6 ms·

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I can't correct them when they're wrong if they don't expose their opinions. And what about having an argument? Someone could accuse you of a crime if they misinterpret what you say. That's the real problem here. You can say something with no hateful intent, but people can interpret it with vigorous hate. It's a really stupid law.

Mithaldu 9y ago
> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. I keep seeing this statement, but all i can think is: Fuck, i wish i was lucky enough to have so few racists around me to be able to think i can spare the time and mental health for additional ones. Good for you, be glad you apparently have few to none racists around you, so you don't know what it's like when there's tons of them and they all talk unhindered. Edit: LMAO, i do wonder what kind of people i managed to upset with this.
- cup 9y ago
  People who probably are white and male.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  Small note here: I was told the above reads like sarcasm, and i'd like to state that the lines above the edit are 100% not sarcastic and meant exactly as stated.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. As far as I can tell, that's not true of the German law in question, though if you think it is true of that law (not some abstract hypothetical “hate speech” law straw man), please explain how, citing the relevant provisions of the law and explaining how they produce the unequal results that concern you.
- hateduser2 9y ago
  There are lots of quotes in the OP article that side with GP. Without having done research myself I think it’s plausibly true and the article is full of quotes that suggest this is the case. Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view. Overall I would side with GP over you and I’d hope other users who haven’t done research themselves would too. Don’t let your biases inform your opinions!
  - yorwba 9y ago
    There are actually several different laws involved here. The newest one is the NetzDG [1] (network enforcement act), that requires all reports of illegal content to be checked within 24 hours. The incentive structure is messed up because there are fines for failure to delete illegal content, but none for unjustified deletion. So the barrier was shifted from "obviously illegal" to "not obviously legal". The quotes in the Reuters article are all about that aspect of the law and of Twitter's enforcement. The other laws that are involved here have been essentially unchanged for a long time and are not really controversial. They are just a bit more subtle than a random Twitter censor is going to appreciate, because they are intended for consideration by a judge. Under these laws, you can absolutely insult everyone equally, and Volksverhetzung is equally illegal, no matter which group it is directed against. Edit: [1] The German text of the NetzDG is here: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view. >Don’t let your biases inform your opinions! These are not complimentary positions, they're pretty exclusive of each other. Methinks you just wanted to take the high ground with some generic platitude and misdirect the conversation.
    - hateduser2 9y ago
      They can’t be exclusive of each other if I successfully hold both at once
wernercd 9y ago
> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. It's more important and wide than "I don't want to be their friends"... How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? How can you convince the racist? Or the people that have those thoughts but don't mention them? They corner stone of freedom is discussing ideas. I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. Cowards hide from ideas and words. It takes strength to fight them head on and out in the open.
- fao_ 9y ago
  > I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people debating Richard Spencer[0], Steve Bannon[1] and Milo Yiannopoulos[2] has stopped the spread? No! In fact, it has enabled them to spread their sources of propaganda further into the world. Now even centrist friends of mine are linking to Breitbart as if it is a valid source of information[3]. Some viruses and infections you can only kill through isolation. Fascism is one of them. [0]: In case that you have any doubt that Spencer is a Nazi: Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. -- Richard Spencer, "Is Black Genocide Right?" (2012) (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer) [1]: Bannon has voiced support for UKIP and Front National. The former is an close offshoot of Britain First, one of whom murdered a British politician a year or so ago (He had a golden eagle statue and a shrine to Nazi literature). The latter was literally founded by a member of the SS, Pierre Bousquet. FN has also been known to murder French politicians. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon) [2]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos [3]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com
King-Aaron 9y ago
> If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and they do tend to keep them to themselves. I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just because you don't agree with their opinion.
- mc32 9y ago
  I think there is something to the idea of "safety valve". That is allow some venting in order to prevent full-blown animus. However, the difficult part is two-fold. One how to define the line of unacceptability (for example, calling for actionable violence against someone) and how to enforce that line and keep it steadfast (unwavering in the face of both antagonists --the ones for more control as well as the absolutists).
  - labster 9y ago
    The internet is a terrible safety valve to vent at, because it's too easy to pretend what you say doesn't have consequences. One tweet by a dude having a bad day can help normalize stereotyping to 50 people. And there's always that other guy who takes things too far. I know that people might intend Twitter or blogs to be for friends, but it's mass media nonetheless.
    - mc32 9y ago
      See, philosophically stereotyping doesn't have to be a "bad thing". When I went to school there we "polack" jokes, blond/e jokes, yo mamma jokes, etc. They were not "mean" or meant to denigrate people. They were ways to "break the ice" as it were. But nowadays people are super sensitive, unless it's a majority or almost majority population, or it has power, unless it has power but it's also seen as being singled out by another more powerful player... it's become tragically political. I know some foreign parents who have a preference for their home country and will tell their kids that <some thing> from their home country is better than <same thing> from neighboring but "rival" country. In a way this is stereotyping --but I'm seeing you say these parents should not talk to their kids about having some favoritism to their home country because this kind of connection building can "stereotype" the people from their (ancestral) neighboring country.
echlebek 9y ago
This is not true. Hate speech laws are designed to address speech that promotes violence against identifiable groups of people. For example, Canada's hate speech law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-... Section 318 says that you can't incite genocide. Fair enough right? Section 319 says that you can't say things that willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group. (Unless those things happen to be true, or even if you reasonably believed them to be true. Or if it was a private conversation. Or the things you're saying are in the public interest.) This means it's actually really hard to convict someone of hate speech, at least in Canada. Under section 318, you have to get the governor general's approval to even bring the case. I can't comment on the German law since I don't know German, but I'd imagine it's similar in nature.
- soziawa 9y ago
  > I can't comment on the German law since I don't know German, but I'd imagine it's similar in nature. Not at all. This forces Twitter to remove things that could be hate speech within 24 hours or face a fine. If they remove things that are not hate speech for being hate speech they don't get a fine. Of course they'll remove as many things as possible. That's the problem with the new german law.
InternetUser 9y ago
I have been and still am friends with people who have all sorts of prejudiced views, ranging from those who hate particular ethnic groups and nationalities (including my own), to those who disparage and insult those with different interests of educational backgrounds (such as one friend who is an I.T. guy and who constantly refers to non-I.T. people, even within his own family in shocking misanthropistic terms). Everyone has their own views, and I believe in acceptance. If someone expresses or suggests violent impulses, that is one thing, but to just express hatred is part of humanity. Do you hate anyone? To turn it around, there are plenty of people who hate themselves, but are all of them physically masochistic and/or suicidal?
- kikimaru 9y ago
  Is it "fucking USERS, man"?
  - InternetUser 9y ago
    Is that a movie quote or something?

