5 ms·

'"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far r

by timje1 7y ago

'"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right.' Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. Hate Speech wasn't made illegal as a result of the recent rise of the anti-immigration far right, these laws have often been in place for decades and were initially aimed at neo-nazis. e.g. 1986 in the UK. 1985 in Germany (initially). And "in Europe" is a fucking stupid grouping when it comes to these laws as each country is completely different - what you can do in Romania is vastly different to what you can do in Germany.

charlchi 7y ago
> Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. This is very untrue and you clearly have not researched what has happened in the actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments, NGO's and big tech companies the past few years. And I'll add just in case this isn't clear, inciting hateful action against people should(edit: whoops) be illegal. But banning all forms of discrimination whatsoever is going too far.
- Alma_Elma 7y ago
  > inciting hateful action against people shouldn't be illegal. excuse me? edit: apparently it was a freudian typo and got fixed.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Saying it was a freudian type is sort of a jab at him anyways..
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- pjc50 7y ago
  > actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments You could cite it yourself, you know.
  - charlchi 7y ago
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33178&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEG... > ... hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin; Define "hatred". This is extremely vague. Again, I suggest you to do some of your own research in this regard. There are thousands of documents freely available on UN, EU or related organisations websites that very clearly outline what the goals are of these types of laws and what has been done in this regard. I will refer you though, to one such document, in which there is an interesting section that quotes someone as saying that the only way for migrants and minorities to be integrated into European society will be through "forced assimilation" and what I would define as a complete destruction of European national identities: > first and foremost the notion of what it means to be the member of a certain European nation (e.g. being French, German, Spanish, etc.) has to change. Europeans cannot define themselves anymore through the colour of their skin and/or their religion. They have to realise the excluding nature of these signifiers and come up with others that can really work as umbrellas that all can fit under. European values could be a great starting point. The respect for human rights, democracy, liberalism, secularism, etc. are all ideas and ideals that are inherently inclusive and independent of ethnic background, religious beliefs or skin colour. Obviously, immigrants and members of minority communities also have to subscribe to these ideas and - due to cultural differences - that will also be hard work on their part (and on the part of European societies). However, there are hardly any other options to create healthy and unfragmented European societies through integration that is not forced assimilation. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about what "forced assimilation" means. Edit: Document in which this phrase can be found: http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2018-1.pdf http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2018-1... If you are unfamiliar with this environment I suggest you read the entire document and not just the part I quoted.
    - 7y ago
cat199 7y ago
> usually requires an incitement to violence Realize we are talking about EU here, but witness recent SF government acts against NRA in the USA for a clear example of an actual slippery slope.

by timje1 7y ago

charlchi 7y ago

> Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. This is very untrue and you clearly have not researched what has happened in the actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments, NGO's and big tech companies the past few years. And I'll add just in case this isn't clear, inciting hateful action against people should(edit: whoops) be illegal. But banning all forms of discrimination whatsoever is going too far.

Alma_Elma 7y ago
> inciting hateful action against people shouldn't be illegal. excuse me? edit: apparently it was a freudian typo and got fixed.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Saying it was a freudian type is sort of a jab at him anyways..
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
> actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments You could cite it yourself, you know.
- charlchi 7y ago
  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33178&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEG... > ... hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin; Define "hatred". This is extremely vague. Again, I suggest you to do some of your own research in this regard. There are thousands of documents freely available on UN, EU or related organisations websites that very clearly outline what the goals are of these types of laws and what has been done in this regard. I will refer you though, to one such document, in which there is an interesting section that quotes someone as saying that the only way for migrants and minorities to be integrated into European society will be through "forced assimilation" and what I would define as a complete destruction of European national identities: > first and foremost the notion of what it means to be the member of a certain European nation (e.g. being French, German, Spanish, etc.) has to change. Europeans cannot define themselves anymore through the colour of their skin and/or their religion. They have to realise the excluding nature of these signifiers and come up with others that can really work as umbrellas that all can fit under. European values could be a great starting point. The respect for human rights, democracy, liberalism, secularism, etc. are all ideas and ideals that are inherently inclusive and independent of ethnic background, religious beliefs or skin colour. Obviously, immigrants and members of minority communities also have to subscribe to these ideas and - due to cultural differences - that will also be hard work on their part (and on the part of European societies). However, there are hardly any other options to create healthy and unfragmented European societies through integration that is not forced assimilation. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about what "forced assimilation" means. Edit: Document in which this phrase can be found: http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2018-1.pdf http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2018-1... If you are unfamiliar with this environment I suggest you read the entire document and not just the part I quoted.
  - 7y ago

cat199 7y ago

> usually requires an incitement to violence Realize we are talking about EU here, but witness recent SF government acts against NRA in the USA for a clear example of an actual slippery slope.