5 ms·

I feel the same way about hate speech laws. Edit: I'm glad this is a popular opinion. 31 upvotes within 12 minutes.

guelo 9y ago
The law of the land in the US is that the only speech that can be restricted is speech that poses an "imminent danger". You are allowed to communicate the most vile bigoted ideas as long as you are not inciting people to commit violence.
pat2man 9y ago
Are there many places in the US with hate speech laws?
- randyrand 9y ago
  AFAIK about the US, no. The UK though is an example.
  - boost_ 9y ago
    also Canada, which soon will also consider mis gendering as hate speech.
    - vkou 9y ago
      If they could only do the same to weasel-wording and stating falsehoods on the internet... Too bad they, uh, aren't. [1] [1] http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/ http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...
      - jquery 9y ago
        Did you read your own article? "Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures)."
        vkou 9y ago
        Yes, I did. And I understand it in the context of two things - discrimination and hate crimes. Deliberately, consistently, and maliciously misgendering someone is discrimination. Doing so while punching them in the face, or calling for the death of all trans-gender people is a hate crime. The fact that this was added to both discrimination, and hate crime statues is a non-brainer.
      - gragas 9y ago
        Making it illegal to say something that's false is ridiculous. That is a very, very bad idea.
      - boost_ 9y ago
        >If they could only do the same to weasel-wording and stating falsehoods on the internet... and thank god they can't, at least not for now. i can still say any bullshit i want on the internet, as is my right. from your own article: >Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun nice precedent >Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them. oh ok, no jail time, but i'm forced to hire someone that identifies as an attack helicopter, great! >So what does this mean for pronoun misuse? Well, refusing to use a person’s self identified pronoun is not going to be considered advocating genocide – unless the refusal to use the pronouns was accompanied by actually advocating genocide against trans and gender non-binary folks. so its fine unless i promote genocide, kinda makes sense but its still a slippery slope imo >Similarly, it’s hard to see the refusal to use the appropriate pronoun –without something else – rising to the threshold of hate speech. Hate speech laws in Canada have only been used- and only can be used – against extreme forms of speech – explicitly and extreme forms of homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist speech. so pronoun misuse is still legal, unless it gets to "extreme", whatever that means. and who decides what "extreme" is? >Moreover, prosecution needs the approval of the Attorney General. so in the end the attorney general decides..
    - ue_ 9y ago
      >soon will also consider mis gendering as hate speech. I think it should be up to the individual case; deliberate misgendering can cause significant psychological trauma and distress, especially if in multiple occurrence.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  They're unconstitutional.
  - Retric 9y ago
    There are some exceptions. EX: If your inciting violence then that's not protected speech.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      We're talking about hate speech laws.
      - bluehazed 9y ago
        Hate speech can, in many circumstances, have the potential to incite violence.
        Karunamon 9y ago
        All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  I don't know about any US place with real hate-speech laws. In fact, in a lot of places it even seems to be legal to run around in Nazi uniforms (complete with Hakenkreuz and everything). Meanwhile, Facebook and TV stations censor nipples and four-letter words. Can someone explain this double morals to me?
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    There's no double morality - the balance of "who decides what can be said" is mostly taken away from government and given to the people. It's legal for Facebook to say what it wants, and it's legal for Facebook to never say anything that it doesn't want to be said. It's legal to make your own Facebook with nipples, four-letter words, blackjack and hookers; and it's legal for Facebook to forbid any posts containing letter x if they so choose.
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      > It's legal to make your own Facebook with nipples, four-letter words, blackjack and hookers; AFAIK it's not - youth protection regulation gone wild is enshrined in law at least for TV stations and I'm sure that if FB wouldn't fear angry mothers with "uuuuuh buuuh my 16-year-old-boy saw a naked boob on FB" they wouldn't give a damn about boobs.
  - sbuttgereit 9y ago
    Facebook & TV are private endeavors in which participation on the part of both parties is voluntary: they provide a service because they choose to and people consume that service because they choose to. Either party may opt out and seek alternative means of accomplishing their relative goals... right or wrong. If Facebook's community doesn't suit me I can find one that does. If Facebook doesn't like the service they're offering, they can change it. Hate speech laws would be involuntary. You could not opt out and there would be a threat of force if you should fail to behave as demanded. Worse still... who gets to define what "hate speech" is and when the use of force gets called in?
  - agmcleod 9y ago
- Davidp00 9y ago
  Wikipedia - hate speech laws by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws_b... US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
- woofyman 9y ago
  No
- cmurf 9y ago
  A disjointed approximate is "fighting words doctrine". Assuming you survive punching someone for clearly being threatening, a prosecutor is unlikely to charge you with assault, i.e. the loud mouth had it coming.
  - burkaman 9y ago