Mithaldu 9y ago

> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. I keep seeing this statement, but all i can think is: Fuck, i wish i was lucky enough to have so few racists around me to be able to think i can spare the time and mental health for additional ones. Good for you, be glad you apparently have few to none racists around you, so you don't know what it's like when there's tons of them and they all talk unhindered. Edit: LMAO, i do wonder what kind of people i managed to upset with this.

cup 9y ago
People who probably are white and male.
Mithaldu 9y ago
Small note here: I was told the above reads like sarcasm, and i'd like to state that the lines above the edit are 100% not sarcastic and meant exactly as stated.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. As far as I can tell, that's not true of the German law in question, though if you think it is true of that law (not some abstract hypothetical “hate speech” law straw man), please explain how, citing the relevant provisions of the law and explaining how they produce the unequal results that concern you.

hateduser2 9y ago
There are lots of quotes in the OP article that side with GP. Without having done research myself I think it’s plausibly true and the article is full of quotes that suggest this is the case. Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view. Overall I would side with GP over you and I’d hope other users who haven’t done research themselves would too. Don’t let your biases inform your opinions!
- yorwba 9y ago
  There are actually several different laws involved here. The newest one is the NetzDG [1] (network enforcement act), that requires all reports of illegal content to be checked within 24 hours. The incentive structure is messed up because there are fines for failure to delete illegal content, but none for unjustified deletion. So the barrier was shifted from "obviously illegal" to "not obviously legal". The quotes in the Reuters article are all about that aspect of the law and of Twitter's enforcement. The other laws that are involved here have been essentially unchanged for a long time and are not really controversial. They are just a bit more subtle than a random Twitter censor is going to appreciate, because they are intended for consideration by a judge. Under these laws, you can absolutely insult everyone equally, and Volksverhetzung is equally illegal, no matter which group it is directed against. Edit: [1] The German text of the NetzDG is here: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view. >Don’t let your biases inform your opinions! These are not complimentary positions, they're pretty exclusive of each other. Methinks you just wanted to take the high ground with some generic platitude and misdirect the conversation.
  - hateduser2 9y ago
    They can’t be exclusive of each other if I successfully hold both at once

wernercd 9y ago

> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. It's more important and wide than "I don't want to be their friends"... How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? How can you convince the racist? Or the people that have those thoughts but don't mention them? They corner stone of freedom is discussing ideas. I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. Cowards hide from ideas and words. It takes strength to fight them head on and out in the open.

