5 ms·

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

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.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? You're making this into a slippery slope when it need not be. The parent commenter didn't say anything about mean things, they were talking about hate speech.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    The difference being that the definition of "hate speech" is a slippery slope, closely connected with the euphemism treadmill. The difference being, usually the euphemism treadmill doesn't have any legislative import... Examples off the top of my head: the demonization of "illegal" when in reference to people who cross the border without the right to do so. The willful conflation of "Muslim" as a race rather than a religion.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Why exactly is it a slippery slope? I admit that it can be made as such, but why must it necessarily be? A legislature or person can define hate speech in such a way that it is not a slippery slope in my opinion, and I think that's what should be done.
DuskStar 9y ago
My problem with hate speech bans always comes down to two things: 1. Who decides what is hate speech? 2. In 1800, would describing all slaveowners as "immoral, godless abominations" and calling for the destruction of their property and livelihoods have been hate speech? If not, why?
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Who decides In the context of a country, a judge or the people elected to represent the people do. This is often touted as some kind of immense showstopper to restricting speech, when really, it's not. The same people who decide what rights you have also decide what things you can say in public. >In 1800, would describing all slaveowners as "immoral, godless abominations" and calling for the destruction of their property and livelihoods have been hate speech? Perhaps, I don't know the law of the time. Were there hate speech laws at the time? If so, then it probably qualified as hate speech, if those laws included such statements. Restricting speech is not necessarily a slippery slope (though it has potential to be one); the old argument of "who decides what is hate speech?" is a tired one with a relatively simple answer.
emodendroket 9y ago
But what does it look like in practice? All the sudden you have a cudgel to shut down all sorts of controversial statements by relating them to hate speech. I doubt the UN had jailing an Indonesian politician for claiming the Koran doesn't forbid voting for a non-Muslim in mind when it passed its resolution, and yet that's how it was used.
psyc 9y ago
I would take this up a level of abstraction. I don't believe that the law should be considered the ultimate means toward shaping human behavior to the liking of minorities, majorities, interest groups or what have you. That would be oppressive. Rather it should be considered an expedient way of maintaining a minimal standard of order and societal functioning.
PKop 9y ago
How is it defined? Who defines it? You? Your friends? Your political opponents? The government? Corporations? Speech is not violence or actions. They should not be conflated. Incitement of violence should be treated as such. "Hate" speech can never be well defined. I can hate things. I can hate ideas. And the when I speak about them, you can tar me with hate speech to shut me down. This is antithetical to a free society, the foundation of what the United States was built upon, and generally the modern "western" philosophy. People should be free to speak their mind. If others disagree, or find what they're saying offensive, then they can choose to not associate with these people.
jlarocco 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. The problem of racism "on the street" (and most other places, really) is almost always more subtle than blatant hate speech. Besides violating free speech, hate speech laws don't help with the cultural root causes of racism.
- BenjiWiebe 9y ago
  I agree. I just finished reading the book Black Like Me and the author pointed out that a lot of racist people would politely and graciously tell him that no, he could not use that outhouse/fountain/restaurant/ticket counter there.
Goladus 9y ago
> Honestly, things like being racist to someone on the street shouldn't be allowed in any country Going to point out that your language is ambiguous. What does "being racist" actually mean in the context of what you think should be disallowed? It's an important question, because odds are very good that if you think through a real example of what you think ought to be criminal, there's a good chance there's already some other law that's already being broken, such as harassment. Of course, one consequence of this is that the censorious types have been diluting the term "harassment" to mean "anything anyone says that makes me feel uncomfortable." (Twitter is rife with this ridiculousness). But I digress. The fact is, harassment laws exist to protect people against the abuse of speech in public places, and there's no need for any particular special groups to have protection. Here's some sample language: He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
krapp 9y ago
>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. The greater evil in this case is using the state's monopoly on violence to enforce what should be a norm of civil society.

