7 ms·

"Hate Speech" is a super political term, and I would argue probably should have special protection at this point. It's not much of a leap to see this used to en

"Hate Speech" is a super political term, and I would argue probably should have special protection at this point. It's not much of a leap to see this used to enforce current political orthodoxy. We already have laws about inciting to violence as I understand it, which is justifiable. This makes it an offence to "expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination".

errantmind 5y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide.
- StandardFuture 5y ago
  They are being downvoted because there are a scarily growing number of people who believe that as long as the tyranny is "on their side" then it is ok. Or perhaps, the downvoters are just sociopaths?
- nl 5y ago
  > These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide. Which history is that? Genuine question - I'm aware of places where speech is suppressed because the justice system is not independent of the political system. I'm aware of cases where speech is suppressed by the threat of being sued by private individuals. But where are the cases where hate-speech carve-outs have been abused in democracies?
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    Here in the United States, criticism of Israeli state policy as it affects Palenstians is often labeled antisemitic. Laws have been passed on that basis to proscribe the pro-Palestinean Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement [0]: >In the US, a large number of anti-BDS laws have been passed. As of 2020, 32 states have laws that prevent boycotts against Israel and a number of non-binding resolutions have been passed denouncing BDS. A majority of these have passed with strong bipartisan support. Two federal acts have been introduced, the 2017 Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the 2019 Combating BDS Act, both intended to deprive entities participating in boycotts of Israel of government contract work. In several states, these laws have been challenged on First Amendment grounds for violating citizens' freedom of speech. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Anti-BDS_laws_and_resolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sancti...
  - bccdee 5y ago
    There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all real. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
    - makeitdouble 5y ago
      These events are real, but also more nuanced than how they are presented. For instance the ruling against activists boycotting Israel was based on them focusing on a whole country (with kind words like “Israel murderer”) which by definition will englobe unrelated individuals, in a shop targeted at the diaspora. Think about how it would look if today we had “fuck off China” protests in the middle of Chinatown.
      - bccdee 5y ago
        > In 2015, France’s highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” If pro-Uighur activists wore t-shirts that said "long live Xinjiang, boycott China" in Chinatown, do you think they ought to be charged with a crime? Frankly, I find that idea appalling, and I find the conviction of those pro-Palestine activists appalling too.
        makeitdouble 5y ago
        The center of the case is that they didn’t just wear “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” shirts and silently shopped for milk. They did a tad more than that, enough to each get 1000 euros fines. Also it’s not like they’re now in concentration camps, they just got a slap on the hand. The whole ruling if you care: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ The parent correctly warned for the article’s bias, I confirm the author is cherrypicking little parts and blow them up for dramatic effect.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  These same carve outs have already existed for other media in Canada for decades and abuse does not seem to be a problem.
StandardFuture 5y ago
> used to enforce current political orthodoxy. Which is a nice way of saying that this is the beginnings of a new authoritarian and totalitarian age. It should be very worrying to everyone to see speech be legally punished in the West. Slippery slopes do exist and this is one.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  this is probably a good point to quote the article "The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country." Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries. To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.
  - StandardFuture 5y ago
    > but have in fact existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries Yes, and that is backwards, uncivilized, and philosophically unsophisticated. It is quite literally beneath where we should be as a modern human civilization. We defeat people saying things we disagree with with reason and not with fines. There are many reasons why people fled many countries in the West to America in 1800s-1900s. One of them was to escape crony and corrupt authoritarianism in Europe and elsewhere at the time.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      So everyone who holds any restrictive position on speech, incompatible with your own is uncivilized and philosophically unsophisticated, as in the rest of the world? Civilizations thousands of years old are... uncivilized? See this is the supreme irony. You've turned freedom of speech into dogmatic faith. Ironically enough, no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values as the American one. You can question everything, just not your own values on speech. It's all just platitudes about authoritarianism and slippery slopes and ironically enough unoriginal, replicated talking points.
icegreentea2 5y ago
Worth noting that Canada already considers hate speech a crime. For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be: > Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15] > Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15] What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Just reading what you are quoting, it sounds like 319(1) is not allowing for truth or intent as a defense. And it raises the question of what "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" means. Hindsight is one thing. But does the law imply a proverbial "reasonable person" standard in advance? Regarding 319(2), by saying "identifiable group", it sounds like it is covering all political groups or parties. Canadians are more polite, I know, but it seems like at this point 319(2) would cover virtually everything that passes for political discourse south of the border. I wouldn't assume these are enforced as written, or as they appear to me to be written. But if they were, they seem kind of extreme. Not because I'm insisting on the arbitrary standard of the US first amendment, but they do seem very broad.
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    Heh, next section: > Section 319(3): Four defences—provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if: > the person establishes that the statements communicated were true; > in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; > the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or > in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15] As for the 'reasonable person' standard? I think that's how most laws as interpreted. For "identifiable group", the definition is: > any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. Certainly hate speech has the potential to be widely/broadly interpreted, and one could imagine scenarios where they would be problematic. I think broadly speaking, Canadians are aware of the potential of mis-use, but are generally "okay with it" based on the relative restraint that decades of different governments from different parties have shown. Which I think is why I am kind of weary of changes to the law and policy in general (though I really haven't processed this particular change yet. I think the inclusion of the Supreme Court definition is pretty benign, but not sure about the online carve outs...). I think that have this 'oh shit, this is a real baddy' recourse is useful, but it's validity and usefulness can only be sustained with restrained use. I am not particularly optimistic on this current government's ability to show restraint (and I broadly support their policies and platforms...).
ergot_vacation 5y ago
I hate mudflinging as much as the next guy, but how would someone even engage in politics at all without statements that could be described as detestation or vilification? Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  I don't even know where to start with this. > Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. This is not the definition of politics, this is how it is being executed in some places, there are plenty of places where this is not the default method. > If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? This only makes sense if Twitter is your only source of political news/opinion. You may think the other group is swell but have different opinions on how to get to the same end goal. You may have a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like or what our current one looks like (ie. different perspectives) . None of that includes "fundamentally bad". See: all parties that have splintered off from a common one. They are still in the same corner but have adjusted their views, strategy or goals. They don't suddenly think their earlier compatriots are evil incarnate.
  - whiddershins 5y ago
    Interestingly, I think an argument could be made that ‘having a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like’ is equivalent to thinking the other is evil or at minimum immoral. Willing to be told I’m wrong.
    - jsmeaton 5y ago
      Disconnect the statement from actual politics and think about the concept in a more local setting. Here's a somewhat contrived example. There are two engineers in your company trying to work out the best way to reduce the rate of bugs being introduced into a system. One of them is advocating for pair programming, and the other is advocating for a dedicated testing team. Both are trying to convince the other engineers that their method is best. They may argue in good faith. They may resort to calling the other silly names. This is politics on a local scale. There's nothing to imply that the other side is evil, immoral, or even wrong. The fact that current democratic politics has devolved into mudslinging isn't an inherent fact of politics - it just seems to be an effective way to win these days.
Griffinsauce 5y ago
> "Hate Speech" is a super political term Laws are political. We seem to have completely lost the meaning of this word. Did you mean something like "controversial"?
justbored123 5y ago
You don't seem to understand the basic concept of division of power. The law is enforced by the judicial branch based on the written law + legal precedents on an impartial manner, not by the "current political orthodoxy". If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.