    The fighting words doctrine has been repeatedly weakened by the Supreme Court and doesn't really work anymore: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/ https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-wo... The original case that created it, Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, would seem outrageous if it were upheld today.
codefined 9y ago
I feel hate speech is an offense against free speech, but I still don't think it should be allowed. Honestly, things like being racist to someone on the street shouldn't be allowed in any country. I guess it just comes down to the lesser of two evils.
- boost_ 9y ago
  and who says what is or isn't hate speech? cant you see the problem with these laws?
  - ue_ 9y ago
    The government, or the state in general decides. Whether the laws are problematic or not depends on someone's personal view. You view them as problematic, the parent commenter probably views them as unproblematic.
- randyrand 9y ago
  With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? That seems to be where this would be going.
  - BenjiWiebe 9y ago
    Personally I wouldn't have a problem with criminalizing saying mean things, as long as the penalty was reasonably. Utopia...
    - randyrand 9y ago
      People wouldn't be able to vent their emotions. Lots of 'fake happiness'. Sounds like torture to me.. Honestly this would make a great movie - a society where being mean is outlawed.
      - jtuente 9y ago
        There's an episode of Black Mirror that protrays something akin to it, season 3 episode 1, somewhat like China's citizenship score.
AbrahamParangi 9y ago
While I struggle to empathize with the sorts of folks negatively impacted by hate speech laws, making speech of any sort illegal seems dangerously close to criminalizing certain ideas or thoughts.
- eridius 9y ago
  Hate speech isn't just ideas or thoughts. It's an incitement to violence, it's horrifically bad for the mental health of people subjected to it, and it acts as a form of discrimination against those people.
  - psyc 9y ago
    Hate speech is a broader category than incitement to violence.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbro 9y ago
    The problem is who do you trust enough to endow them with authority to decide whether something is hate or free speech? I'd probably draw the line at a limit number of items (e.g. 5 or 10 or 100 specifically named items, I believe similar to Germany). If the government decides something new is important enough to be regulated, they must decide whether it's important enough to replace one of the previous items.
    - tdb7893 9y ago
      We trust the same people we trust with everything else, judges. The legal system is a nuanced mess and the reason we have judges is while some of it is black and white some of it is in a sort of gray area. We would give them guidelines and through an analysis of the language of the law and current precedent they would make a ruling. It's not a perfect system but often it's better to have an imperfect system than none at all.
  - NikolaeVarius 9y ago
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
I agree with you. Keep in mind that the U.S. is on an extreme end of the free-speech spectrum. (This may spring from, in part, our sense of individuality [1].) [1] http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/Individualism-Collectivism-2.jpg http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/Individualism-...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cryptarch 9y ago
  How do you define "extreme end"? The US isn't doing great in the Press Freedom Index[0]. Norway, or my home country the Netherlands, would IMO be much better examples of "extreme freedom of speech". I'd say the US is strong on this point, but not at the extremes. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
  - sigstoat 9y ago
    > The US isn't doing great in the Press Freedom Index... "... which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure" that's not the same thing as speech, in the US at least.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Why wouldn't independence and self-censorship apply? Free press as a concept is irrelevant if you never say anything controversial or are a de-facto arm of the government.
      - jtuente 9y ago
        Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are enumerated separately by the First Amendment.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
Banthum 9y ago
"Hate speech" is basically a remixed word for blasphemy anyway.
adamredwoods 9y ago
Where do we draw the line? When the Westboro Church protests funerals, we allow it, even though it dramatically upsets the mourners.
- gragas 9y ago
  We don't draw the line. Anything goes, as long as you're only speaking or writing. It's called "free speech" because anyone is free to say anything.
  - blamarvt 9y ago
    There are absolutely lines to draw between exercising your right to free speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      The line is at "will someone die in the next 5 minutes directly because of my speech". Anything else is allowed.
ctdonath 9y ago
The right to free speech wasn't intended to protect "love speech". Popular speech doesn't need protecting; unpopular (often rhetorically construed as "hate") speech does.
- drewrv 9y ago
  Hate speech has a pretty strict definition that goes far beyond "unpopular".
- ue_ 9y ago
  > unpopular (often rhetorically construed as "hate") speech does. Why?
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    Why only protect popular speech? The whole point of "right to free speech" is that one may earnestly believe something that another may earnestly take offense to; the state shouldn't be able to punish someone for saying something another simply doesn't like (say, "abortion is murder" which may understandably offend someone who had an abortion and be construe the comment as "hate speech").
ced 9y ago
Most of us have never been on the receiving end of mass hatred, though. Those laws came on the heels of WWII which was, to put it mildly, terrible to a certain hated group of people.
odiroot 9y ago
Tell it to Germany population. It's crazy how much censorship is assumed to be normal and commonly accepted in here.

