3 ms·

> "Free speech" does not have a universal definition. I doubt people in Germany think they don't have free speech just because they can't legally deny the holoc

> "Free speech" does not have a universal definition. I doubt people in Germany think they don't have free speech just because they can't legally deny the holocaust. However we allow that in the US even if it is a "malicious lie" that is disputing facts and therefore isn't an opinion which would seem to leave it outside your definition of free speech. Would you be in favor of a similar law in the US to outlaw holocaust denial? No. People have good faith beliefs in all sorts of insane/horrible things. If I encounter holocaust deniers, I ask them if they're calling me a liar. I've been to Dachau. I'm convinced. And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. > You also seem to be in support of defamation not being protected speech. But why should defamation of an entire group of people in the form of hate speech be protected? Saying a specific person has negative traits X, Y, and Z isn't protected but it is protected when you say everyone of that person's ethnicity including that specific individual has traits X, Y, and Z. Why the distinction? Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Other opinions: "I don't trust the Trump administration's COVID vaccine." "The rent is too damn high." "We need to build the wall." Etc. > This idea of free speech is not us straightforward as "free speech maximalists" try to make it appear. No, it really, really is. Engaging in good faith is apparently much harder.

slg 6y ago
>And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. What country do you want to use as your gold standard? Holocaust denial is illegal in most of Europe. Many countries outlaw hate speech. Most other countries have more restrictive speech laws than the US. >Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Either. Both of those are fully legal in the US. Is that a problem? Why do we need to protect speech like "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year"? What is the societal good that comes from protecting that speech?
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > Why do we need to protect speech like "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year"? We need to protect it because humans are prone to becoming very protective or defensive about certain opinions, especially religious ones[1] or, lately, statements like "women are women"[2]. Since drawing the line at good opinions and "hate speech" is impossible, regulating them gives a rise to authoritarianism, as is the case across Europe and in much of the rest of the world. And we know that "banning hate speech" doesn't actually prevent the thoughts from persisting or being expressed privately. Germany still has neo-Nazis[3] and Holocaust deniers[4]; they have merely been driven underground, not reformed. How could they be reformed, since even expressing any of the thoughts they believe is illegal? And, as many have cited, often the small groups whom hate speech laws are meant to protect end up being the primary victims of it.[5] The social benefits of protecting horrible opinions are not a first-order good, but they are a second-order good once we realize that all opinions are subjective and thus impossible to judge in a systematic way. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908414559/charlie-hebdo-to-reprint-muhammad-cartoons-as-trial-linked-to-2015-attack-begins https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908414559/charlie-hebdo-to-re... [2] https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/28/meghan-murphy-and-the-silencing-of-women/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/28/meghan-murphy-and-t... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/eight-german-neo-nazis-jailed-over-planned-attacks https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/eight-german-n... [4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ursula-haverbeck-holocaust-denier-germany-prison-sentence-six-months-nazi-far-right-racism-anti-semiticsm-a8006496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ursula-haver... [5] https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president-says-censoring-hate-speech-can-backfire-just-like-it-did-in-nazi-germany https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president...
  - slg 6y ago
    >We need to protect it because humans are prone to becoming very protective or defensive about certain opinions You keep on using the word "opinions". "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is not an opinion. Holocaust denial is not an opinion. These are statements of alleged fact that are inarguably wrong. I understand the need to protect opinions. I don't understand the need to protect lies. >And we know that "banning hate speech" doesn't actually prevent the thoughts from persisting or being expressed privately. Germany still has neo-Nazis[3] and Holocaust deniers[4]; they have merely been driven underground, not reformed. How could they be reformed, since even expressing any of the thoughts they believe is illegal? I guess that means the US doesn't have any neo-Nazis or holocaust deniers, right?[1] How could beliefs like that exist in a country in which those ideas are easily overcome by opposing speech? It isn't a question of completely stomping out thoughts like this. That is impossible. It is about preventing them from spreading. By allowing this type of speech, we are making it easier for these hateful people to recruit and radicalize other individuals who would have never come to these beliefs on their own. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-neo-nazi-isis-us-terror-threat-level-trump-a9323786.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-neo-na...

slg 6y ago

>And Germany is hardly the gold standard of freedom. What country do you want to use as your gold standard? Holocaust denial is illegal in most of Europe. Many countries outlaw hate speech. Most other countries have more restrictive speech laws than the US. >Are we talking about opinions or not? "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is different than "I think all of Group Y are dangerous and have no place in our country." Certainly "hate speech" would go after both with equal vigor (and quite a bit more), but only the first is defamatory. The latter is simply an opinion. Either. Both of those are fully legal in the US. Is that a problem? Why do we need to protect speech like "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year"? What is the societal good that comes from protecting that speech?

baryphonic 6y ago
> Why do we need to protect speech like "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year"? We need to protect it because humans are prone to becoming very protective or defensive about certain opinions, especially religious ones[1] or, lately, statements like "women are women"[2]. Since drawing the line at good opinions and "hate speech" is impossible, regulating them gives a rise to authoritarianism, as is the case across Europe and in much of the rest of the world. And we know that "banning hate speech" doesn't actually prevent the thoughts from persisting or being expressed privately. Germany still has neo-Nazis[3] and Holocaust deniers[4]; they have merely been driven underground, not reformed. How could they be reformed, since even expressing any of the thoughts they believe is illegal? And, as many have cited, often the small groups whom hate speech laws are meant to protect end up being the primary victims of it.[5] The social benefits of protecting horrible opinions are not a first-order good, but they are a second-order good once we realize that all opinions are subjective and thus impossible to judge in a systematic way. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908414559/charlie-hebdo-to-reprint-muhammad-cartoons-as-trial-linked-to-2015-attack-begins https://www.npr.org/2020/09/01/908414559/charlie-hebdo-to-re... [2] https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/28/meghan-murphy-and-the-silencing-of-women/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/28/meghan-murphy-and-t... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/eight-german-neo-nazis-jailed-over-planned-attacks https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/eight-german-n... [4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ursula-haverbeck-holocaust-denier-germany-prison-sentence-six-months-nazi-far-right-racism-anti-semiticsm-a8006496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ursula-haver... [5] https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president-says-censoring-hate-speech-can-backfire-just-like-it-did-in-nazi-germany https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president...
- slg 6y ago
  >We need to protect it because humans are prone to becoming very protective or defensive about certain opinions You keep on using the word "opinions". "Group X likes to chop up babies and eat them, and has had several baby feasts so far this year" is not an opinion. Holocaust denial is not an opinion. These are statements of alleged fact that are inarguably wrong. I understand the need to protect opinions. I don't understand the need to protect lies. >And we know that "banning hate speech" doesn't actually prevent the thoughts from persisting or being expressed privately. Germany still has neo-Nazis[3] and Holocaust deniers[4]; they have merely been driven underground, not reformed. How could they be reformed, since even expressing any of the thoughts they believe is illegal? I guess that means the US doesn't have any neo-Nazis or holocaust deniers, right?[1] How could beliefs like that exist in a country in which those ideas are easily overcome by opposing speech? It isn't a question of completely stomping out thoughts like this. That is impossible. It is about preventing them from spreading. By allowing this type of speech, we are making it easier for these hateful people to recruit and radicalize other individuals who would have never come to these beliefs on their own. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-neo-nazi-isis-us-terror-threat-level-trump-a9323786.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-neo-na...