errantmind 5y ago

I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide.

StandardFuture 5y ago
They are being downvoted because there are a scarily growing number of people who believe that as long as the tyranny is "on their side" then it is ok. Or perhaps, the downvoters are just sociopaths?
nl 5y ago
> These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide. Which history is that? Genuine question - I'm aware of places where speech is suppressed because the justice system is not independent of the political system. I'm aware of cases where speech is suppressed by the threat of being sued by private individuals. But where are the cases where hate-speech carve-outs have been abused in democracies?
- neartheplain 5y ago
  Here in the United States, criticism of Israeli state policy as it affects Palenstians is often labeled antisemitic. Laws have been passed on that basis to proscribe the pro-Palestinean Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement [0]: >In the US, a large number of anti-BDS laws have been passed. As of 2020, 32 states have laws that prevent boycotts against Israel and a number of non-binding resolutions have been passed denouncing BDS. A majority of these have passed with strong bipartisan support. Two federal acts have been introduced, the 2017 Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the 2019 Combating BDS Act, both intended to deprive entities participating in boycotts of Israel of government contract work. In several states, these laws have been challenged on First Amendment grounds for violating citizens' freedom of speech. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Anti-BDS_laws_and_resolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sancti...
- bccdee 5y ago
  There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all real. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    These events are real, but also more nuanced than how they are presented. For instance the ruling against activists boycotting Israel was based on them focusing on a whole country (with kind words like “Israel murderer”) which by definition will englobe unrelated individuals, in a shop targeted at the diaspora. Think about how it would look if today we had “fuck off China” protests in the middle of Chinatown.
    - bccdee 5y ago
      > In 2015, France’s highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” If pro-Uighur activists wore t-shirts that said "long live Xinjiang, boycott China" in Chinatown, do you think they ought to be charged with a crime? Frankly, I find that idea appalling, and I find the conviction of those pro-Palestine activists appalling too.
      - makeitdouble 5y ago
        The center of the case is that they didn’t just wear “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” shirts and silently shopped for milk. They did a tad more than that, enough to each get 1000 euros fines. Also it’s not like they’re now in concentration camps, they just got a slap on the hand. The whole ruling if you care: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ The parent correctly warned for the article’s bias, I confirm the author is cherrypicking little parts and blow them up for dramatic effect.
UncleMeat 5y ago
These same carve outs have already existed for other media in Canada for decades and abuse does not seem to be a problem.

