3 ms·

I put this in a thread, but I think it'll get buried so I'll put it top level. If you're from the US, you might believe you have free speech, but you don't. Yo

I put this in a thread, but I think it'll get buried so I'll put it top level. If you're from the US, you might believe you have free speech, but you don't. You already have libel and slander laws. That is, you cannot lie about someone in public written or spoken media. These forms of speech are of course harmful to the recipients of these falsehoods because they put a false representation of a public figure or a company. Hate speech is equally as harmful. One might argue that it's not illegal yet because it only harms a minority group and not corporations. Hate speech often grows into physical abuse too. If you can reduce hate speech at the source, it might reduce the amount of people exposed to that way of speaking, and hopefully reduce overall abusive nature of people. This is probably wishful thinking however

dolni 5y ago
The bar for limiting freedom of expression should be very high. The US has the 1st amendment for a reason. Hurting someone's feelings does not meet that bar. Inciting violence does. So does financial injury.
- conradludgate 5y ago
  It's not just "hurting someone's feelings". It's dehumanising and demoralising to a culture. It benefits groups to use terms like the n-word to have power over minorities. If you've ever lived with depression or anxiety, you'll know that these things can lead to financial ruin and suicide. The "hurting someone's feelings" idea is so harmful and belittling to this idea. And is another way that these abusers get away with it. "Just man up! It's just a joke! It's your fault you got offended". If that person is now afraid to leave their home, who's fault is that really?
  - wassenaar10 5y ago
    And yet, it's white people who are allegedly the "fragile" ones.
  - dolni 5y ago
    I am not condoning being unkind. You seem to miss the other half of the puzzle, where people who have suffered trauma in their lives often re-exhibit the same toxic behaviors that they learned. If a kid grows up under awful parents and says hurtful stuff to other people, should we jail that kid when they turn 18? I say no. Any good therapist will tell you that you can't control other people. What you can do is control how you react and who you associate with. It is incumbent on each of us to find self-worth and make good decisions for our own mental health. Policing everybody else is an unwinnable game and far from the most effective strategy.
    - conradludgate 5y ago
      I did not say they should be put in prison. But I do not believe their deeds should go unpunished. I do not want to live in a society that promotes hate speech. I appreciate that toxic households can raise toxic children. But we punish them already if they get into drugs and violence. I firmly believe that hate speech is a gateway to violence I understand having liberties to critise the government and the state. But hate speech is different and I think it's equivalent to violence in controlling groups of people with fear
      - polartx 5y ago
        Who is the arbitrator that determines which classifiers enjoy the protection of ‘hate speech’?
  - polartx 5y ago
    >It benefits groups to use terms...to have power over minorities Name calling doesn’t exert power over anyone, it is ultimately up to the name-callee how much power he/she allows those insults to have over them. That is *not* to conflate name-calling with threats, slander, or libel—those are obviously separate things
    - conradludgate 5y ago
      Using the n-word to refer to Markus turns him from a human into a black person. It removes all of his humanity. Yes, this may be an extreme interpretation, but it expresses that one group is inferior, and that he is inferior because he belongs to that group. This is a power dynamic.
      - dolni 5y ago
        > it expresses that one group is inferior, and that he is inferior because he belongs to that group. Does it actually express that? Or is it a term that is being reached for because someone is upset and it's a cheap insult that the insulter thinks will have a large impact? You are looking at this stuff in very black-and-white terms. How people communicate is a lot more nuanced than you are giving it credit for.
        conradludgate 5y ago
        Yes. If someone uses a racial slur against a white person, it has a much weaker effect. Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people. When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry? You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes. If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people.
        dolni 5y ago
