3 ms·

In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to be an atheist, because of the hatred you are spreading for the state religion. It seems obvious to you what is and isn’t hate

In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to be an atheist, because of the hatred you are spreading for the state religion. It seems obvious to you what is and isn’t hate speech, and it seems obvious we should be able to outlaw it as a result, but I suspect you’ll find your definition and that of 100 random people off the internet will differ substantially. There will be some common ground, but there will be some fuzzy bits around the edges. Who do we give the power to decide which of those fuzzy bits to enforce end which not? Trump won’t be in power for much longer in the US, but someone like him will probably be in power again. Is that the kind of person you want defining what is and isn’t hate speech? Or perhaps is should be Jeff Bezos who decides what is and isn’t hate speech? What happens when someone in power decides that talking about the wrong god or the wrong kind of sexuality or the wrong kind of people is “hate speech”? What checks and balances will be in place to prevent that from happening? We have some recourse against a US president in the form of the constitution, but we have none against Amazon. Do we just trust that the tech giants will always have our best interest at heart?

kaba0 6y ago
It is hate speech in Saudi Arabia by definition of law (I guess, but I didn’t look up your claim). In Germany there is a different law for hate speech with a proper definition, made by the government chosen by the people - which may or may not have been the case in the former case. I don’t see how a law on hate speech is any different from all the other laws. Separation of powers is a thing (and it should be the highest priority of the people to keep it separate), and there are already plenty of rules controlling every aspect of our lives. How is it different in the case of hate speech? A theoretical case of a dictator rising would mean that a) he/she changes the definition of said hate speech to be more ambiguous b) infiltrate/corrupt the juries to remove people they deem dangerous to them. Now, if they manage to do a, they can have an easier time removing said opponents, but only with some corruption on the juries’ side. And if that happens, they could do away with the change of law, since any law can be applied to the oppnents in this case.

kaba0 6y ago

It is hate speech in Saudi Arabia by definition of law (I guess, but I didn’t look up your claim). In Germany there is a different law for hate speech with a proper definition, made by the government chosen by the people - which may or may not have been the case in the former case. I don’t see how a law on hate speech is any different from all the other laws. Separation of powers is a thing (and it should be the highest priority of the people to keep it separate), and there are already plenty of rules controlling every aspect of our lives. How is it different in the case of hate speech? A theoretical case of a dictator rising would mean that a) he/she changes the definition of said hate speech to be more ambiguous b) infiltrate/corrupt the juries to remove people they deem dangerous to them. Now, if they manage to do a, they can have an easier time removing said opponents, but only with some corruption on the juries’ side. And if that happens, they could do away with the change of law, since any law can be applied to the oppnents in this case.