4 ms·

Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st

Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.
- bluthru 6y ago
  >favour Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- dexterdog 6y ago
  Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.
  - bityard 6y ago
    In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.
    - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
      Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country" and "against the interests of the nation". Smh
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    It's also unclear to me why that, in turn, is a problem. There are several fuzzy areas in American free speech law as it stands, and arguably most people are already happy to allow (and encourage) regulation in other important areas of life, from medical/food regulation to warranty regulations, to electrical safety regulations, to frequency band regulations. The 'power of the arbiter' there is almost never brought up as a problem, despite the fact that this immense power can have very real consequences. If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too? This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
    - dexterdog 6y ago
      So you're saying that because we've already given the government too much power in areas that it was never meant to be involved we should just keep going?
marcodiego 6y ago
Yes, I'm not in the US. But I think I didn't express myself clearly. Actually, what I mean is more something along the lines: "people should be held accountable by what they spread". Things like defamation are punishable in the US, right?
- extradesgo 6y ago
  No, not under criminal law. It requires a civil suit.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    Also, in the USA, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the speaker was wrong, and further, in most cases, that the speaker should have known that it was wrong. People like to talk about "defamation", but in America the bar is so high that it's only rarely applicable.
TylerE 6y ago
Go yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how you do in court.
the_rectifier 6y ago
A death threat against a whole ethnicity is illegal and in no way considered protected speech, and same goes for libel and threats to individuals. And this is by design.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  A death threat against a whole ethnicity is illegal and in no way considered protected speech No, in America this is false. A true threat must be a credible, present danger to its target. Saying "all people of race X should be killed" is nothing like that. same goes for libel and threats to individuals. No. Libel is not illegal, and is still protected against prior restraint. It's only addressable through civil liability suits. And this is by design.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.

bluthru 6y ago
>favour Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
dexterdog 6y ago
Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.
- bityard 6y ago
  In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.
  - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
    Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country" and "against the interests of the nation". Smh
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  It's also unclear to me why that, in turn, is a problem. There are several fuzzy areas in American free speech law as it stands, and arguably most people are already happy to allow (and encourage) regulation in other important areas of life, from medical/food regulation to warranty regulations, to electrical safety regulations, to frequency band regulations. The 'power of the arbiter' there is almost never brought up as a problem, despite the fact that this immense power can have very real consequences. If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too? This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
  - dexterdog 6y ago
    So you're saying that because we've already given the government too much power in areas that it was never meant to be involved we should just keep going?

marcodiego 6y ago

Yes, I'm not in the US. But I think I didn't express myself clearly. Actually, what I mean is more something along the lines: "people should be held accountable by what they spread". Things like defamation are punishable in the US, right?

extradesgo 6y ago
No, not under criminal law. It requires a civil suit.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  Also, in the USA, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the speaker was wrong, and further, in most cases, that the speaker should have known that it was wrong. People like to talk about "defamation", but in America the bar is so high that it's only rarely applicable.

TylerE 6y ago

Go yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how you do in court.

the_rectifier 6y ago

A death threat against a whole ethnicity is illegal and in no way considered protected speech, and same goes for libel and threats to individuals. And this is by design.

CWuestefeld 6y ago
A death threat against a whole ethnicity is illegal and in no way considered protected speech No, in America this is false. A true threat must be a credible, present danger to its target. Saying "all people of race X should be killed" is nothing like that. same goes for libel and threats to individuals. No. Libel is not illegal, and is still protected against prior restraint. It's only addressable through civil liability suits. And this is by design.