fao_ 9y ago
> I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people debating Richard Spencer[0], Steve Bannon[1] and Milo Yiannopoulos[2] has stopped the spread? No! In fact, it has enabled them to spread their sources of propaganda further into the world. Now even centrist friends of mine are linking to Breitbart as if it is a valid source of information[3]. Some viruses and infections you can only kill through isolation. Fascism is one of them. [0]: In case that you have any doubt that Spencer is a Nazi: Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. -- Richard Spencer, "Is Black Genocide Right?" (2012) (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer) [1]: Bannon has voiced support for UKIP and Front National. The former is an close offshoot of Britain First, one of whom murdered a British politician a year or so ago (He had a golden eagle statue and a shrine to Nazi literature). The latter was literally founded by a member of the SS, Pierre Bousquet. FN has also been known to murder French politicians. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon) [2]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos [3]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com

King-Aaron 9y ago

> If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and they do tend to keep them to themselves. I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just because you don't agree with their opinion.

mc32 9y ago
I think there is something to the idea of "safety valve". That is allow some venting in order to prevent full-blown animus. However, the difficult part is two-fold. One how to define the line of unacceptability (for example, calling for actionable violence against someone) and how to enforce that line and keep it steadfast (unwavering in the face of both antagonists --the ones for more control as well as the absolutists).
- labster 9y ago
  The internet is a terrible safety valve to vent at, because it's too easy to pretend what you say doesn't have consequences. One tweet by a dude having a bad day can help normalize stereotyping to 50 people. And there's always that other guy who takes things too far. I know that people might intend Twitter or blogs to be for friends, but it's mass media nonetheless.
  - mc32 9y ago
    See, philosophically stereotyping doesn't have to be a "bad thing". When I went to school there we "polack" jokes, blond/e jokes, yo mamma jokes, etc. They were not "mean" or meant to denigrate people. They were ways to "break the ice" as it were. But nowadays people are super sensitive, unless it's a majority or almost majority population, or it has power, unless it has power but it's also seen as being singled out by another more powerful player... it's become tragically political. I know some foreign parents who have a preference for their home country and will tell their kids that <some thing> from their home country is better than <same thing> from neighboring but "rival" country. In a way this is stereotyping --but I'm seeing you say these parents should not talk to their kids about having some favoritism to their home country because this kind of connection building can "stereotype" the people from their (ancestral) neighboring country.

echlebek 9y ago

This is not true. Hate speech laws are designed to address speech that promotes violence against identifiable groups of people. For example, Canada's hate speech law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-... Section 318 says that you can't incite genocide. Fair enough right? Section 319 says that you can't say things that willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group. (Unless those things happen to be true, or even if you reasonably believed them to be true. Or if it was a private conversation. Or the things you're saying are in the public interest.) This means it's actually really hard to convict someone of hate speech, at least in Canada. Under section 318, you have to get the governor general's approval to even bring the case. I can't comment on the German law since I don't know German, but I'd imagine it's similar in nature.

soziawa 9y ago
> I can't comment on the German law since I don't know German, but I'd imagine it's similar in nature. Not at all. This forces Twitter to remove things that could be hate speech within 24 hours or face a fine. If they remove things that are not hate speech for being hate speech they don't get a fine. Of course they'll remove as many things as possible. That's the problem with the new german law.

InternetUser 9y ago

I have been and still am friends with people who have all sorts of prejudiced views, ranging from those who hate particular ethnic groups and nationalities (including my own), to those who disparage and insult those with different interests of educational backgrounds (such as one friend who is an I.T. guy and who constantly refers to non-I.T. people, even within his own family in shocking misanthropistic terms). Everyone has their own views, and I believe in acceptance. If someone expresses or suggests violent impulses, that is one thing, but to just express hatred is part of humanity. Do you hate anyone? To turn it around, there are plenty of people who hate themselves, but are all of them physically masochistic and/or suicidal?

kikimaru 9y ago
Is it "fucking USERS, man"?
- InternetUser 9y ago
  Is that a movie quote or something?