The law of the land in the US is that the only speech that can be restricted is speech that poses an "imminent danger". You are allowed to communicate the most vile bigoted ideas as long as you are not inciting people to commit violence.

pat2man 9y ago

Are there many places in the US with hate speech laws?

randyrand 9y ago
AFAIK about the US, no. The UK though is an example.
- boost_ 9y ago
  also Canada, which soon will also consider mis gendering as hate speech.
  - vkou 9y ago
    If they could only do the same to weasel-wording and stating falsehoods on the internet... Too bad they, uh, aren't. [1] [1] http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/ http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...
    - jquery 9y ago
      Did you read your own article? "Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures)."
      - vkou 9y ago
        Yes, I did. And I understand it in the context of two things - discrimination and hate crimes. Deliberately, consistently, and maliciously misgendering someone is discrimination. Doing so while punching them in the face, or calling for the death of all trans-gender people is a hate crime. The fact that this was added to both discrimination, and hate crime statues is a non-brainer.
    - gragas 9y ago
      Making it illegal to say something that's false is ridiculous. That is a very, very bad idea.
    - boost_ 9y ago
      >If they could only do the same to weasel-wording and stating falsehoods on the internet... and thank god they can't, at least not for now. i can still say any bullshit i want on the internet, as is my right. from your own article: >Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun nice precedent >Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them. oh ok, no jail time, but i'm forced to hire someone that identifies as an attack helicopter, great! >So what does this mean for pronoun misuse? Well, refusing to use a person’s self identified pronoun is not going to be considered advocating genocide – unless the refusal to use the pronouns was accompanied by actually advocating genocide against trans and gender non-binary folks. so its fine unless i promote genocide, kinda makes sense but its still a slippery slope imo >Similarly, it’s hard to see the refusal to use the appropriate pronoun –without something else – rising to the threshold of hate speech. Hate speech laws in Canada have only been used- and only can be used – against extreme forms of speech – explicitly and extreme forms of homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist speech. so pronoun misuse is still legal, unless it gets to "extreme", whatever that means. and who decides what "extreme" is? >Moreover, prosecution needs the approval of the Attorney General. so in the end the attorney general decides..
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >soon will also consider mis gendering as hate speech. I think it should be up to the individual case; deliberate misgendering can cause significant psychological trauma and distress, especially if in multiple occurrence.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
They're unconstitutional.
- Retric 9y ago
  There are some exceptions. EX: If your inciting violence then that's not protected speech.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    We're talking about hate speech laws.
    - bluehazed 9y ago
      Hate speech can, in many circumstances, have the potential to incite violence.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
mschuster91 9y ago
I don't know about any US place with real hate-speech laws. In fact, in a lot of places it even seems to be legal to run around in Nazi uniforms (complete with Hakenkreuz and everything). Meanwhile, Facebook and TV stations censor nipples and four-letter words. Can someone explain this double morals to me?
- PeterisP 9y ago
  There's no double morality - the balance of "who decides what can be said" is mostly taken away from government and given to the people. It's legal for Facebook to say what it wants, and it's legal for Facebook to never say anything that it doesn't want to be said. It's legal to make your own Facebook with nipples, four-letter words, blackjack and hookers; and it's legal for Facebook to forbid any posts containing letter x if they so choose.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > It's legal to make your own Facebook with nipples, four-letter words, blackjack and hookers; AFAIK it's not - youth protection regulation gone wild is enshrined in law at least for TV stations and I'm sure that if FB wouldn't fear angry mothers with "uuuuuh buuuh my 16-year-old-boy saw a naked boob on FB" they wouldn't give a damn about boobs.
- sbuttgereit 9y ago
  Facebook & TV are private endeavors in which participation on the part of both parties is voluntary: they provide a service because they choose to and people consume that service because they choose to. Either party may opt out and seek alternative means of accomplishing their relative goals... right or wrong. If Facebook's community doesn't suit me I can find one that does. If Facebook doesn't like the service they're offering, they can change it. Hate speech laws would be involuntary. You could not opt out and there would be a threat of force if you should fail to behave as demanded. Worse still... who gets to define what "hate speech" is and when the use of force gets called in?
- agmcleod 9y ago
Davidp00 9y ago
Wikipedia - hate speech laws by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws_b... US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
woofyman 9y ago
No
cmurf 9y ago
A disjointed approximate is "fighting words doctrine". Assuming you survive punching someone for clearly being threatening, a prosecutor is unlikely to charge you with assault, i.e. the loud mouth had it coming.
- burkaman 9y ago
  The fighting words doctrine has been repeatedly weakened by the Supreme Court and doesn't really work anymore: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/ https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-wo... The original case that created it, Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, would seem outrageous if it were upheld today.

