4 ms·

apparently, one of the crimes Amos Yee was convicted of in Singapore involved making disparaging remarks about both Muslims and Christians. and that sort of spe

apparently, one of the crimes Amos Yee was convicted of in Singapore involved making disparaging remarks about both Muslims and Christians. and that sort of speech can actually be a crime in Singapore (as it can in the EU). so, after the US granted him asylum, some in the SG government noted that there are plenty of other people in the world who are making these kinds of illegal "hate speech" statements who ought to also be granted asylum in the US. as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?). fascinating.

ajdlinux 10y ago
Singapore and Malaysia have a history of quite significant race riots during the 1960s - some of my family members (who weren't rioters) ended up on the wrong end of a tear gas cannon in Kuala Lumpur during that time. It's not entirely surprising, given Singapore's rather paternalistic political philosophy, that the government feels that strong racial/ethnic vilification laws are an appropriate way of responding to the threat of public disorder. I'm not convinced the Singaporean approach is consistent with the freedom of speech and in particular freedom of political communication rights that I value so much, but I can certainly understand how they got to where they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  While I agree with your assessment, one could argue that the restriction of hateful or disparaging speech creates incorrect and harmful stereotypes that can lead to harm, whether it be in the form of street violence or democratic demagoguery. And one could then extrapolate that such permissiveness in speech, even if it directly or indirectly leads to harm, could spill over into damage and instability to society as a whole, particularly to those who were neither a part of the class of those using hateful speech, nor those who were on the receiving end. To me, it appears to be a reasonable tradeoff. Such like how in America the second amendment permits private firearm ownership, but federal law justifiably bans private ownership of automatic weapons, military grade explosives, and so on.
adventured 10y ago
> as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?). There isn't anything to think of it in that sense. Other nations / cultures are free to establish whatever they decide are their rules around speech and so to is the US. There isn't more to it than that: the US is one of the strongest defenders when it comes to speech and has been for centuries. I can say things about Trump any time I please (the Internet is of course overflowing with the nastiest possible things directed at Trump, every insult possible), that would get people arrested in the majority of nations on the planet if directed at their leader/s. That principle has made the US stronger rather than weaker. If your 'democracy' is so fragile that it can't allow for an insult toward its leadership, well, good luck, you're not going to last long. In the US you can create rap videos, pretend-murdering the President. You can create fantasy documentaries simulating murdering the President. I find those things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king every day of the week.
- johansch 10y ago
  I totally agree with the point you're making but I do want to make it clear this is also (mostly) the case all over the "western world", for instance. (it varies slightly country-by-country.)
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  > I find those things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king every day of the week. I think you're talking about something different than I'm talking about. I was talking about saying hateful or insulting things about other people in society, not politicians and public figures. Even to me it's clear that public figures in the US should have to bear a lot of criticism and ridicule in the name of preserving a free and open debate about political topics. But, OTOH, even democracies like France make certain kinds of offensive, bigoted or anti-Muslim speech prosecutable crimes. That was the difference I was trying to focus on. As an American, it's clear to me that the freedom to criticize, ridicule, condemn the government, politicians and other public figures is critical to maintaining a democratic process. But, at the same time, it's not necessarily as clear to me that being able to insult my fellow citizen's religion or ethnicity is. In other words, I'm not prepared to say that France is not a true democracy because of that.
kobeya 10y ago
Was it "hate speech" it freedom of religious view? Serious question because the article doesn't go into enough detail.

ajdlinux 10y ago

Singapore and Malaysia have a history of quite significant race riots during the 1960s - some of my family members (who weren't rioters) ended up on the wrong end of a tear gas cannon in Kuala Lumpur during that time. It's not entirely surprising, given Singapore's rather paternalistic political philosophy, that the government feels that strong racial/ethnic vilification laws are an appropriate way of responding to the threat of public disorder. I'm not convinced the Singaporean approach is consistent with the freedom of speech and in particular freedom of political communication rights that I value so much, but I can certainly understand how they got to where they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
While I agree with your assessment, one could argue that the restriction of hateful or disparaging speech creates incorrect and harmful stereotypes that can lead to harm, whether it be in the form of street violence or democratic demagoguery. And one could then extrapolate that such permissiveness in speech, even if it directly or indirectly leads to harm, could spill over into damage and instability to society as a whole, particularly to those who were neither a part of the class of those using hateful speech, nor those who were on the receiving end. To me, it appears to be a reasonable tradeoff. Such like how in America the second amendment permits private firearm ownership, but federal law justifiably bans private ownership of automatic weapons, military grade explosives, and so on.

adventured 10y ago

> as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?). There isn't anything to think of it in that sense. Other nations / cultures are free to establish whatever they decide are their rules around speech and so to is the US. There isn't more to it than that: the US is one of the strongest defenders when it comes to speech and has been for centuries. I can say things about Trump any time I please (the Internet is of course overflowing with the nastiest possible things directed at Trump, every insult possible), that would get people arrested in the majority of nations on the planet if directed at their leader/s. That principle has made the US stronger rather than weaker. If your 'democracy' is so fragile that it can't allow for an insult toward its leadership, well, good luck, you're not going to last long. In the US you can create rap videos, pretend-murdering the President. You can create fantasy documentaries simulating murdering the President. I find those things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king every day of the week.

johansch 10y ago
I totally agree with the point you're making but I do want to make it clear this is also (mostly) the case all over the "western world", for instance. (it varies slightly country-by-country.)
HillaryBriss 10y ago
> I find those things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king every day of the week. I think you're talking about something different than I'm talking about. I was talking about saying hateful or insulting things about other people in society, not politicians and public figures. Even to me it's clear that public figures in the US should have to bear a lot of criticism and ridicule in the name of preserving a free and open debate about political topics. But, OTOH, even democracies like France make certain kinds of offensive, bigoted or anti-Muslim speech prosecutable crimes. That was the difference I was trying to focus on. As an American, it's clear to me that the freedom to criticize, ridicule, condemn the government, politicians and other public figures is critical to maintaining a democratic process. But, at the same time, it's not necessarily as clear to me that being able to insult my fellow citizen's religion or ethnicity is. In other words, I'm not prepared to say that France is not a true democracy because of that.

kobeya 10y ago

Was it "hate speech" it freedom of religious view? Serious question because the article doesn't go into enough detail.