5 ms·

1) Build public support against hate speech. 2) Create laws to ban hate speech. This puts the government in charge of defining exactly what is and what is not

1) Build public support against hate speech. 2) Create laws to ban hate speech. This puts the government in charge of defining exactly what is and what is not hate speech. 3) The government tweaks the definition of hate speech slowly over the years. Eventually, hate speech includes anything which is against the official government line. 4) Profit. Err... Control of the country, which could be very profitable.

Zak 7y ago
A bigger concern in the US is probably attempts to regulate "fake news". The US Constitution has strong protections for expressing opinions, even hateful ones so long as they don't promote imminent lawless action. Knowingly making false statements of fact has not been given anywhere near the same level of protection. Any such regulation would be enforced by a part of the government that answers to the president. The current president has a habit of calling mainstream media outlets that are critical of him "fake news". Having to prove the truth of a large portion of the news stories published in a newspaper in court would be prohibitively expensive.
Shivetya 7y ago
It isn't hate speech that should be the most concerning category. It is what they manage to brand as fake news or political in nature where they can then quash the message through campaign finance laws. When in office politicians have near unequaled ability to get their message out extreme care must be taken to insure they cannot prevent others from getting their own messages out The one fact you can always accept is that if politicians are offering to protect the sanctity of the election system from influence, foreign or domestic, their true goal is to protect themselves from any message not approved by them or their supporters. While some need to feel that the result is because of nefarious reasons we must always accept our views do not necessarily equal those of others and what we accept as truth and falsehoods can just as likely be incorrect as well if not just our bias seeking only confirmation in stories or others.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Unlimited lobbying bleeds into corruption. I really don't think clamping down on campaign finance makes things worse.
notahacker 7y ago
Even in a very pro "freedom of speech" country like the US, an executive-appointed Supreme Court is already responsible for ruling on existing laws against speech which is integral to illegal conduct, speech which incites imminent lawless action, and there exists a tort system which enables individuals to be financially penalised for certain types of speech. Have no idea why people suspect that interpretations of hate speech laws are any more prone to being revised to be used to silence anything which is against the official government line than any other type of speech restriction.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  The Citizens United case was about allowing filmmakers to incorporate to limit civil liability from Hillary Clinton’s legal team who tried to stop a film from being shown which was critical of her. This has become one of the most politicized Supreme Court cases and will likely be rolled back in the near future.
manfredo 7y ago
> 2) Create laws to ban hate speech. This puts the government in charge of defining exactly what is and what is not hate speech. At least in the US, this is not possible without a change in the 1st Amendment. Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. While I am troubled by what I consider to be an attempt to expand the definitions of hate, ism, and phobia for political gain, freedom of speech entails allowing people to advocate for limiting freedom of speech. Also, I'm not sure why it is reasonable to say that China's actions are a canary in the coal mine for the US and Europe. These are different continents with very different histories and cultures. What happens in one is not necessarily going to happen in the other.
- freeopinion 7y ago
  It has always intrigued me that in the U.S. hate modifies the category of a crime. It's one thing to assualt somebody; it's another thing to assault them out of hate. It's one thing to kill somebody; it's another thing to kill them out of hate. If you can somehow prove that you didn't hate the person you intentionally killed, you face a lesser penalty. Also, under fascism, speech may be protected in government contexts, but if the government turns over large swaths to corporations, and the corporations aren't required to protect speech, that's not the government's problem.
  - tick_tock_tick 7y ago
    It's very much in the same vein as premeditated murder vs plain old murder.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    It is a matter of the larger injured party as opposed to mere hate. Lets use Martians as a detached from real world context. * If you crucify someone you are a depraved murderer who killed the victim. * If you crucified say a martian over say how often they mowed their lawn it would be hatred related and psychopathic but not a hate crime. * If you crucified a martian and wrote "Go back to Mars!" in their blood then you not only murdered them but also threatened the entire Martian community and that would be a hate crime. That is why it is a separate crime on top of it.
pergadad 7y ago
Countries such as Germany have banned certain kinds of hate speech (Holocaust denial, incitement to racial hatred, ...) for decades. There has been no slippery slope that this got more and more, it just has to be well defined and you need a serious judiciary and a healthy societal dialogue about what is and isn't acceptable. There is a far right party that everyone believes is pretty much the Nazi party, but it's not been banned as the evidence has not been strong enough. They didn't explicitly/provably violate any laws so they haven't been banned (yet). That's a good, functional judicial process. It's a matter of professional judges and due process.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Banning speech just drives it underground where it can’t be challenged.

