18 ms·

The issue with banning speech for being "offensive" or "hateful" is that the definitions of those things and especially who can break the law without being pros

by causi 4y ago

The issue with banning speech for being "offensive" or "hateful" is that the definitions of those things and especially who can break the law without being prosecuted for it are largely determined by what is politically convenient. One government might decide that calling for a boycott of Israel is hate speech, while another might decide that calling for an end to refugee acceptance is hate speech. I prefer that myself and my ideological opponents are allowed to speak freely without concern for who's in power at the moment or what group is the current societal scapegoat. If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all.

lbriner 4y ago
That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. Although this Bill is garbage for variou reasons, I do understand that people want to try and fix things before they get out of hand, not just after somebody has stabbed somebody else when it is objectively a crime.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers So, are we doing the whole Department of Pre-crime thing now? Minority Report, here we come.
- causi 4y ago
  That's the price you pay for freedom. If our ancestors were willing to pay hundreds of thousands of lives a year for liberty eighty years ago, how cowardly of us to declare that our principles must crack under the weight of a tiny fraction of that.
- bluescrn 4y ago
  There's a whole lot of very vicious 'hate' directed at politicians, presidents, and prime ministers (on both sides of the political spectrum) by online activists or just normal people with strong opinions. Should this be cracked down upon too? Or should you be able to freely say nasty/profane/hyperbolic things about members of the ruling class, and maybe even tweet it directly at them, particularly when they enact very controversial policies?
  - lbriner 4y ago
    There is a difference between someone's opinion and something that is offensive and potentially conspiring or inciting a crime. "I hate Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" could be called hateful but wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, whereas, "We should kill Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" is at least borderline. I haven't seen many examples of something that would be considered criminal but look like they should be covered by "free speech" laws i.e. examples where a legitimate statement of opinion would be considered illegal.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  Do we progressively move the line backwards from 'actual crime' towards 'incitement to commit crime' towards 'this type of opinion leads to incitement to commit crime' towards 'this kind of upbringing breeds criminals'. As you say, this appears to be driven by 'the people want...' and therein lies the conundrum. Enacting something resembling what the people want doesn't result in something the people want when they happen to accidentally step in it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lbriner 4y ago
    Honestly, I don't know. Incitement is already a crime in many scenarios but I think there is a relatively clean line between what might be called free speech like "I hate women" and incitement or 'hate speech' like "We should kill women". We should accept that there are very vulnerable people who can't distinguish clearly between "he said that but I won't do it because it's wrong" and "yes, we should do that thing because you suggested it"
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. I'm connected to a few British people on social media who seem to just spew constant dehumanizing vitriol and hate against the Tories, for years and years. They're traitors, they're nazis, they're destroying the country, they all hate the poor, women, gays, etc. Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized?
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized? No - not significant. No - I don't think rhetoric should be criminalized. FWIW, I don't think a Twitter post about a Tory can be violent. Potentially it's an incitement to violence; but that's already illegal (quite rightly).
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      No, but I was specifically asking the OP who believes that a person surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily start breaking the law and attacking people.
  - implements 4y ago
    Isn’t that because people have internalised the value of free speech regarding politics and therefore don’t react with violence or aggression when their side is strongly criticised? In Britain we have a phrase beliefs “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (WORIADS) - ideally people should be able to express, and more importantly hear, these with zero inclination to violence - more tolerance, more moderation of emotion, less censorship - would be my ideal.
ccity88 4y ago
