5 ms·

I've never understood hate speech laws. Why would American journalists who largely hate the president want to give the government more power to restrict them?

Consultant32452 7y ago
The major news outlets openly have former CIA agents on their staff, people who still maintain secret clearance. Sometimes these outlets are called mainstream media, or corporate media. But in this context perhaps a better name is "state approved media". The state approved media isn't concerned that this is going to come after them. However, it will help clamp down in media that isn't state approved.
otterley 7y ago
Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. They generally proscribe attacking people or groups of people based on protected characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation/presentation, etc.
- frockington1 7y ago
  But what if you call the President 'he' and today he wants to go by xi. With a hate speech law you are now a bigot and your work criticizing xi will need to be removed
- ptaipale 7y ago
  > Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. People often advocate hate speech laws while being under the illusion that they are the ones who get to define what is hate speech and what is not.
  - otterley 7y ago
    There are lots of thorny First Amendment issues in the U.S. around hate speech anyway. It's unlikely that hate speech itself can be proscribed except where there's a call for imminent lawless action (e.g. rioting, see Brandenburg v. Ohio). Usually where we see it come up is as evidence of a particular malicious intent or hate-based motivation for a violent crime like assault, mayhem, or murder, that increases the sentence applied as a result of a conviction.
rtkwe 7y ago
Because hate speech laws generally wouldn't cover the President or the things journalists are saying about him. They're not general UK style defamation/libel laws.
- frockington1 7y ago
  Saying about 'him' as today he goes by 'xi'. You just used the wrong pronoun for today and will need to toss this piece of bigotry out. I don't believe this, making an exaggerated point demonstrating how any type of censorship can easily be abused
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Given we're now in a hypothetical where a non-binary person is in the White House I think we've collectively advanced miles as a country. Also what HC laws suggested even come close to outlawing accidental misgendering?
    - frockington1 7y ago
      My hypothetical was that now the president can claim to be non-binary or whatever gender they want, not that they actually are. But anyone who publicly disagrees would of course be violating anti-hate speech laws
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Are you able to point to any hate speech law in existence that covers pronoun usage in this manner?

Consultant32452 7y ago

The major news outlets openly have former CIA agents on their staff, people who still maintain secret clearance. Sometimes these outlets are called mainstream media, or corporate media. But in this context perhaps a better name is "state approved media". The state approved media isn't concerned that this is going to come after them. However, it will help clamp down in media that isn't state approved.

otterley 7y ago

Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. They generally proscribe attacking people or groups of people based on protected characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation/presentation, etc.

frockington1 7y ago
But what if you call the President 'he' and today he wants to go by xi. With a hate speech law you are now a bigot and your work criticizing xi will need to be removed
ptaipale 7y ago
> Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. People often advocate hate speech laws while being under the illusion that they are the ones who get to define what is hate speech and what is not.
- otterley 7y ago
  There are lots of thorny First Amendment issues in the U.S. around hate speech anyway. It's unlikely that hate speech itself can be proscribed except where there's a call for imminent lawless action (e.g. rioting, see Brandenburg v. Ohio). Usually where we see it come up is as evidence of a particular malicious intent or hate-based motivation for a violent crime like assault, mayhem, or murder, that increases the sentence applied as a result of a conviction.

rtkwe 7y ago

Because hate speech laws generally wouldn't cover the President or the things journalists are saying about him. They're not general UK style defamation/libel laws.

frockington1 7y ago
Saying about 'him' as today he goes by 'xi'. You just used the wrong pronoun for today and will need to toss this piece of bigotry out. I don't believe this, making an exaggerated point demonstrating how any type of censorship can easily be abused
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Given we're now in a hypothetical where a non-binary person is in the White House I think we've collectively advanced miles as a country. Also what HC laws suggested even come close to outlawing accidental misgendering?
  - frockington1 7y ago
    My hypothetical was that now the president can claim to be non-binary or whatever gender they want, not that they actually are. But anyone who publicly disagrees would of course be violating anti-hate speech laws
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Are you able to point to any hate speech law in existence that covers pronoun usage in this manner?