3 ms·

>You know, someone who should be banned because they're obviously up to no good. This is not what "hater" means in most speech. You seem to be pretty sensitive

>You know, someone who should be banned because they're obviously up to no good. This is not what "hater" means in most speech. You seem to be pretty sensitive about this issue. I guess you've been in some unpleasant arguments recently. The vague idea of hate speech is obviously in need of refinement, and has lots of problems. I'm interested in what you would do about hate speech other than criminalize/punish it. Or perhaps more narrowly define it. I won't bite your head off or call you a hater.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
I personally would do nothing at a legal level. I don't believe you can legislate such problems away and that society holding the opinions necessary to try is more dangerous than hate speech in and of itself. The answer to speech is more speech: I suggest making fun of people spouting "hatespeech" and drown their message in an overwhelming amount of mockery. Comedy is a well-known memetic weapon that we've lost the ability to effectively use in our pearl-clutching seriousness. The criminalization of hate speech is actually counter-productive: it gives easy access to a social lightning rod to powerless losers while giving them more respect and attention than they deserve. It makes a serious issue out of something we're better mocking.
josteink 9y ago
> You seem to be pretty sensitive about this issue. I'm just an avid proponent of free speech, and almost daily now I see it under attack, probably by the most well-meaning people in the world. Today it's neo-nazis whose rights we are happy to strip away. Next out may be some other "hateful" group... Let's say racists? But according to what definition of racism? Some people seem to think that recognizing the positive in homogeneity is racist. Others seem to mistake the religion of Islam for a race, so that any criticism of Islam makes someone a racist. And what about the Jews? Are they a race? Or a culture? Or maybe a religion? All of those? Are you a racist if you criticize Israel, a state run by Jews? Some people genuinely says so! So if we ban "racist" speech, treat it as non-protected... What do we actually ban? And can we trust that whatever we define as racist today, will be the same which is upheld by court tomorrow? If anything, experience should tell us to be careful, or else we risk sliding down the slippery slope into general censorship. And it has ofcourse always been done with the best of intentions. So when I see free speech under attack, I speak up, because I think free speech is a too damned important thing to ruin over petty stuff like individuals feeling offended. We already have laws against acts of murder, genocide, racism, and what not. We don't need to doubly criminalize it by making speech about it criminal too. That's just redundant and IMO does more harm than good.
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  > That's just redundant and IMO does more harm than good. We can agree to disagree on that! I do agree about how squishy the boundaries can be and that it limiting speech is not to be done lightly. Speech vs acts is also fuzzy, since speech both is an act & can cause others to act. Besides the emotional/social harm racist speech causes, it fosters physical harm and financial harm. Even in an imperfect, flawed implementation, a restriction on such speech in public might provide more benefit than what it costs. Buuuuut there is speaking hatefully and then there is discussing ideas, and it would be good if courts could tell the difference.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

I personally would do nothing at a legal level. I don't believe you can legislate such problems away and that society holding the opinions necessary to try is more dangerous than hate speech in and of itself. The answer to speech is more speech: I suggest making fun of people spouting "hatespeech" and drown their message in an overwhelming amount of mockery. Comedy is a well-known memetic weapon that we've lost the ability to effectively use in our pearl-clutching seriousness. The criminalization of hate speech is actually counter-productive: it gives easy access to a social lightning rod to powerless losers while giving them more respect and attention than they deserve. It makes a serious issue out of something we're better mocking.

josteink 9y ago

> You seem to be pretty sensitive about this issue. I'm just an avid proponent of free speech, and almost daily now I see it under attack, probably by the most well-meaning people in the world. Today it's neo-nazis whose rights we are happy to strip away. Next out may be some other "hateful" group... Let's say racists? But according to what definition of racism? Some people seem to think that recognizing the positive in homogeneity is racist. Others seem to mistake the religion of Islam for a race, so that any criticism of Islam makes someone a racist. And what about the Jews? Are they a race? Or a culture? Or maybe a religion? All of those? Are you a racist if you criticize Israel, a state run by Jews? Some people genuinely says so! So if we ban "racist" speech, treat it as non-protected... What do we actually ban? And can we trust that whatever we define as racist today, will be the same which is upheld by court tomorrow? If anything, experience should tell us to be careful, or else we risk sliding down the slippery slope into general censorship. And it has ofcourse always been done with the best of intentions. So when I see free speech under attack, I speak up, because I think free speech is a too damned important thing to ruin over petty stuff like individuals feeling offended. We already have laws against acts of murder, genocide, racism, and what not. We don't need to doubly criminalize it by making speech about it criminal too. That's just redundant and IMO does more harm than good.

oddlyaromatic 9y ago
> That's just redundant and IMO does more harm than good. We can agree to disagree on that! I do agree about how squishy the boundaries can be and that it limiting speech is not to be done lightly. Speech vs acts is also fuzzy, since speech both is an act & can cause others to act. Besides the emotional/social harm racist speech causes, it fosters physical harm and financial harm. Even in an imperfect, flawed implementation, a restriction on such speech in public might provide more benefit than what it costs. Buuuuut there is speaking hatefully and then there is discussing ideas, and it would be good if courts could tell the difference.