3 ms·

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 s

by 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.)
manfredo 7y ago
> 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 This depends highly on what is being included under the umbrella of "disparagement of intimidation". Some claimed that James Damore's memo was disparagement, and others say that advocating against men who identity as women competing in women's sporting events is disparagement. Others try to put advocating for enforcement of existing immigration laws as disparagement and intimidation. Once you define a forbidden category, people will try to abuse it to their advantage.

by Frondo 7y ago

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.)

manfredo 7y ago

> 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 This depends highly on what is being included under the umbrella of "disparagement of intimidation". Some claimed that James Damore's memo was disparagement, and others say that advocating against men who identity as women competing in women's sporting events is disparagement. Others try to put advocating for enforcement of existing immigration laws as disparagement and intimidation. Once you define a forbidden category, people will try to abuse it to their advantage.