4 ms·

But that is not how it works universally in Europe. In France for example, you can be condemned for stating objective facts under hate speech laws. For example

But that is not how it works universally in Europe. In France for example, you can be condemned for stating objective facts under hate speech laws. For example one journalist was condemned for saying that minorities were over-represented in jail, because they were over-represented in crime. The judge stated that although that was factually true, it would also have a discriminatory impact on the minorities, & the journalist was thus condemned.

AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
I did not talk for Europe, just Germany. And I do not approve the suppression of facts. Sorry for France. (Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).
- cm2187 7y ago
  I believe what the parent comment refers to is the condemnation of Eric Zemmour in 2011. The details are a bit different though substantially in the same spirit. Zemmour argued on TV that (a) the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab and therefore that (b) racial profiling by the police was justified. The court rejected the accusation of racial defamation for claiming (a) but argued that since (b) was discriminatory under French law, condoning racial profiling publicly was advocating for discrimination and he was sentenced for that. One of first results on google if you want to dig more: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-provocation-a-la-discrimination-raciale-18-02-2011-1296980_23.php https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-pr...
  - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
    (I do not speak french, so I am referring only to your post) The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here. If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers! The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group. The math: Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers. With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent. But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small. The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling. So, back to the case: - France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group. - (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people. - Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour. Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?
    - cm2187 7y ago
      I agree with your math, but I disagree with your conclusions. The difference may look small but it compounds very quickly. If you make 1000 controls of individuals from population B, the likelihood that you never make a bust is 61%. If you make 1000 controls of population A, the likelihood you never make a bust is only 5%. If you are a policeman, clearly you are going to opt for population A if you want to make a bust. In this case he was sentenced to a suspended fine of €1,000 and to damages of €9,000 to various pressure groups. I agree with your position on the moral implications of racial profiling and I am not advocating it. But whether one supports racial profiling or not, merely discussing the merits should not constitute an offense, I think this is clearly violating free speech. And if we cannot disagree publicly with existing laws, why do we even bother having a parliament to change those laws?
      - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
        [...]If you are a policeman, clearly you are going to opt for population A if you want to make a bust.[...] Whether I have to make 1000 controls for a 39 percent chance to catch one dealer, or 1000 controls for a 95 percent chance to catch one dealer – both are incredibly ineffective. This is exactly the problem. If I am only capable of random controls with low chances, I have to control very, very many people to make a hit (and each control of an innocent person is something, that should be avoided if possible, because it is a form of harassment). Now by going from one low probability to a somewhat less lower probability by ignoring the group of the lower probability and putting all the burden of unjustified control to the other group you create a huge sense of frustration, stress, injustice and anger. For good reason! You make a 60:40 relation to a 100:0 relation with this approach. The problem is not with the dealers, but with the false positives. 600 innocent people of group A have to be harassed for one true positive, but 0 innocent people of group B get harassed and 0 people of group B get busted, because they are not even controlled anymore (as hits are less likely). And now, by making hits only in group A, the ratio of convicted drug dealers gets pushed even more into the direction of group A, allegedly confirming the efficiency of racial profiling. It is utterly wrong. Morally and mathematically. It is a pseudologic abuse of science to discriminate a group of people. And the desire for discrimination arises from hate. That is, why racial profiling is forbidden in modern democracies and it is not a matter of free speech, in my eyes. If you wish for a more efficient handling of your police with drug dealers, you really do not want them to perform random controls (whether racially biased or not)!
egeozcan 7y ago
You can also lie by stating cherry picked facts. Kathy Zhu lost her beauty queen title because she had written "Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others." I don't think I need to explain what's wrong with this statement, especially to the HN audience. I'd definitely support companies taking a stance against such statements, but it also shouldn't be a crime IMHO.
ksangeelee 7y ago
On a purely technical note, it's factual to say a group is over-represented in prison, because there are records to back this up. However unless you know the entirety of crimes committed, you can't say that a group is over-represented in crime. It may be that certain groups are pursued more vigorously, less likely to mount a strong defence (therefore more likely to be convicted), or just more narrowly focused on.

AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago

I did not talk for Europe, just Germany. And I do not approve the suppression of facts. Sorry for France. (Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).

cm2187 7y ago
I believe what the parent comment refers to is the condemnation of Eric Zemmour in 2011. The details are a bit different though substantially in the same spirit. Zemmour argued on TV that (a) the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab and therefore that (b) racial profiling by the police was justified. The court rejected the accusation of racial defamation for claiming (a) but argued that since (b) was discriminatory under French law, condoning racial profiling publicly was advocating for discrimination and he was sentenced for that. One of first results on google if you want to dig more: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-provocation-a-la-discrimination-raciale-18-02-2011-1296980_23.php https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-pr...
- AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
  (I do not speak french, so I am referring only to your post) The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here. If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers! The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group. The math: Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers. With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent. But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small. The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling. So, back to the case: - France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group. - (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people. - Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour. Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?
  - cm2187 7y ago
    I agree with your math, but I disagree with your conclusions. The difference may look small but it compounds very quickly. If you make 1000 controls of individuals from population B, the likelihood that you never make a bust is 61%. If you make 1000 controls of population A, the likelihood you never make a bust is only 5%. If you are a policeman, clearly you are going to opt for population A if you want to make a bust. In this case he was sentenced to a suspended fine of €1,000 and to damages of €9,000 to various pressure groups. I agree with your position on the moral implications of racial profiling and I am not advocating it. But whether one supports racial profiling or not, merely discussing the merits should not constitute an offense, I think this is clearly violating free speech. And if we cannot disagree publicly with existing laws, why do we even bother having a parliament to change those laws?
    - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
      [...]If you are a policeman, clearly you are going to opt for population A if you want to make a bust.[...] Whether I have to make 1000 controls for a 39 percent chance to catch one dealer, or 1000 controls for a 95 percent chance to catch one dealer – both are incredibly ineffective. This is exactly the problem. If I am only capable of random controls with low chances, I have to control very, very many people to make a hit (and each control of an innocent person is something, that should be avoided if possible, because it is a form of harassment). Now by going from one low probability to a somewhat less lower probability by ignoring the group of the lower probability and putting all the burden of unjustified control to the other group you create a huge sense of frustration, stress, injustice and anger. For good reason! You make a 60:40 relation to a 100:0 relation with this approach. The problem is not with the dealers, but with the false positives. 600 innocent people of group A have to be harassed for one true positive, but 0 innocent people of group B get harassed and 0 people of group B get busted, because they are not even controlled anymore (as hits are less likely). And now, by making hits only in group A, the ratio of convicted drug dealers gets pushed even more into the direction of group A, allegedly confirming the efficiency of racial profiling. It is utterly wrong. Morally and mathematically. It is a pseudologic abuse of science to discriminate a group of people. And the desire for discrimination arises from hate. That is, why racial profiling is forbidden in modern democracies and it is not a matter of free speech, in my eyes. If you wish for a more efficient handling of your police with drug dealers, you really do not want them to perform random controls (whether racially biased or not)!

egeozcan 7y ago

You can also lie by stating cherry picked facts. Kathy Zhu lost her beauty queen title because she had written "Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others." I don't think I need to explain what's wrong with this statement, especially to the HN audience. I'd definitely support companies taking a stance against such statements, but it also shouldn't be a crime IMHO.

ksangeelee 7y ago

On a purely technical note, it's factual to say a group is over-represented in prison, because there are records to back this up. However unless you know the entirety of crimes committed, you can't say that a group is over-represented in crime. It may be that certain groups are pursued more vigorously, less likely to mount a strong defence (therefore more likely to be convicted), or just more narrowly focused on.