codefined 9y ago

I feel hate speech is an offense against free speech, but I still don't think it should be allowed. Honestly, things like being racist to someone on the street shouldn't be allowed in any country. I guess it just comes down to the lesser of two evils.

boost_ 9y ago
and who says what is or isn't hate speech? cant you see the problem with these laws?
- ue_ 9y ago
  The government, or the state in general decides. Whether the laws are problematic or not depends on someone's personal view. You view them as problematic, the parent commenter probably views them as unproblematic.
randyrand 9y ago
With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? That seems to be where this would be going.
- BenjiWiebe 9y ago
  Personally I wouldn't have a problem with criminalizing saying mean things, as long as the penalty was reasonably. Utopia...
  - randyrand 9y ago
    People wouldn't be able to vent their emotions. Lots of 'fake happiness'. Sounds like torture to me.. Honestly this would make a great movie - a society where being mean is outlawed.
    - jtuente 9y ago
      There's an episode of Black Mirror that protrays something akin to it, season 3 episode 1, somewhat like China's citizenship score.

AbrahamParangi 9y ago

While I struggle to empathize with the sorts of folks negatively impacted by hate speech laws, making speech of any sort illegal seems dangerously close to criminalizing certain ideas or thoughts.

eridius 9y ago
Hate speech isn't just ideas or thoughts. It's an incitement to violence, it's horrifically bad for the mental health of people subjected to it, and it acts as a form of discrimination against those people.
- psyc 9y ago
  Hate speech is a broader category than incitement to violence.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbro 9y ago
  The problem is who do you trust enough to endow them with authority to decide whether something is hate or free speech? I'd probably draw the line at a limit number of items (e.g. 5 or 10 or 100 specifically named items, I believe similar to Germany). If the government decides something new is important enough to be regulated, they must decide whether it's important enough to replace one of the previous items.
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    We trust the same people we trust with everything else, judges. The legal system is a nuanced mess and the reason we have judges is while some of it is black and white some of it is in a sort of gray area. We would give them guidelines and through an analysis of the language of the law and current precedent they would make a ruling. It's not a perfect system but often it's better to have an imperfect system than none at all.
- NikolaeVarius 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

I agree with you. Keep in mind that the U.S. is on an extreme end of the free-speech spectrum. (This may spring from, in part, our sense of individuality [1].) [1] http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/Individualism-Collectivism-2.jpg http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/Individualism-...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cryptarch 9y ago
How do you define "extreme end"? The US isn't doing great in the Press Freedom Index[0]. Norway, or my home country the Netherlands, would IMO be much better examples of "extreme freedom of speech". I'd say the US is strong on this point, but not at the extremes. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > The US isn't doing great in the Press Freedom Index... "... which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure" that's not the same thing as speech, in the US at least.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Why wouldn't independence and self-censorship apply? Free press as a concept is irrelevant if you never say anything controversial or are a de-facto arm of the government.
    - jtuente 9y ago
      Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are enumerated separately by the First Amendment.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago

Banthum 9y ago

"Hate speech" is basically a remixed word for blasphemy anyway.

adamredwoods 9y ago

Where do we draw the line? When the Westboro Church protests funerals, we allow it, even though it dramatically upsets the mourners.

gragas 9y ago
We don't draw the line. Anything goes, as long as you're only speaking or writing. It's called "free speech" because anyone is free to say anything.
- blamarvt 9y ago
  There are absolutely lines to draw between exercising your right to free speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    The line is at "will someone die in the next 5 minutes directly because of my speech". Anything else is allowed.

ctdonath 9y ago

The right to free speech wasn't intended to protect "love speech". Popular speech doesn't need protecting; unpopular (often rhetorically construed as "hate") speech does.

drewrv 9y ago
Hate speech has a pretty strict definition that goes far beyond "unpopular".
ue_ 9y ago
> unpopular (often rhetorically construed as "hate") speech does. Why?
- ctdonath 9y ago
  Why only protect popular speech? The whole point of "right to free speech" is that one may earnestly believe something that another may earnestly take offense to; the state shouldn't be able to punish someone for saying something another simply doesn't like (say, "abortion is murder" which may understandably offend someone who had an abortion and be construe the comment as "hate speech").

ced 9y ago

Most of us have never been on the receiving end of mass hatred, though. Those laws came on the heels of WWII which was, to put it mildly, terrible to a certain hated group of people.

odiroot 9y ago

Tell it to Germany population. It's crazy how much censorship is assumed to be normal and commonly accepted in here.