10 ms·

>What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Come on. There's a debate to be had about hate speech and free speech, but it can't even get start

by foldr 6y ago

>What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Come on. There's a debate to be had about hate speech and free speech, but it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.

manigandham 6y ago
Instead of claiming that I lack the history, why don't you explain what the connection is? The definition of minority is just as subjective.
- foldr 6y ago
  There are a number of well-known historical cases where hate speech targeted at certain minority groups has precipitated genocide (in the worst case) or other forms of violence.
- umvi 6y ago
  In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. In many peoples' opinion, life is more valuable than pure freedom, therefore we should take away (some) freedom in order to save lives. To be clear, I am not in the camp that believes that, but I try to understand their point of view.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    What does this have to do with minority populations? Speech that incites violence is already a crime.
    - PeterCorless 6y ago
      Minorities are most often the targets of hate speech. Which is why LGTBQ youth are often bullied both IRL and online and they commit suicide. And yes, it is a crime. But this thread is talking about deleting comments; not about law enforcement.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        This thread is about hate speech and the ambiguous subjective definitions that have lead to this unending censorship problem. If the core agreement is that it's about hate against a group, then saying "minority" is nothing more than just a shortcut for a certain group and doesn't really add anything to the discussion of what is hate speech.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. Can you elaborate on how we establish a causal relationship between hate speech and suicide? Let alone specifically hateful comments on YouTube? This doesn't seem corroborated by the suicide rates in the US over time. Rates were just as high (and in fact, higher in some years) in pre-internet days [1]. This claim is made even more questionable when taken in conjunction the previous comments' emphasis on its impact on minorities. Minorities in the US actually have substantially lower suicide rates than Whites [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Crude_US_suicide_rate_by_age_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Age_adjusted_US_suicide_rate_by_race_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - golergka 6y ago
    I've seen a few cases where people have committed suicide after suffering online hate, and to be honest, I don't think that this hate made a radical difference – rather, it was something that triggered an individual who already was in a very dark place. Sacrificing free speech for their sake of like doing a nation-wide ban on peanuts to help people with allergies: it will prevent quit a lot of accidental deaths, too. Except that peanuts are not essential for a functioning democracy.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    There are studies dating back to the 70s that suggest publishing headlines about suicide causes people to commit suicide. Headlines about murder-suicides similarly caused an uptick in murder suicides. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17750236 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17750236 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.201.4357.748 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.201.4357.748) > Abstract: Fatal crashes of private, business, and corporate-executive airplanes have increased after publicized murder-suicides. The more publicity given to muder-suicide, the more crashes occurred. The increase in plane crashes occurred primarily in states where murder-suicides were publicized. These findings suggest that murder-suicide stories trigger subsequent murder-suicides, some of which are disguised as airplane accidents. There have been some studies which found similar correlations with fatal car 'accidents.' It's easy to speculate that comments discussing suicide, such as yours or mine, might also plausibly cause suicides. Perhaps that's something for you to consider.
curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question. Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included. Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?
- komali2 6y ago
  You acknowledge that speech can be a precursor to action. We have seen direct evidence of this. Following a speech by president trump where he uses coded hate speech, violence against minorities increases. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 I'm not arguing we make hate speech illegal, or have thought crime. In fact if it were up to me racists would be even more up front about their deplorable worldview. But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. This isn't a defense of banning anti-PRC posters though. Calling xi jinping Winnie the Pooh isn't hate speech. Discussing what constitutes hate speech could be another valuable discussion perhaps held elsewhere - I don't agree that a definition is impossible, if that's where you're thinking of going. I don't agree that there's a slippery slope.
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    > But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. I completely agree. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their value systems or stay silent about my discontent (and I'm not implying that you claimed that either). I'm just tired of hearing the phrase "hate speech" used whenever these discussions happen, as if there were some fundamental human law that we have to protect people from ideas that might offend them - either via regulation or private company policy. Illegal or not, I don't think it helps to talk about "hate speech" in the context of censorship and free speech. It's like having a debate about which curse words are the worst, when really that's missing the point.
type0 6y ago
There's a debate to be had about undesirable and uncomfortable speech as well
cwhiz 6y ago
There are no laws in the United States against hate speech. It is a made up term that changes with the wind. It used to describe speech that was encouraging violence towards a person or group but then it just became "speech that expresses hate." Nowadays it is mostly used to describe speech from a majority group that a minority group found offensive. What is hate? What is offensive? It's whatever you want it to be! When in doubt, err on the side of freedom and liberty.
- foldr 6y ago
  Yes, I know there aren't. My comment was just pointing out that there is indeed a connection between hate speech and minority groups.
- hrktb 6y ago
  > There are no laws in the United States against hate speech An interesting part of this discussion is that Youtube is operating globally. There are a number of countries with the concept of “hate speech” in the law. Saying it doesn’t exist in US law is only a partial answer.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    This is true. I sometimes forget that people from all over the world are on HN. Good point.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    That’s true. But as a consequence, content can be blocked/deleted per country, it doesn’t have to be global. Otherwise countries with most restrictive laws basically dictate what is allowed or not to the rest of the world (though in practice that’s already in part the case).
- potatoz2 6y ago
  Every term is a made up term. Hate speech is generally understood as sexist/racist/homophobic speech (in general, discrimination against a minority group with no justification based in reality). It doesn't need to be encouraging violence in the immediate against such a group, that's a subset of hate speech. You may disagree with the definition, but that's what people are talking about. If you want to elevate the discussion, you should avoid pointless semantic arguments IMO.
jshevek 6y ago
The problem is that there is not a single, universal correct answer. Answering this question requires that we uncover built-in assumptions, and make them explicit.

