8 ms·

>Facebook “restricted access to items in the UAE, all reported by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, a federal UAE government entity responsible for [

>Facebook “restricted access to items in the UAE, all reported by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, a federal UAE government entity responsible for [information technology] sector in the UAE. The content was reported for hate speech and was attacking members of the royal family, which is against local laws.” Great example of why things like hate speech legislation are a terrible idea. Although intended to provide additional protection for marginalized groups they are inevitably wielded by the people with legal or political power against the less politically connected and marginalized.

lumisota 8y ago
UAE is an absolute monarchy; using this as an argument against hate speech legislation seems.. overreaching.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > UAE is an absolute monarchy It's actually a federal monarchy. "The country is a federation of seven emirates consisting of Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Quwain. Each emirate is governed by a ruler; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the rulers serves as the President of the United Arab Emirates." So in practice, the presiding monarch's power is checked by the other monarchs. Still far from democracy and of no use in a discussion about hate speech laws.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Sounds like a cartel.
- vtail 8y ago
  Grandparent’s is a universal argument, that applies to other countries / situations as well. Russia, which is technically not a monarchy, have the same problem with hate speech law. For obvious reasons, it’s harder to give an example from a more liberal country, but his/her point still stands.
  - JBReefer 8y ago
    England has hate speech laws that produce _ridiculous_ outcomes, like a guy getting fined because he made a dumb gif of his dog Sig Heiling.
    - jamespo 8y ago
      If that's the only example it's not doing too badly
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Well, England is technically a monarchy...
      - samstave 8y ago
        I honestly can't understand this. They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I just don't understand why... The only thing I can see is "Because I said so, that's why", which doesn't seem to be a sound basis for government.
        GW150914 8y ago
        The most popular argument I’ve heard is that the royal family actually makes more money for the UK than they cost, although those arguments seem to assume that abolishing royalty would mean bulldozing the artifacts and architecture which are the real revenue source. I think the real reason why is that the aristocracy does actually run a lot of things, if a bit indirectly. The House of Lords is a powerful, rich group of people, and who hands out the honors thst enobled them? How many in the House of Commoms aim to become lords and retire? Would they really vote to dismantle the institution which might make them lords?
        scrame 8y ago
        I saw it once described as "the perfect split of politics and patriotism". People can love the queen and hate the PM.
- jrs95 8y ago
  "X is okay only when a democracy does it" is not a compelling argument. In fact that argument by itself undermines the basis of a liberal democracy.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Not if the problem is with the implementation. The fact that some countries use their courts to jail political enemies is not a reason not to have courts, for example.
    - jrs95 8y ago
      No. But its still bad to create exceptions to the rule of not jailing your political enemies and then using democracy as a prop to pretend there's nothing wrong.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    Exactly. "tyranny of the majority" is the cited reason the United States adopted the bill of rights with the very first amendment cementing our freedom of speech. This is not coincidental.
sp332 8y ago
It's hard to move the line back without getting into "pre-crime" territory but I think there's some room. If someone is inciting generalized violence against a large group of people, that doesn't meet the current standard for imminent danger. Even after someone else takes up the call and commits a crime, the person who encouraged it might continue without being charged at all. And I'd like to think there's something proactive we can do, instead of trying to get "justice" after the fact while mopping up the blood.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  So based on this reasoning we should be prosecuting antifa quite a bit more vigorously right? Even while intentions remain good, I utterly lack the confidence in our legal system to apply these laws fairly and not selectively. They will always be used by groups with more political clout against their adversaries. Which gets back to my original point.
- kazagistar 8y ago
  Unless you pick sides morally, trying to potentially incite a revolution certainly seems to classify as hate speech. It just happens to be hate speech directed at an absolute monarchy which has done terrible things to its people, but that's where you get into the far more murky waters of inciting justified violence.
  - sp332 8y ago
    But if they're making specific threats, that would be illegal even under US law already.
  - tomp 8y ago
    How can you not pick sides morally if you're using a label such as "hate speech"? After all, that's a moral judgement (although the word itself usually denotes an emotion).
    - sp332 8y ago
      It's just a label. (And you already contradicted yourself.) Hate speech is speech that encourages discrimination or violence against a group of people based on certain protected categories, e.g. race, religion, gender. So if someone says "no one should hire short people because they can't reach things on tall shelves", that would be fine. If they say "no one should hire Muslims because they take time off to pray each day" that would be hate speech. Categories get added based on past behavior. Disparaging short people is kinda bad, but it wouldn't (even in jurisdictions that ban hate speech) be illegal because there hasn't been a mass campaign of violence and discrimination based on height. On the other hand, divisions between races, religions etc have been pretty damaging so they're on the list.
specialist 8y ago
The UAE royals equate criticism with assault and the problem is banning hate speech?
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  it's not just the UAE: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp...
- jrs95 8y ago
  Hate speech legislation would literally prevent you from criticizing protected groups and treat it as if it were a violent offense.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Do you support Germany's banning of Nazi propaganda?
    - jrs95 8y ago
      No
      - specialist 8y ago
        An honest answer, thank you. Noam Chomsky would agree with you. I used to. Now I don't. I've commented about this elsewhere.

