5 ms·

>The invitation to provide concrete examples of valuable discourse that's criminalized by hate speech is only one of several avenues available for this. The pa

>The invitation to provide concrete examples of valuable discourse that's criminalized by hate speech is only one of several avenues available for this. The parent poster brought up a pretty important example: >Unreasonable discourse has been instrumental in much of our progress as a society, I can’t imagine why anybody would have so much contempt for it. If you need even more concrete, then how's this: the civil rights movement could've easily been classified as "hate speech" and legally squashed because it was unpopular when it started. Talk about gay marriage could've been legally squashed, because is was unpopular when the discussion started. Do you really believe that we have the world so well figured out that there will never be anything controversial in the future that will be unpopular at first? Because if you don't, then hate speech laws are going to be used against those ideas.

kelnos 7y ago
That's not an example; that's a vague hand-wave that something might have possibly happened, without providing an actual specific example.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Because giving a specific example is demanding to prove a negative. Such a request itself is borderline trolling.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    How is it trolling to ask for evidence after being presented with a vague, unsupported claim?
JamisonM 7y ago
If you need even more concrete, then how's this: the civil rights movement could've easily been classified as "hate speech" and legally squashed because it was unpopular when it started. That is not a concrete example it is a hypothetical, furthermore civil rights activist were literally beaten in the streets for their speech and subject to extrajudicial punishment on many occassions - far worse than the current "hate speech" laws that are afforded due process. Just give a concrete example, do it!
- Mirioron 7y ago
  The point is that there would be additional ways to stop their speech through legal means. >Just give a concrete example, do it! As said elsewhere: you can't prove a negative. Asking for concrete examples on this topic is like asking for a concrete example about an epidemic that a food safety law prevented. You wouldn't claim that we don't need food safety laws just because you couldn't give us concrete examples of epidemics that were prevented due to that food safety law, would you?
  - JamisonM 7y ago
    It is not a question of proving a negative, punishment for hate speech is an affirmative thing that can happen.
Frondo 7y ago
Hate speech laws vary widely from country to country (from none to strict), but I thought the Wikipedia two-sentence summary sounded reasonable: "The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics." I'd like to know what kinds of societal discourse is being held back when there are laws prohibiting disparagement or intimidation of people based on their membership in a group. What are we missing out on, that hate speech laws as described are prohibiting? I don't believe gay rights activism could in any way fall under that, or any other kinds of pro-civil rights activism, as has been mentioned elsewhere. None of those are focused on disparagement or intimidation, but the opposite: freedom from disparagement or intimidation.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  What you're missing is that you're reading a generic summary of laws that are twisted and abused. Elsewhere in the thread an article was posted about a teenager that was arrested and had to wear an ankle bracelet because she quoted rap lyrics in remembrance of another dead teenager. I believe you'll agree that Snap Dogg's lyrics aren't really many to be focused on disparagement or intimidation either. Yet these hate speech laws were used to punish a teenager.[0] Just look at how the "fake news" label has been abused in the past. You could read a summary on Wikipedia about what it is: >Fake news is a form of news consisting of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media (print and broadcast) or online social media. This description makes it sound like limiting fake news is a good thing, because it combats disinformation campaigns. Yet that same rhetoric was used by nazis to justify their censorship, which they used to cover to their atrocities. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
  - Frondo 7y ago
    I do agree the Snoop Dogg lyrics case is a bad application of hate speech laws. One could, however, find cases of all laws being abused, from eminent domain to property crime laws, drug laws, libel, qualified immunity, you name it. That does not mean that those laws are all categorically bad laws. (Though I think qualified immunity has shown itself in practice to be categorically bad.)
buran77 7y ago
None of the examples given relate to violence. Quashed for being unpopular, immoral, etc. yes. But well out of the definition of hate speech. I think the definition of hate speech does a pretty good job at highlighting the core issue: no violence. Doesn't mean your message must be popular or in line with the popular views of society at the time. I can't find a good reason to advocate violence against a group based on blanket criteria. Can you find one? Any of your examples were more about instigating violence against someone or about receiving more rights?
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Hate speech is not about violence though. Plenty of countries have laws against incitement to violence without having hate speech laws. Take the United States as an example. Harassment and incitement to violence can still be illegal without hate speech laws. The Cambridge dictionary says this: >public speech that expresses hate OR encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation Notice the "or". Simply expressing hate is enough by this definition, which is clearly not violence. >Doesn't mean your message must be popular or in line with the popular views of society at the time. Religious people argued in the past that gay marriage is not okay because it goes against their religion. If they had had hate speech laws then they probably would've used them against advocates of gay marriage. [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-...
  - buran77 7y ago
    > Simply expressing hate is enough by this definition But was that definition ever applied as such? I see people arguing that it was but not a single valid example was provided. A case where courts punished someone for promoting hate but no violence whatsoever.

kelnos 7y ago

That's not an example; that's a vague hand-wave that something might have possibly happened, without providing an actual specific example.