by foldr 6y ago

manigandham 6y ago

Instead of claiming that I lack the history, why don't you explain what the connection is? The definition of minority is just as subjective.

foldr 6y ago
There are a number of well-known historical cases where hate speech targeted at certain minority groups has precipitated genocide (in the worst case) or other forms of violence.
umvi 6y ago
In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. In many peoples' opinion, life is more valuable than pure freedom, therefore we should take away (some) freedom in order to save lives. To be clear, I am not in the camp that believes that, but I try to understand their point of view.
- manigandham 6y ago
  What does this have to do with minority populations? Speech that incites violence is already a crime.
  - PeterCorless 6y ago
    Minorities are most often the targets of hate speech. Which is why LGTBQ youth are often bullied both IRL and online and they commit suicide. And yes, it is a crime. But this thread is talking about deleting comments; not about law enforcement.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      This thread is about hate speech and the ambiguous subjective definitions that have lead to this unending censorship problem. If the core agreement is that it's about hate against a group, then saying "minority" is nothing more than just a shortcut for a certain group and doesn't really add anything to the discussion of what is hate speech.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. Can you elaborate on how we establish a causal relationship between hate speech and suicide? Let alone specifically hateful comments on YouTube? This doesn't seem corroborated by the suicide rates in the US over time. Rates were just as high (and in fact, higher in some years) in pre-internet days [1]. This claim is made even more questionable when taken in conjunction the previous comments' emphasis on its impact on minorities. Minorities in the US actually have substantially lower suicide rates than Whites [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Crude_US_suicide_rate_by_age_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Age_adjusted_US_suicide_rate_by_race_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- golergka 6y ago
  I've seen a few cases where people have committed suicide after suffering online hate, and to be honest, I don't think that this hate made a radical difference – rather, it was something that triggered an individual who already was in a very dark place. Sacrificing free speech for their sake of like doing a nation-wide ban on peanuts to help people with allergies: it will prevent quit a lot of accidental deaths, too. Except that peanuts are not essential for a functioning democracy.
- catalogia 6y ago
  There are studies dating back to the 70s that suggest publishing headlines about suicide causes people to commit suicide. Headlines about murder-suicides similarly caused an uptick in murder suicides. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17750236 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17750236 (https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.201.4357.748 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.201.4357.748) > Abstract: Fatal crashes of private, business, and corporate-executive airplanes have increased after publicized murder-suicides. The more publicity given to muder-suicide, the more crashes occurred. The increase in plane crashes occurred primarily in states where murder-suicides were publicized. These findings suggest that murder-suicide stories trigger subsequent murder-suicides, some of which are disguised as airplane accidents. There have been some studies which found similar correlations with fatal car 'accidents.' It's easy to speculate that comments discussing suicide, such as yours or mine, might also plausibly cause suicides. Perhaps that's something for you to consider.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago

> it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question. Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included. Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?

komali2 6y ago
You acknowledge that speech can be a precursor to action. We have seen direct evidence of this. Following a speech by president trump where he uses coded hate speech, violence against minorities increases. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 I'm not arguing we make hate speech illegal, or have thought crime. In fact if it were up to me racists would be even more up front about their deplorable worldview. But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. This isn't a defense of banning anti-PRC posters though. Calling xi jinping Winnie the Pooh isn't hate speech. Discussing what constitutes hate speech could be another valuable discussion perhaps held elsewhere - I don't agree that a definition is impossible, if that's where you're thinking of going. I don't agree that there's a slippery slope.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  > But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. I completely agree. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their value systems or stay silent about my discontent (and I'm not implying that you claimed that either). I'm just tired of hearing the phrase "hate speech" used whenever these discussions happen, as if there were some fundamental human law that we have to protect people from ideas that might offend them - either via regulation or private company policy. Illegal or not, I don't think it helps to talk about "hate speech" in the context of censorship and free speech. It's like having a debate about which curse words are the worst, when really that's missing the point.

type0 6y ago

There's a debate to be had about undesirable and uncomfortable speech as well

cwhiz 6y ago

There are no laws in the United States against hate speech. It is a made up term that changes with the wind. It used to describe speech that was encouraging violence towards a person or group but then it just became "speech that expresses hate." Nowadays it is mostly used to describe speech from a majority group that a minority group found offensive. What is hate? What is offensive? It's whatever you want it to be! When in doubt, err on the side of freedom and liberty.

foldr 6y ago
Yes, I know there aren't. My comment was just pointing out that there is indeed a connection between hate speech and minority groups.
hrktb 6y ago
> There are no laws in the United States against hate speech An interesting part of this discussion is that Youtube is operating globally. There are a number of countries with the concept of “hate speech” in the law. Saying it doesn’t exist in US law is only a partial answer.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  This is true. I sometimes forget that people from all over the world are on HN. Good point.
- dgellow 6y ago
  That’s true. But as a consequence, content can be blocked/deleted per country, it doesn’t have to be global. Otherwise countries with most restrictive laws basically dictate what is allowed or not to the rest of the world (though in practice that’s already in part the case).
potatoz2 6y ago
Every term is a made up term. Hate speech is generally understood as sexist/racist/homophobic speech (in general, discrimination against a minority group with no justification based in reality). It doesn't need to be encouraging violence in the immediate against such a group, that's a subset of hate speech. You may disagree with the definition, but that's what people are talking about. If you want to elevate the discussion, you should avoid pointless semantic arguments IMO.

jshevek 6y ago

The problem is that there is not a single, universal correct answer. Answering this question requires that we uncover built-in assumptions, and make them explicit.