Zak 7y ago

A bigger concern in the US is probably attempts to regulate "fake news". The US Constitution has strong protections for expressing opinions, even hateful ones so long as they don't promote imminent lawless action. Knowingly making false statements of fact has not been given anywhere near the same level of protection. Any such regulation would be enforced by a part of the government that answers to the president. The current president has a habit of calling mainstream media outlets that are critical of him "fake news". Having to prove the truth of a large portion of the news stories published in a newspaper in court would be prohibitively expensive.

Shivetya 7y ago

It isn't hate speech that should be the most concerning category. It is what they manage to brand as fake news or political in nature where they can then quash the message through campaign finance laws. When in office politicians have near unequaled ability to get their message out extreme care must be taken to insure they cannot prevent others from getting their own messages out The one fact you can always accept is that if politicians are offering to protect the sanctity of the election system from influence, foreign or domestic, their true goal is to protect themselves from any message not approved by them or their supporters. While some need to feel that the result is because of nefarious reasons we must always accept our views do not necessarily equal those of others and what we accept as truth and falsehoods can just as likely be incorrect as well if not just our bias seeking only confirmation in stories or others.

Dylan16807 7y ago
Unlimited lobbying bleeds into corruption. I really don't think clamping down on campaign finance makes things worse.

notahacker 7y ago

Even in a very pro "freedom of speech" country like the US, an executive-appointed Supreme Court is already responsible for ruling on existing laws against speech which is integral to illegal conduct, speech which incites imminent lawless action, and there exists a tort system which enables individuals to be financially penalised for certain types of speech. Have no idea why people suspect that interpretations of hate speech laws are any more prone to being revised to be used to silence anything which is against the official government line than any other type of speech restriction.

merpnderp 7y ago
The Citizens United case was about allowing filmmakers to incorporate to limit civil liability from Hillary Clinton’s legal team who tried to stop a film from being shown which was critical of her. This has become one of the most politicized Supreme Court cases and will likely be rolled back in the near future.

manfredo 7y ago

> 2) Create laws to ban hate speech. This puts the government in charge of defining exactly what is and what is not hate speech. At least in the US, this is not possible without a change in the 1st Amendment. Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. While I am troubled by what I consider to be an attempt to expand the definitions of hate, ism, and phobia for political gain, freedom of speech entails allowing people to advocate for limiting freedom of speech. Also, I'm not sure why it is reasonable to say that China's actions are a canary in the coal mine for the US and Europe. These are different continents with very different histories and cultures. What happens in one is not necessarily going to happen in the other.

freeopinion 7y ago
It has always intrigued me that in the U.S. hate modifies the category of a crime. It's one thing to assualt somebody; it's another thing to assault them out of hate. It's one thing to kill somebody; it's another thing to kill them out of hate. If you can somehow prove that you didn't hate the person you intentionally killed, you face a lesser penalty. Also, under fascism, speech may be protected in government contexts, but if the government turns over large swaths to corporations, and the corporations aren't required to protect speech, that's not the government's problem.
- tick_tock_tick 7y ago
  It's very much in the same vein as premeditated murder vs plain old murder.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It is a matter of the larger injured party as opposed to mere hate. Lets use Martians as a detached from real world context. * If you crucify someone you are a depraved murderer who killed the victim. * If you crucified say a martian over say how often they mowed their lawn it would be hatred related and psychopathic but not a hate crime. * If you crucified a martian and wrote "Go back to Mars!" in their blood then you not only murdered them but also threatened the entire Martian community and that would be a hate crime. That is why it is a separate crime on top of it.

pergadad 7y ago

Countries such as Germany have banned certain kinds of hate speech (Holocaust denial, incitement to racial hatred, ...) for decades. There has been no slippery slope that this got more and more, it just has to be well defined and you need a serious judiciary and a healthy societal dialogue about what is and isn't acceptable. There is a far right party that everyone believes is pretty much the Nazi party, but it's not been banned as the evidence has not been strong enough. They didn't explicitly/provably violate any laws so they haven't been banned (yet). That's a good, functional judicial process. It's a matter of professional judges and due process.

merpnderp 7y ago
Banning speech just drives it underground where it can’t be challenged.