Mirioron 7y ago
Because giving a specific example is demanding to prove a negative. Such a request itself is borderline trolling.
- kelnos 7y ago
  How is it trolling to ask for evidence after being presented with a vague, unsupported claim?

JamisonM 7y ago

If you need even more concrete, then how's this: the civil rights movement could've easily been classified as "hate speech" and legally squashed because it was unpopular when it started. That is not a concrete example it is a hypothetical, furthermore civil rights activist were literally beaten in the streets for their speech and subject to extrajudicial punishment on many occassions - far worse than the current "hate speech" laws that are afforded due process. Just give a concrete example, do it!

Mirioron 7y ago
The point is that there would be additional ways to stop their speech through legal means. >Just give a concrete example, do it! As said elsewhere: you can't prove a negative. Asking for concrete examples on this topic is like asking for a concrete example about an epidemic that a food safety law prevented. You wouldn't claim that we don't need food safety laws just because you couldn't give us concrete examples of epidemics that were prevented due to that food safety law, would you?
- JamisonM 7y ago
  It is not a question of proving a negative, punishment for hate speech is an affirmative thing that can happen.

Frondo 7y ago

Hate speech laws vary widely from country to country (from none to strict), but I thought the Wikipedia two-sentence summary sounded reasonable: "The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics." I'd like to know what kinds of societal discourse is being held back when there are laws prohibiting disparagement or intimidation of people based on their membership in a group. What are we missing out on, that hate speech laws as described are prohibiting? I don't believe gay rights activism could in any way fall under that, or any other kinds of pro-civil rights activism, as has been mentioned elsewhere. None of those are focused on disparagement or intimidation, but the opposite: freedom from disparagement or intimidation.

Mirioron 7y ago
What you're missing is that you're reading a generic summary of laws that are twisted and abused. Elsewhere in the thread an article was posted about a teenager that was arrested and had to wear an ankle bracelet because she quoted rap lyrics in remembrance of another dead teenager. I believe you'll agree that Snap Dogg's lyrics aren't really many to be focused on disparagement or intimidation either. Yet these hate speech laws were used to punish a teenager.[0] Just look at how the "fake news" label has been abused in the past. You could read a summary on Wikipedia about what it is: >Fake news is a form of news consisting of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media (print and broadcast) or online social media. This description makes it sound like limiting fake news is a good thing, because it combats disinformation campaigns. Yet that same rhetoric was used by nazis to justify their censorship, which they used to cover to their atrocities. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
- Frondo 7y ago
  I do agree the Snoop Dogg lyrics case is a bad application of hate speech laws. One could, however, find cases of all laws being abused, from eminent domain to property crime laws, drug laws, libel, qualified immunity, you name it. That does not mean that those laws are all categorically bad laws. (Though I think qualified immunity has shown itself in practice to be categorically bad.)

buran77 7y ago

None of the examples given relate to violence. Quashed for being unpopular, immoral, etc. yes. But well out of the definition of hate speech. I think the definition of hate speech does a pretty good job at highlighting the core issue: no violence. Doesn't mean your message must be popular or in line with the popular views of society at the time. I can't find a good reason to advocate violence against a group based on blanket criteria. Can you find one? Any of your examples were more about instigating violence against someone or about receiving more rights?

Mirioron 7y ago
Hate speech is not about violence though. Plenty of countries have laws against incitement to violence without having hate speech laws. Take the United States as an example. Harassment and incitement to violence can still be illegal without hate speech laws. The Cambridge dictionary says this: >public speech that expresses hate OR encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation Notice the "or". Simply expressing hate is enough by this definition, which is clearly not violence. >Doesn't mean your message must be popular or in line with the popular views of society at the time. Religious people argued in the past that gay marriage is not okay because it goes against their religion. If they had had hate speech laws then they probably would've used them against advocates of gay marriage. [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-...
- buran77 7y ago
  > Simply expressing hate is enough by this definition But was that definition ever applied as such? I see people arguing that it was but not a single valid example was provided. A case where courts punished someone for promoting hate but no violence whatsoever.