StandardFuture 5y ago

> used to enforce current political orthodoxy. Which is a nice way of saying that this is the beginnings of a new authoritarian and totalitarian age. It should be very worrying to everyone to see speech be legally punished in the West. Slippery slopes do exist and this is one.

Barrin92 5y ago
this is probably a good point to quote the article "The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country." Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries. To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.
- StandardFuture 5y ago
  > but have in fact existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries Yes, and that is backwards, uncivilized, and philosophically unsophisticated. It is quite literally beneath where we should be as a modern human civilization. We defeat people saying things we disagree with with reason and not with fines. There are many reasons why people fled many countries in the West to America in 1800s-1900s. One of them was to escape crony and corrupt authoritarianism in Europe and elsewhere at the time.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    So everyone who holds any restrictive position on speech, incompatible with your own is uncivilized and philosophically unsophisticated, as in the rest of the world? Civilizations thousands of years old are... uncivilized? See this is the supreme irony. You've turned freedom of speech into dogmatic faith. Ironically enough, no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values as the American one. You can question everything, just not your own values on speech. It's all just platitudes about authoritarianism and slippery slopes and ironically enough unoriginal, replicated talking points.

icegreentea2 5y ago

Worth noting that Canada already considers hate speech a crime. For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be: > Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15] > Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15] What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.

perl4ever 5y ago
Just reading what you are quoting, it sounds like 319(1) is not allowing for truth or intent as a defense. And it raises the question of what "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" means. Hindsight is one thing. But does the law imply a proverbial "reasonable person" standard in advance? Regarding 319(2), by saying "identifiable group", it sounds like it is covering all political groups or parties. Canadians are more polite, I know, but it seems like at this point 319(2) would cover virtually everything that passes for political discourse south of the border. I wouldn't assume these are enforced as written, or as they appear to me to be written. But if they were, they seem kind of extreme. Not because I'm insisting on the arbitrary standard of the US first amendment, but they do seem very broad.
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  Heh, next section: > Section 319(3): Four defences—provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if: > the person establishes that the statements communicated were true; > in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; > the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or > in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15] As for the 'reasonable person' standard? I think that's how most laws as interpreted. For "identifiable group", the definition is: > any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. Certainly hate speech has the potential to be widely/broadly interpreted, and one could imagine scenarios where they would be problematic. I think broadly speaking, Canadians are aware of the potential of mis-use, but are generally "okay with it" based on the relative restraint that decades of different governments from different parties have shown. Which I think is why I am kind of weary of changes to the law and policy in general (though I really haven't processed this particular change yet. I think the inclusion of the Supreme Court definition is pretty benign, but not sure about the online carve outs...). I think that have this 'oh shit, this is a real baddy' recourse is useful, but it's validity and usefulness can only be sustained with restrained use. I am not particularly optimistic on this current government's ability to show restraint (and I broadly support their policies and platforms...).

ergot_vacation 5y ago

I hate mudflinging as much as the next guy, but how would someone even engage in politics at all without statements that could be described as detestation or vilification? Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.

Griffinsauce 5y ago
I don't even know where to start with this. > Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. This is not the definition of politics, this is how it is being executed in some places, there are plenty of places where this is not the default method. > If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? This only makes sense if Twitter is your only source of political news/opinion. You may think the other group is swell but have different opinions on how to get to the same end goal. You may have a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like or what our current one looks like (ie. different perspectives) . None of that includes "fundamentally bad". See: all parties that have splintered off from a common one. They are still in the same corner but have adjusted their views, strategy or goals. They don't suddenly think their earlier compatriots are evil incarnate.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  Interestingly, I think an argument could be made that ‘having a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like’ is equivalent to thinking the other is evil or at minimum immoral. Willing to be told I’m wrong.
  - jsmeaton 5y ago
    Disconnect the statement from actual politics and think about the concept in a more local setting. Here's a somewhat contrived example. There are two engineers in your company trying to work out the best way to reduce the rate of bugs being introduced into a system. One of them is advocating for pair programming, and the other is advocating for a dedicated testing team. Both are trying to convince the other engineers that their method is best. They may argue in good faith. They may resort to calling the other silly names. This is politics on a local scale. There's nothing to imply that the other side is evil, immoral, or even wrong. The fact that current democratic politics has devolved into mudslinging isn't an inherent fact of politics - it just seems to be an effective way to win these days.

Griffinsauce 5y ago

> "Hate Speech" is a super political term Laws are political. We seem to have completely lost the meaning of this word. Did you mean something like "controversial"?

justbored123 5y ago

You don't seem to understand the basic concept of division of power. The law is enforced by the judicial branch based on the written law + legal precedents on an impartial manner, not by the "current political orthodoxy". If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.