5 ms·

>> Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. This is of course false. We have hate speech laws for example.

LocalH 6y ago
The problem with “hate speech” is that increasingly more things are being added to that umbrella. It’s kind of similar to the way that “think of the children” is often abused to cover all sorts of things.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Could you indicate some cases where the precedence of hate speech law has been expanded? Thank you!
  - tossAfterUsing 6y ago
    Canada has some good examples of this.
    - Njikl 6y ago
      Okay, then name the examples. It's not sufficient to say that examples exist without any further proof.
      - ghufran_syed 6y ago
        How about a case involving human rights law? https://reason.com/2019/07/23/jessica-yaniv-da-silva-brazilian-wax-balls/ https://reason.com/2019/07/23/jessica-yaniv-da-silva-brazili...
        dashundchen 6y ago
        That has nothing to do with expanded hate speech laws, and the in fact the provincial human rights council in British Columbia ruled against the complainant in the article, and ordered her to pay restitution to the salons. I assume the GGP is referring to the C-16 bill passed by the federal government of Canada in 2016, which added gender expression and identity to existing human rights laws on discrimination. I have repeatedly seen a perhaps willful misinterpretation, popularly stemming from Jordan Petersen, that this bill criminalizes misgendering people when that's not the case. https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-fined-just-using-wrong-gender-pronoun https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-f... >"After Bill C-16 amended the Criminal Code, Canadian law prohibited hate propaganda against groups that can be identified based on gender identity or gender expression. The bill also allowed for more severe sentencing if it is proved that a particular offense was motivated by a bias or prejudice against a person's gender identity or gender expression. > >However, experts say misusing a pronoun would not constitute hate propaganda, nor can it be used as >sole evidence of discrimination. > >"If it's just the pronoun, not much is going to happen," explained Cheryl Milne, director of the Asper >Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto told AFP."
        ghufran_syed 6y ago
        You’re right, I was confusing the two issues. But this article from the cbc with commentary from two legal experts isn’t completely reassuring: > Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun? >In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act. >“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.” >The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination. >“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.” >If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time? >It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. >If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says. >“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.” >“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.” https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi... [EDIT: added link]
  - collyw 6y ago
    A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility.... A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender. Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/ https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/... Some truly terrifying sentences in there. All based on the perception of someone else.
nathias 6y ago
which are not a good solution
toolz 6y ago
and since we don't use anything resembling the scientific method with our laws there's no way of knowing if hate speech laws are effective. Being a law doesn't make it good. e.g. war on drugs
DenisM 6y ago
Can you show a US law that stifles "hate speech"?

LocalH 6y ago

The problem with “hate speech” is that increasingly more things are being added to that umbrella. It’s kind of similar to the way that “think of the children” is often abused to cover all sorts of things.

TeaDrunk 6y ago
Could you indicate some cases where the precedence of hate speech law has been expanded? Thank you!
- tossAfterUsing 6y ago
  Canada has some good examples of this.
  - Njikl 6y ago
    Okay, then name the examples. It's not sufficient to say that examples exist without any further proof.
    - ghufran_syed 6y ago
      How about a case involving human rights law? https://reason.com/2019/07/23/jessica-yaniv-da-silva-brazilian-wax-balls/ https://reason.com/2019/07/23/jessica-yaniv-da-silva-brazili...
      - dashundchen 6y ago
        That has nothing to do with expanded hate speech laws, and the in fact the provincial human rights council in British Columbia ruled against the complainant in the article, and ordered her to pay restitution to the salons. I assume the GGP is referring to the C-16 bill passed by the federal government of Canada in 2016, which added gender expression and identity to existing human rights laws on discrimination. I have repeatedly seen a perhaps willful misinterpretation, popularly stemming from Jordan Petersen, that this bill criminalizes misgendering people when that's not the case. https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-fined-just-using-wrong-gender-pronoun https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-f... >"After Bill C-16 amended the Criminal Code, Canadian law prohibited hate propaganda against groups that can be identified based on gender identity or gender expression. The bill also allowed for more severe sentencing if it is proved that a particular offense was motivated by a bias or prejudice against a person's gender identity or gender expression. > >However, experts say misusing a pronoun would not constitute hate propaganda, nor can it be used as >sole evidence of discrimination. > >"If it's just the pronoun, not much is going to happen," explained Cheryl Milne, director of the Asper >Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto told AFP."
        ghufran_syed 6y ago
        You’re right, I was confusing the two issues. But this article from the cbc with commentary from two legal experts isn’t completely reassuring: > Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun? >In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act. >“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.” >The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination. >“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.” >If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time? >It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. >If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says. >“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.” >“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.” https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi... [EDIT: added link]
- collyw 6y ago
  A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility.... A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender. Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/ https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/... Some truly terrifying sentences in there. All based on the perception of someone else.

nathias 6y ago

which are not a good solution

toolz 6y ago

and since we don't use anything resembling the scientific method with our laws there's no way of knowing if hate speech laws are effective. Being a law doesn't make it good. e.g. war on drugs

DenisM 6y ago

Can you show a US law that stifles "hate speech"?