13 ms·

The discussion is about speech, and speech is not action. Harmful action is already a crime, and any crime can be upgraded to "hate crime" based on the motivati

The discussion is about speech, and speech is not action. Harmful action is already a crime, and any crime can be upgraded to "hate crime" based on the motivation. Group membership doesn't have anything to do with minorities though. You can define groups however you want, so a "minority" is entirely dependent on the context of the situation and just as subjective as the hate speech. So who are you considering minorities and what is this anecdotal data that claims they did not participate in forums? Must every forum be welcoming to everyone? Did no other forum exist? Could they not have created their own forum? If they talked to each other, does that mean a forum exists? And if so, doesn't that mean they are free to engage in their own discourse after all?

foldr 6y ago
I don't see how membership of a minority group is all that subjective in most cases. E.g., LGBTQ individuals are pretty clearly a minority, Jews were pretty clearly a minority in Europe in the 20th century, etc. Minorities tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech for obvious reasons.
- manigandham 6y ago
  How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. Either way, the point that if hate speech is targeting against a "group", then that group can be anything and anyone. There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. It just dilutes the discussion about defining hate speech.
  - foldr 6y ago
    >How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. That is entirely specious, pedantic and irrelevant. In the context relevant to hate speech, there is no doubt that, say, LGBTQ individuals or Jews are minority groups. I don't think you can really be serious about denying this (given that the numbers are what they are). I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. >There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. There is no essential connection between hate speech and minorities, but there's a very obvious connection. Historically, many victims of hate speech and other hate crimes have been members of minority groups. And it's not difficult to see why. It's a lot easier for a majority group to persecute a minority group than vice versa.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Alright, let me rephrase: Hate speech is subjective. Minority is subjective. Even if there are commonly considered minority groups, it doesn't solve for the definition of hate speech other than just being a shortcut to defining a group membership that is the basis for the "hate". Therefore there is really no connection (essential or otherwise) that is useful to the discussion of what is hate speech.
      - foldr 6y ago
        It is not subjective in any interesting sense whether a given group is a minority within a particular society. It's simply a question of counting. The connection, as various people have explained to you, is that minorities within a society tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech and its associated effects.
        manigandham 6y ago
        You can't count until you know the (subjectively chosen) boundary of the whole. For example, a minority in your city may not be the minority in another country. Either way, so what if it affects minorities more often? The question is What is hate speech? and saying "it affects minorities more" does not solve for that definition at all. Hence why the connection does not matter/exist.
        foldr 6y ago
        Obviously you choose the ‘boundary of the whole’ according to the location of the instance of hate speech. E.g., Jews were a minority in 1930s Germany; LGBTQ individuals are a minority more or less everywhere; Muslims are a minority in London, etc. etc. There’s nothing about this that’s difficult to understand, and you really just seem to be trolling at this point. As to your ‘so what’, you now seem to accept that there is a connection between minorities and hate speech, which was the point at issue.
        dane-pgp 6y ago
- banmeagaindan2 6y ago
  Obvious and inaccurate. Minorities are likely to use persecution because their position is vulnerable.
klyrs 6y ago
The US has a pretty well defined notion of "protected class" since at least 1964. Like all of law, there are ambiguities and edge cases that have not been fully enumerated or explored in case law. You're acting like this is a huge nebulous concept, and displaying confusion about minorities. People often say "minorities" when they mean "protected class." Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class. Billionaires are a minority, but they are not a protected class. Who decides what constitutes a protected class? Case law. When a suitable number of cases demonstrate harm on the basis of membership in a class, then that class may be considered for inclusion in the definition. The definition of hate speech in Canada is quite narrow, and hinges on the definition of protected class. Progress is slow and methodical, and not the slippery slope thay you drscribe.
- MockObject 6y ago
  > Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class. No, in the US, women are not legally a protected class. Gender is a protected class, which prohibits discrimination against women, or men.

foldr 6y ago

I don't see how membership of a minority group is all that subjective in most cases. E.g., LGBTQ individuals are pretty clearly a minority, Jews were pretty clearly a minority in Europe in the 20th century, etc. Minorities tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech for obvious reasons.

manigandham 6y ago
How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. Either way, the point that if hate speech is targeting against a "group", then that group can be anything and anyone. There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. It just dilutes the discussion about defining hate speech.
- foldr 6y ago
  >How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. That is entirely specious, pedantic and irrelevant. In the context relevant to hate speech, there is no doubt that, say, LGBTQ individuals or Jews are minority groups. I don't think you can really be serious about denying this (given that the numbers are what they are). I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. >There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. There is no essential connection between hate speech and minorities, but there's a very obvious connection. Historically, many victims of hate speech and other hate crimes have been members of minority groups. And it's not difficult to see why. It's a lot easier for a majority group to persecute a minority group than vice versa.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Alright, let me rephrase: Hate speech is subjective. Minority is subjective. Even if there are commonly considered minority groups, it doesn't solve for the definition of hate speech other than just being a shortcut to defining a group membership that is the basis for the "hate". Therefore there is really no connection (essential or otherwise) that is useful to the discussion of what is hate speech.
    - foldr 6y ago
      It is not subjective in any interesting sense whether a given group is a minority within a particular society. It's simply a question of counting. The connection, as various people have explained to you, is that minorities within a society tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech and its associated effects.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        You can't count until you know the (subjectively chosen) boundary of the whole. For example, a minority in your city may not be the minority in another country. Either way, so what if it affects minorities more often? The question is What is hate speech? and saying "it affects minorities more" does not solve for that definition at all. Hence why the connection does not matter/exist.
        foldr 6y ago
        Obviously you choose the ‘boundary of the whole’ according to the location of the instance of hate speech. E.g., Jews were a minority in 1930s Germany; LGBTQ individuals are a minority more or less everywhere; Muslims are a minority in London, etc. etc. There’s nothing about this that’s difficult to understand, and you really just seem to be trolling at this point. As to your ‘so what’, you now seem to accept that there is a connection between minorities and hate speech, which was the point at issue.
        dane-pgp 6y ago
banmeagaindan2 6y ago
Obvious and inaccurate. Minorities are likely to use persecution because their position is vulnerable.

klyrs 6y ago

The US has a pretty well defined notion of "protected class" since at least 1964. Like all of law, there are ambiguities and edge cases that have not been fully enumerated or explored in case law. You're acting like this is a huge nebulous concept, and displaying confusion about minorities. People often say "minorities" when they mean "protected class." Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class. Billionaires are a minority, but they are not a protected class. Who decides what constitutes a protected class? Case law. When a suitable number of cases demonstrate harm on the basis of membership in a class, then that class may be considered for inclusion in the definition. The definition of hate speech in Canada is quite narrow, and hinges on the definition of protected class. Progress is slow and methodical, and not the slippery slope thay you drscribe.

MockObject 6y ago
> Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class. No, in the US, women are not legally a protected class. Gender is a protected class, which prohibits discrimination against women, or men.