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.
ue_ 9y ago
>With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? You're making this into a slippery slope when it need not be. The parent commenter didn't say anything about mean things, they were talking about hate speech.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  The difference being that the definition of "hate speech" is a slippery slope, closely connected with the euphemism treadmill. The difference being, usually the euphemism treadmill doesn't have any legislative import... Examples off the top of my head: the demonization of "illegal" when in reference to people who cross the border without the right to do so. The willful conflation of "Muslim" as a race rather than a religion.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Why exactly is it a slippery slope? I admit that it can be made as such, but why must it necessarily be? A legislature or person can define hate speech in such a way that it is not a slippery slope in my opinion, and I think that's what should be done.

DuskStar 9y ago

My problem with hate speech bans always comes down to two things: 1. Who decides what is hate speech? 2. In 1800, would describing all slaveowners as "immoral, godless abominations" and calling for the destruction of their property and livelihoods have been hate speech? If not, why?

ue_ 9y ago
>Who decides In the context of a country, a judge or the people elected to represent the people do. This is often touted as some kind of immense showstopper to restricting speech, when really, it's not. The same people who decide what rights you have also decide what things you can say in public. >In 1800, would describing all slaveowners as "immoral, godless abominations" and calling for the destruction of their property and livelihoods have been hate speech? Perhaps, I don't know the law of the time. Were there hate speech laws at the time? If so, then it probably qualified as hate speech, if those laws included such statements. Restricting speech is not necessarily a slippery slope (though it has potential to be one); the old argument of "who decides what is hate speech?" is a tired one with a relatively simple answer.

emodendroket 9y ago

But what does it look like in practice? All the sudden you have a cudgel to shut down all sorts of controversial statements by relating them to hate speech. I doubt the UN had jailing an Indonesian politician for claiming the Koran doesn't forbid voting for a non-Muslim in mind when it passed its resolution, and yet that's how it was used.

psyc 9y ago

I would take this up a level of abstraction. I don't believe that the law should be considered the ultimate means toward shaping human behavior to the liking of minorities, majorities, interest groups or what have you. That would be oppressive. Rather it should be considered an expedient way of maintaining a minimal standard of order and societal functioning.

PKop 9y ago

How is it defined? Who defines it? You? Your friends? Your political opponents? The government? Corporations? Speech is not violence or actions. They should not be conflated. Incitement of violence should be treated as such. "Hate" speech can never be well defined. I can hate things. I can hate ideas. And the when I speak about them, you can tar me with hate speech to shut me down. This is antithetical to a free society, the foundation of what the United States was built upon, and generally the modern "western" philosophy. People should be free to speak their mind. If others disagree, or find what they're saying offensive, then they can choose to not associate with these people.

jlarocco 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. The problem of racism "on the street" (and most other places, really) is almost always more subtle than blatant hate speech. Besides violating free speech, hate speech laws don't help with the cultural root causes of racism.

BenjiWiebe 9y ago
I agree. I just finished reading the book Black Like Me and the author pointed out that a lot of racist people would politely and graciously tell him that no, he could not use that outhouse/fountain/restaurant/ticket counter there.

Goladus 9y ago

> Honestly, things like being racist to someone on the street shouldn't be allowed in any country Going to point out that your language is ambiguous. What does "being racist" actually mean in the context of what you think should be disallowed? It's an important question, because odds are very good that if you think through a real example of what you think ought to be criminal, there's a good chance there's already some other law that's already being broken, such as harassment. Of course, one consequence of this is that the censorious types have been diluting the term "harassment" to mean "anything anyone says that makes me feel uncomfortable." (Twitter is rife with this ridiculousness). But I digress. The fact is, harassment laws exist to protect people against the abuse of speech in public places, and there's no need for any particular special groups to have protection. Here's some sample language: He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

krapp 9y ago

>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. The greater evil in this case is using the state's monopoly on violence to enforce what should be a norm of civil society.