to accurately to define it, therefore the attempt to solve the problem will only make the problem worse. Never mind the fact that people with nefarious intentions will seize on the highly subjective language of the law to make use of it for themselves.

by retube 10y ago

talmand 10y ago

Ok, no definition then. That's fine. The point I'm making is that once you've opened the door to banning speech on completely subjective topics that a subset of the group gets to decide, then things will go bad. But murder is a hugely different subject than something so abstract as "hate speech". I can define murder, I ask one to define hate speech. There is definite evidence of harm when it comes to murder, a person has been deprived of life by another. I fail to see how "hate speech" itself deprives anyone of anything nor causes real harm. Of course, incitement to violence due to speech is a potential problem, but that's already covered by existing laws.

retube 10y ago
Dude - abuse based on ethnicity, religion, disability etc can have a devastating impact on people, particularly the young. It can lead to social division, discrimination & violence. So absolutely it can a negative impact, not just on one persons' mental state, but wider society. It might not be as bad as murder, but still have horrendous consequences. You say you can define "murder" - but that's my whole point: I can also define, and enshrine in law, something called "hate speech". Both definitions will be subject to interpretation, intent, mitigating circumstances etc, and it will be for the court and jury to thrash out whether an incident should be classed as "murder" or "hate speech". Of course some incidences may be clear cut. Lots won't be.
- talmand 10y ago
  Ok, then I'll ask again, please define "hate speech". To add to this based on your response, please define "hate speech" in the same easily understood definition of "murder". I'm not saying that hate speech does not have a negative impact on people, of course it does. It's why people discuss trying to outlaw it in the first place. I'm simply saying that it's such a subjective topic that there is no way to accurately to define it, therefore the attempt to solve the problem will only make the problem worse. Never mind the fact that people with nefarious intentions will seize on the highly subjective language of the law to make use of it for themselves.