5 ms·

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

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
How does that argument not also apply to blasphemy laws?
- davidw 9y ago
  Blasphemy laws regard a victim that is not real.
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    You realize that in itself is hate speech right. You are denying my diety.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Blasphemy laws often frame the deed as (a) hurting the feelings of believers and/or (b) causing social unrest and/or (c) disturbing public order. You certainly can consider a very large set of potential victims - there are a lot of real people who get gravely offended by cases of blasphemy. Your statement that God isn't real is, in the eyes of such court, saying something clearly untrue that offends others and harms the social order. The existence and reality of God is an undisputed axiom in many legal systems - the court will rule that God is real, the legal acts will explicitly state that God is real, and it might even be enshrined in their constitution as a fact above all law. It's even plausible that the holy text e.g. Quran is the basis of all law there; there may be additional regulations but the core of law comes from God.
    - acqq 9y ago
      There's no "god" in the constitution. What states like Saudi Arabia or Iran do in their law should simply not be accepted. Even Turkey was officially secular until at least recently.
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        Which constitution? There's no "the" constitution, it's just as valid to say that there's no free speech in the constitution because, frankly, having free speech in constitution in just as rare as having god in constitution. I'd agree that it would be nice that if it was differently, but saying "shouldn't be accepted" is just like wishing for a pony, it has no connection to reality - we simply don't get a say in such matters, and I'd bet dollars to pennies that a magical totally fair democratic vote in those countries would prove that the average voter there definitely supports prohibiting blasphemy and restricting speech to do so. It's ridiculous to simply unilaterally declare that your moral system is more valid than someone else's, and forcing your constitution on some other place is just as reasonable as someone else wanting to replace your constitution with theirs.
- eridius 9y ago
  Blasphemy is not hate speech. It doesn't incite to violence, it's not bad for mental health, and it doesn't discriminate. It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them.
  - jquery 9y ago
    > It doesn't incite to violence Charlie Hebdo > it's not bad for mental health Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. > it doesn't discriminate Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. > It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them. Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. In the West we've largely decided that the benefits of free speech outweigh the costs.
    - eridius 9y ago
      > Charlie Hebdo That's not even remotely what "incitement to violence" means. > Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. People blaspheming is not generally believed to cause religious adherents to lose faith. And even if it did, losing faith is not generally considered to be harmful either. > It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. Citation please. I've never heard this argument before. And since you brought it up, I could just as easily say that losing religion can help cure mental issues. A classic example would be a gay person who has been brought up to believe that they're going to hell for being gay. Losing religion is probably the best thing that could happen to their mental health. > Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. "it doesn't discriminate" doesn't mean all religions are equally blasphemed, and I can't imagine what sort of confusion would lead you to think that made any sense. > Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. Wrong type of harm. You're talking about spreading ideas that people don't like. I'm talking about the very words themselves harming the victims.
theseatoms 9y ago
Direct and credible threats are the only exception to the first amendment's free speech clause that I'm aware of. So those are already covered.
- ssambros 9y ago
  Actual calls to violence are also covered. So "all liquor stores deserve to be burned!" is protected speech, but "let's go burn that liquor store now!" is not.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Thanks. IANAL, which I probably should've said up top.
ebfd 9y ago
No, they aren't. Statements such as "the majority of U.K. Muslims support the death penalty for apostates" or "the average IQ of indigenous populations differs from that of east-Asians" constitute hate speech (and are therefore illegal) in Canada, despite having nothing to do with violence.
jksmith 9y ago
What you just said hurts my feelings and makes me want to be violent. The greatest freedom is the freedom to be personally responsible. Laws that curtail speech generally are orthogonal to that freedom. Think about it.
- infinite8s 9y ago
  Says the person who's probably never been on the receiving end of hate speech.
randyrand 9y ago
I don't like the other responses to your comment. > It's an incitement to violence No, it's not. Otherwise, wouldn't that imply we should outlaw being mean altogether? Is being mean always an incitement for violence? Yes/No? I think it's clear, it's not. > it's horrifically bad for the mental health Citation needed. > as a form of discrimination against those people Again, no. Discrimination requires that it be 'unjust or prejudicial treatment', hate speech does not. Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race.
- blamarvt 9y ago
  > Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race. Part of the problem in this discussion seems to be that people have different definitions of 'hate speech'. That definition could be applicable to their country of origin or personal belief but it's pretty clear that definitions aren't even remotely compatible and it makes any sort of level-headed debate very difficult.
  - johnnyhillbilly 9y ago
    The real problem is that the concept of "hate speech" is nonsensical. It is a term created exactly to polarize debates and prevent rational discourse. Calmly explain that to any one that attempts to use the term - or ask them to clarify exactly what they mean. We must reject politically engineered attempts to ruin the public debate.
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  If someone is yelling "Kill all $racialslur" are they practicing hate speech yet? They are most certainly openly advocating violence against a specific group not just "being mean" Hate speech can indeed be quantified. Though definitions will vary (as with anything.)
  - shawndumas 9y ago
    So if a University Professor said, "$race people may need to die to achieve $goal" would that be free speech or hate speech?
eridius 9y ago
It's clear from the responses here and the downvotes that I'm receiving that a lot of you have never actually witnessed real hate speech, never seen what it does to people, never seen people killed by people who were inspired by hate speech.

