4 ms·

The problem is who decides what hate speech is. Ira Glasser has good point here: https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ba

by e9 6y ago

The problem is who decides what hate speech is. Ira Glasser has good point here: https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ban-hate-speech/ https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...

irjustin 6y ago
I'll agree that censoring speech is probably one of the sharpest double edge swords to play with. My counter to "who decides what hate speech is" - we need to actively figure it out. We can't sit back and say "it's too hard to decide" so we should tolerate all speech either by decision or inaction. Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- nullifidian 6y ago
  >we need to actively figure it out. No we don't.
- jwalton 6y ago
  This is a bit like saying “who should we trust to be king sounds hard to figure out, but that doesn’t mean we should settle for democracy.” > Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. Having the government decide what people are and are not allowed to say sounds a lot more dangerous to me. That’s how you end up with an official state religion and all other beliefs are outlawed, or you you end up with not being allowed to talk about being gay in public without fear of being stoned to death.
mcv 6y ago
While that's definitely an important concern, it is already true that there are things you're not allowed to say. Things that hurt people, like libel/slander, threats, blackmail, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. So why is some speech that hurts people banned, while other speech that hurts people is allowed? This should be the test for what counts as hate speech. Can you call the press "the enemy of the people" if that leads to journalists getting hurt? Can you call certain demographic groups a threat to society if that leads people to take action against those groups? Is it only the people who stormed the Capitol who are guilty of that, or also the politicians and others who encouraged them? There is always going to be some limit to free speech. The question is: is that line in the right place? Does it need to be moved one way or the other? Does it allow speech that endangers lives? Does it ban speech that doesn't? That has to be a constant evaluation. (That said, I regret banning communication apps. I'd rather see people be held accountable for the things they say on those apps. By the law, not by corporations.)
- notadev 6y ago
  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
  - mcv 6y ago
    From that article: There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" Still supports my point: there are limits to free speech when it involves inciting violence (or other lawless action). And there's still also libel laws which make lies illegal in some cases. Though I believe that's a civil rather than criminal issue.

by e9 6y ago

irjustin 6y ago

I'll agree that censoring speech is probably one of the sharpest double edge swords to play with. My counter to "who decides what hate speech is" - we need to actively figure it out. We can't sit back and say "it's too hard to decide" so we should tolerate all speech either by decision or inaction. Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

nullifidian 6y ago
>we need to actively figure it out. No we don't.
jwalton 6y ago
This is a bit like saying “who should we trust to be king sounds hard to figure out, but that doesn’t mean we should settle for democracy.” > Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. Having the government decide what people are and are not allowed to say sounds a lot more dangerous to me. That’s how you end up with an official state religion and all other beliefs are outlawed, or you you end up with not being allowed to talk about being gay in public without fear of being stoned to death.

mcv 6y ago

While that's definitely an important concern, it is already true that there are things you're not allowed to say. Things that hurt people, like libel/slander, threats, blackmail, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. So why is some speech that hurts people banned, while other speech that hurts people is allowed? This should be the test for what counts as hate speech. Can you call the press "the enemy of the people" if that leads to journalists getting hurt? Can you call certain demographic groups a threat to society if that leads people to take action against those groups? Is it only the people who stormed the Capitol who are guilty of that, or also the politicians and others who encouraged them? There is always going to be some limit to free speech. The question is: is that line in the right place? Does it need to be moved one way or the other? Does it allow speech that endangers lives? Does it ban speech that doesn't? That has to be a constant evaluation. (That said, I regret banning communication apps. I'd rather see people be held accountable for the things they say on those apps. By the law, not by corporations.)

notadev 6y ago
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
- mcv 6y ago
  From that article: There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" Still supports my point: there are limits to free speech when it involves inciting violence (or other lawless action). And there's still also libel laws which make lies illegal in some cases. Though I believe that's a civil rather than criminal issue.