        > Yes. If someone uses a racial slur against a white person, it has a much weaker effect. And you feel confident saying this in general, because...? > Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people. Human beings aren't computers. They don't do logical things. You are (probably) an engineering-type trying to apply logic & engineering concepts to the actions of people. If that worked, politics wouldn't be so disgusting. I will offer you a piece of advice. This was hard fought for me and took a while to figure out. All people don't act and think in the same way you do. They don't have the same motivations. They probably do not have the same values. Your logic is "I would only use a racial slur if I were racist. They used a racial slur. Therefore, they must be racist." That's a flawed way to approach the world. You are making assumptions that don't hold. Starting with invalid assumptions is one of the best ways to fix the wrong problem. > When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry? allowed != condoned != legal I would say all of them should be legal because I see that freedom of speech is an important right. We need to be extremely selective about what things we prohibit, because allowing free speech to be eroded is dangerous. The whole PURPOSE of free speech, after all, is to protect speech that is unpopular. You don't need a law to protect popular speech. > You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes. Aren't I? Inciting violence is already a crime. > If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people. I have heard that slur thrown around probably 10000:1 by black people versus anyone else. INCLUDING as a way to be intentionally hurtful. What's interesting is, you will write this in an online forum but I'm sure you'd never say that to a black person. There would be some mental gymnastics to make a slur acceptable in this narrow scope, establishing a double-standard that has never been set for any other slur. We're here discussing an article about a 19 year old being jailed for a slur. I would be every penny I have that you have said something at least as stupid at that age. Perhaps not a slur, but something quite hurtful nonetheless. Why? Because WE ALL DO. Coming to the defense of black people in 2022 doesn't take a lick of courage. Trying to understand the motivations (and cringe) of a stupid 19-year-old, and finding forgiveness for that person, does.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Will Smith injects heroin into his extra pinky toe to get high. Hate speech is subjective. The pragmatic notion of free speech forbids arbitrary or subjective limitations because error in favor of opinion is more readily abused than error in favor of freedom. Recovering an acceptable ground truth from the former is far more difficult than the latter, especially in the arena of public perception and opinion. Freedom of speech is a society level principle. As law, it works in that context - there are always individuals who can be trotted out as fundamentally inimical and dangerous, whether qanon, far left radicals, or Abolitionists. Freedom of speech is a principle that says even Hitler should be allowed to speak, because in public, ideas can be addressed and countered through the process of free discussion. Drive the ideas underground and a society might fester with bad ideas without a functional public discussion. And in the cases where good ideas overcome bad, you get the end of slavery and women's right to vote and gay marriage and so forth. Free speech requires the good with the bad or or doesn't work at scale. Life isn't fair and awful people exist. At a cultural level It's better to deal with that openly and honestly, because you can lift such awful people out of the morass of bad thinking. There are vulnerabilities with conspiracy thinking, qanon, flat earth, and their ilk, but the issue is this: it is never appropriate to use violence to counter words. Chris Rock getting smacked was wrong for the same reason jailing someone for a tweet is wrong - violence is not the answer. In this case, the state as leviathan exercised the threat of violence and forced a citizen into jail. The violence is itself a symptom of a problem with the individual or collective that initiated it. Speech is not violence. Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words don't actually hurt you. Hurt feelings suck, but... get over it. Also, Chris Rock has three nipples. I'm pretty sure things like context, intent, malice, and other factors play into the legality of potential libel and slander.
finiteseries 5y ago
You can lie about whichever public figure you want in the US provided they can’t prove you acted with actual malice in a court of law. Hate speech isn’t equally as harmful, but does apply equally to non minority groups. “Often”, “might”, “hopefully”, “wishful” is a bit too academic for free speech discussions in the US, I’m afraid.