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

How does that argument not also apply to blasphemy laws?

davidw 9y ago
Blasphemy laws regard a victim that is not real.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  You realize that in itself is hate speech right. You are denying my diety.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Blasphemy laws often frame the deed as (a) hurting the feelings of believers and/or (b) causing social unrest and/or (c) disturbing public order. You certainly can consider a very large set of potential victims - there are a lot of real people who get gravely offended by cases of blasphemy. Your statement that God isn't real is, in the eyes of such court, saying something clearly untrue that offends others and harms the social order. The existence and reality of God is an undisputed axiom in many legal systems - the court will rule that God is real, the legal acts will explicitly state that God is real, and it might even be enshrined in their constitution as a fact above all law. It's even plausible that the holy text e.g. Quran is the basis of all law there; there may be additional regulations but the core of law comes from God.
  - acqq 9y ago
    There's no "god" in the constitution. What states like Saudi Arabia or Iran do in their law should simply not be accepted. Even Turkey was officially secular until at least recently.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      Which constitution? There's no "the" constitution, it's just as valid to say that there's no free speech in the constitution because, frankly, having free speech in constitution in just as rare as having god in constitution. I'd agree that it would be nice that if it was differently, but saying "shouldn't be accepted" is just like wishing for a pony, it has no connection to reality - we simply don't get a say in such matters, and I'd bet dollars to pennies that a magical totally fair democratic vote in those countries would prove that the average voter there definitely supports prohibiting blasphemy and restricting speech to do so. It's ridiculous to simply unilaterally declare that your moral system is more valid than someone else's, and forcing your constitution on some other place is just as reasonable as someone else wanting to replace your constitution with theirs.
eridius 9y ago
Blasphemy is not hate speech. It doesn't incite to violence, it's not bad for mental health, and it doesn't discriminate. It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them.
- jquery 9y ago
  > It doesn't incite to violence Charlie Hebdo > it's not bad for mental health Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. > it doesn't discriminate Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. > It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them. Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. In the West we've largely decided that the benefits of free speech outweigh the costs.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > Charlie Hebdo That's not even remotely what "incitement to violence" means. > Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. People blaspheming is not generally believed to cause religious adherents to lose faith. And even if it did, losing faith is not generally considered to be harmful either. > It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. Citation please. I've never heard this argument before. And since you brought it up, I could just as easily say that losing religion can help cure mental issues. A classic example would be a gay person who has been brought up to believe that they're going to hell for being gay. Losing religion is probably the best thing that could happen to their mental health. > Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. "it doesn't discriminate" doesn't mean all religions are equally blasphemed, and I can't imagine what sort of confusion would lead you to think that made any sense. > Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. Wrong type of harm. You're talking about spreading ideas that people don't like. I'm talking about the very words themselves harming the victims.

theseatoms 9y ago

Direct and credible threats are the only exception to the first amendment's free speech clause that I'm aware of. So those are already covered.

ssambros 9y ago
Actual calls to violence are also covered. So "all liquor stores deserve to be burned!" is protected speech, but "let's go burn that liquor store now!" is not.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Thanks. IANAL, which I probably should've said up top.

ebfd 9y ago

No, they aren't. Statements such as "the majority of U.K. Muslims support the death penalty for apostates" or "the average IQ of indigenous populations differs from that of east-Asians" constitute hate speech (and are therefore illegal) in Canada, despite having nothing to do with violence.

jksmith 9y ago

What you just said hurts my feelings and makes me want to be violent. The greatest freedom is the freedom to be personally responsible. Laws that curtail speech generally are orthogonal to that freedom. Think about it.

infinite8s 9y ago
Says the person who's probably never been on the receiving end of hate speech.

randyrand 9y ago

I don't like the other responses to your comment. > It's an incitement to violence No, it's not. Otherwise, wouldn't that imply we should outlaw being mean altogether? Is being mean always an incitement for violence? Yes/No? I think it's clear, it's not. > it's horrifically bad for the mental health Citation needed. > as a form of discrimination against those people Again, no. Discrimination requires that it be 'unjust or prejudicial treatment', hate speech does not. Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race.

blamarvt 9y ago
> Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race. Part of the problem in this discussion seems to be that people have different definitions of 'hate speech'. That definition could be applicable to their country of origin or personal belief but it's pretty clear that definitions aren't even remotely compatible and it makes any sort of level-headed debate very difficult.
- johnnyhillbilly 9y ago
  The real problem is that the concept of "hate speech" is nonsensical. It is a term created exactly to polarize debates and prevent rational discourse. Calmly explain that to any one that attempts to use the term - or ask them to clarify exactly what they mean. We must reject politically engineered attempts to ruin the public debate.
ItendToDisagree 9y ago
If someone is yelling "Kill all $racialslur" are they practicing hate speech yet? They are most certainly openly advocating violence against a specific group not just "being mean" Hate speech can indeed be quantified. Though definitions will vary (as with anything.)
- shawndumas 9y ago
  So if a University Professor said, "$race people may need to die to achieve $goal" would that be free speech or hate speech?

eridius 9y ago

It's clear from the responses here and the downvotes that I'm receiving that a lot of you have never actually witnessed real hate speech, never seen what it does to people, never seen people killed by people who were inspired by hate speech.