lumisota 8y ago

UAE is an absolute monarchy; using this as an argument against hate speech legislation seems.. overreaching.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> UAE is an absolute monarchy It's actually a federal monarchy. "The country is a federation of seven emirates consisting of Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Quwain. Each emirate is governed by a ruler; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the rulers serves as the President of the United Arab Emirates." So in practice, the presiding monarch's power is checked by the other monarchs. Still far from democracy and of no use in a discussion about hate speech laws.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Sounds like a cartel.
vtail 8y ago
Grandparent’s is a universal argument, that applies to other countries / situations as well. Russia, which is technically not a monarchy, have the same problem with hate speech law. For obvious reasons, it’s harder to give an example from a more liberal country, but his/her point still stands.
- JBReefer 8y ago
  England has hate speech laws that produce _ridiculous_ outcomes, like a guy getting fined because he made a dumb gif of his dog Sig Heiling.
  - jamespo 8y ago
    If that's the only example it's not doing too badly
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Well, England is technically a monarchy...
    - samstave 8y ago
      I honestly can't understand this. They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I just don't understand why... The only thing I can see is "Because I said so, that's why", which doesn't seem to be a sound basis for government.
      - GW150914 8y ago
        The most popular argument I’ve heard is that the royal family actually makes more money for the UK than they cost, although those arguments seem to assume that abolishing royalty would mean bulldozing the artifacts and architecture which are the real revenue source. I think the real reason why is that the aristocracy does actually run a lot of things, if a bit indirectly. The House of Lords is a powerful, rich group of people, and who hands out the honors thst enobled them? How many in the House of Commoms aim to become lords and retire? Would they really vote to dismantle the institution which might make them lords?
      - scrame 8y ago
        I saw it once described as "the perfect split of politics and patriotism". People can love the queen and hate the PM.
jrs95 8y ago
"X is okay only when a democracy does it" is not a compelling argument. In fact that argument by itself undermines the basis of a liberal democracy.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Not if the problem is with the implementation. The fact that some countries use their courts to jail political enemies is not a reason not to have courts, for example.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    No. But its still bad to create exceptions to the rule of not jailing your political enemies and then using democracy as a prop to pretend there's nothing wrong.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  Exactly. "tyranny of the majority" is the cited reason the United States adopted the bill of rights with the very first amendment cementing our freedom of speech. This is not coincidental.

sp332 8y ago

It's hard to move the line back without getting into "pre-crime" territory but I think there's some room. If someone is inciting generalized violence against a large group of people, that doesn't meet the current standard for imminent danger. Even after someone else takes up the call and commits a crime, the person who encouraged it might continue without being charged at all. And I'd like to think there's something proactive we can do, instead of trying to get "justice" after the fact while mopping up the blood.

gnarbarian 8y ago
So based on this reasoning we should be prosecuting antifa quite a bit more vigorously right? Even while intentions remain good, I utterly lack the confidence in our legal system to apply these laws fairly and not selectively. They will always be used by groups with more political clout against their adversaries. Which gets back to my original point.
kazagistar 8y ago
Unless you pick sides morally, trying to potentially incite a revolution certainly seems to classify as hate speech. It just happens to be hate speech directed at an absolute monarchy which has done terrible things to its people, but that's where you get into the far more murky waters of inciting justified violence.
- sp332 8y ago
  But if they're making specific threats, that would be illegal even under US law already.
- tomp 8y ago
  How can you not pick sides morally if you're using a label such as "hate speech"? After all, that's a moral judgement (although the word itself usually denotes an emotion).
  - sp332 8y ago
    It's just a label. (And you already contradicted yourself.) Hate speech is speech that encourages discrimination or violence against a group of people based on certain protected categories, e.g. race, religion, gender. So if someone says "no one should hire short people because they can't reach things on tall shelves", that would be fine. If they say "no one should hire Muslims because they take time off to pray each day" that would be hate speech. Categories get added based on past behavior. Disparaging short people is kinda bad, but it wouldn't (even in jurisdictions that ban hate speech) be illegal because there hasn't been a mass campaign of violence and discrimination based on height. On the other hand, divisions between races, religions etc have been pretty damaging so they're on the list.

specialist 8y ago

The UAE royals equate criticism with assault and the problem is banning hate speech?

gnarbarian 8y ago
it's not just the UAE: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp...
jrs95 8y ago
Hate speech legislation would literally prevent you from criticizing protected groups and treat it as if it were a violent offense.
- specialist 8y ago
  Do you support Germany's banning of Nazi propaganda?
  - jrs95 8y ago
    No
    - specialist 8y ago
      An honest answer, thank you. Noam Chomsky would agree with you. I used to. Now I don't. I've commented about this elsewhere.