dolni 5y ago

The bar for limiting freedom of expression should be very high. The US has the 1st amendment for a reason. Hurting someone's feelings does not meet that bar. Inciting violence does. So does financial injury.

conradludgate 5y ago
It's not just "hurting someone's feelings". It's dehumanising and demoralising to a culture. It benefits groups to use terms like the n-word to have power over minorities. If you've ever lived with depression or anxiety, you'll know that these things can lead to financial ruin and suicide. The "hurting someone's feelings" idea is so harmful and belittling to this idea. And is another way that these abusers get away with it. "Just man up! It's just a joke! It's your fault you got offended". If that person is now afraid to leave their home, who's fault is that really?
- wassenaar10 5y ago
  And yet, it's white people who are allegedly the "fragile" ones.
- dolni 5y ago
  I am not condoning being unkind. You seem to miss the other half of the puzzle, where people who have suffered trauma in their lives often re-exhibit the same toxic behaviors that they learned. If a kid grows up under awful parents and says hurtful stuff to other people, should we jail that kid when they turn 18? I say no. Any good therapist will tell you that you can't control other people. What you can do is control how you react and who you associate with. It is incumbent on each of us to find self-worth and make good decisions for our own mental health. Policing everybody else is an unwinnable game and far from the most effective strategy.
  - conradludgate 5y ago
    I did not say they should be put in prison. But I do not believe their deeds should go unpunished. I do not want to live in a society that promotes hate speech. I appreciate that toxic households can raise toxic children. But we punish them already if they get into drugs and violence. I firmly believe that hate speech is a gateway to violence I understand having liberties to critise the government and the state. But hate speech is different and I think it's equivalent to violence in controlling groups of people with fear
    - polartx 5y ago
      Who is the arbitrator that determines which classifiers enjoy the protection of ‘hate speech’?
- polartx 5y ago
  >It benefits groups to use terms...to have power over minorities Name calling doesn’t exert power over anyone, it is ultimately up to the name-callee how much power he/she allows those insults to have over them. That is *not* to conflate name-calling with threats, slander, or libel—those are obviously separate things
  - conradludgate 5y ago
    Using the n-word to refer to Markus turns him from a human into a black person. It removes all of his humanity. Yes, this may be an extreme interpretation, but it expresses that one group is inferior, and that he is inferior because he belongs to that group. This is a power dynamic.
    - dolni 5y ago
      > it expresses that one group is inferior, and that he is inferior because he belongs to that group. Does it actually express that? Or is it a term that is being reached for because someone is upset and it's a cheap insult that the insulter thinks will have a large impact? You are looking at this stuff in very black-and-white terms. How people communicate is a lot more nuanced than you are giving it credit for.
      - conradludgate 5y ago
        Yes. If someone uses a racial slur against a white person, it has a much weaker effect. Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people. When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry? You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes. If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people.
        dolni 5y ago
        > Yes. If someone uses a racial slur against a white person, it has a much weaker effect. And you feel confident saying this in general, because...? > Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people. Human beings aren't computers. They don't do logical things. You are (probably) an engineering-type trying to apply logic & engineering concepts to the actions of people. If that worked, politics wouldn't be so disgusting. I will offer you a piece of advice. This was hard fought for me and took a while to figure out. All people don't act and think in the same way you do. They don't have the same motivations. They probably do not have the same values. Your logic is "I would only use a racial slur if I were racist. They used a racial slur. Therefore, they must be racist." That's a flawed way to approach the world. You are making assumptions that don't hold. Starting with invalid assumptions is one of the best ways to fix the wrong problem. > When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry? allowed != condoned != legal I would say all of them should be legal because I see that freedom of speech is an important right. We need to be extremely selective about what things we prohibit, because allowing free speech to be eroded is dangerous. The whole PURPOSE of free speech, after all, is to protect speech that is unpopular. You don't need a law to protect popular speech. > You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes. Aren't I? Inciting violence is already a crime. > If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people. I have heard that slur thrown around probably 10000:1 by black people versus anyone else. INCLUDING as a way to be intentionally hurtful. What's interesting is, you will write this in an online forum but I'm sure you'd never say that to a black person. There would be some mental gymnastics to make a slur acceptable in this narrow scope, establishing a double-standard that has never been set for any other slur. We're here discussing an article about a 19 year old being jailed for a slur. I would be every penny I have that you have said something at least as stupid at that age. Perhaps not a slur, but something quite hurtful nonetheless. Why? Because WE ALL DO. Coming to the defense of black people in 2022 doesn't take a lick of courage. Trying to understand the motivations (and cringe) of a stupid 19-year-old, and finding forgiveness for that person, does.

robbedpeter 5y ago

Will Smith injects heroin into his extra pinky toe to get high. Hate speech is subjective. The pragmatic notion of free speech forbids arbitrary or subjective limitations because error in favor of opinion is more readily abused than error in favor of freedom. Recovering an acceptable ground truth from the former is far more difficult than the latter, especially in the arena of public perception and opinion. Freedom of speech is a society level principle. As law, it works in that context - there are always individuals who can be trotted out as fundamentally inimical and dangerous, whether qanon, far left radicals, or Abolitionists. Freedom of speech is a principle that says even Hitler should be allowed to speak, because in public, ideas can be addressed and countered through the process of free discussion. Drive the ideas underground and a society might fester with bad ideas without a functional public discussion. And in the cases where good ideas overcome bad, you get the end of slavery and women's right to vote and gay marriage and so forth. Free speech requires the good with the bad or or doesn't work at scale. Life isn't fair and awful people exist. At a cultural level It's better to deal with that openly and honestly, because you can lift such awful people out of the morass of bad thinking. There are vulnerabilities with conspiracy thinking, qanon, flat earth, and their ilk, but the issue is this: it is never appropriate to use violence to counter words. Chris Rock getting smacked was wrong for the same reason jailing someone for a tweet is wrong - violence is not the answer. In this case, the state as leviathan exercised the threat of violence and forced a citizen into jail. The violence is itself a symptom of a problem with the individual or collective that initiated it. Speech is not violence. Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words don't actually hurt you. Hurt feelings suck, but... get over it. Also, Chris Rock has three nipples. I'm pretty sure things like context, intent, malice, and other factors play into the legality of potential libel and slander.

finiteseries 5y ago

You can lie about whichever public figure you want in the US provided they can’t prove you acted with actual malice in a court of law. Hate speech isn’t equally as harmful, but does apply equally to non minority groups. “Often”, “might”, “hopefully”, “wishful” is a bit too academic for free speech discussions in the US, I’m afraid.