Yes and no. Hate speech can be arbitrarily defined, but speech inciting violence has a solid definition. There's a line between calling out refugee acceptance and questioning immigration to calling for all refugees to be hanged and for illegal immigrants to be physically harassed. There is an overlap between the two categories, but accepting hate speech and not accepting speech inciting violence is a very tough line to walk for any legislative body, and we're talking about human made bureaucratic institutions which need to make laws that can be clearly defined and followed. I don't think there's a one size fits all law here, and everything needs to be taken on a case by case basis, but free speech purists always ignore the fact that speech inciting violence can have a material impact on the world.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  "always ignore the fact that speech inciting violence can have a material impact on the world" Not as much as you think. In the US (I know that this story is about the UK but bear with me), speech inciting violence can be charged criminally already, as you can see by the investigations into the former president over whether he incited violence with his Jan 6 remarks. Whether I agree with that is irrelevant, I'm making the point that remarks inciting violence aren't 1st Amendment protected. The second problem is that Hate Speech regulation is, actually, being used against religious people in the countries with Hate Speech laws. In Finland, there was a criminal prosecution for a pastor who quoted the Bible that Men-who-have-sex-with-men is "abominable" even though none of the violent passages were mentioned, nor did the pastor have any violent comments regarding the quote. This was openly admitted by the prosecution, who said the charge was not that it was violent, but that it was "hateful."
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > This IS violence and it's a way of silencing gay people. Dehumanization is violence. This type of speech is why gay people are marginalized and why they feel the need to keep their sexuality a secret. I'm against dehumanisation, silencing and marginalisation. I don't agree that speech can be violence. I think it's important to make this distinction. Do you really want to disslove the distinction between someone beating you up, and someone saying nasty things to you?
dontreact 4y ago
I agree that government-level banning of hate speech is problematic for the reasons you describe. However, as a member of a minority group who grew up being the butt of many racist jokes, I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally. I don’t think I’m alone in this point of view.
- causi 4y ago
  * I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally.* That's great, but it doesn't have anything to do with government-mandated censorship. I too wouldn't exclusively use unmoderated online communities.
  - dontreact 4y ago
    I was responding to the parent comment and tried to make clear that I too am against government mandated censorship. I’m talking about platform level censorship because I thought it would be interesting to the discussion to clarify these two different levels. At least in American discourse about tech platforms I often feel these two levels are conflated.
- colpabar 4y ago
  No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom. What we do want is for the government to stop trying to make it illegal (as in throw-your-ass-in-jail illegal) to make those jokes online.
  - dontreact 4y ago
    I also disagree with government level censorship. At least in the American right, there is some political pressure and discourse around pushing free speech as a principle from the government level (where I agree with it) down into the platform level (where I do not agree with it). It seems like you are not one of those people advocating for that, but this is why I would push back on the statement “No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn’t want you to have that freedom”
corobo 4y ago
> If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all. I don't think we have freedom of speech (as Americans know it) in the UK anyway so you're not wrong.
- bitwize 4y ago
  The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. Technically it's as easily overturned as Roe v. Wade was, but I doubt the Trump-stacked Supreme Court would even try. If it were overturned, we could finally pass sensible hate speech laws even in the USA.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    Please give a very specific explanation of what would be "sensible".
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Anyone who disagrees with me should have their mouth taped shut.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. This really highlights the creeping cancerous nature of 'speech as violence'. It was Bradenburg v. Ohio that partially overturned Schenck v. United States, in which protesting the draft was considered a sort of violence against the state (creating a "clear and present danger" to the government.) The premise of 'speech as violence' always starts out with examples most people find reasonable, but its way too easy for authoritarians to expand the scope of what speech constitutes violence inch by inch until one day you can no longer protest your own government forcing young men into a meat grinder. It's way too easy. "Your words offend me, causing a stress reaction which shortens my life. Anything that offends me is ipso facto violence." There needs to be a line drawn in the sand to prevent this escalating madness. Brandenburg v. Ohio does that fairly well.
welshwelsh 4y ago
I am skeptical of giving the government the power to censor speech and to determine what is hate speech, because this power can be abused. But at the same time, hate speech is a real thing and allowing it does not promote freedom of speech. For example, suppose someone says "I think that everyone who does not believe in my religion should be killed." That type of speech is intimidating and comes with the threat of violence. Therefore any non-believer might pretend to believe and censor themselves out of fear for their lives. In this way, the speech itself acts as a form of censorship, and allowing it to occur silences more people than banning it. Such is the case with all hate speech: hate speech is never about expressing oneself, it is about censoring the opposition through intimidation and organizing violence against them. In extreme cases, a single demagogue spewing hate can silence millions. One example- until relatively recently, the vast majority of gay people would keep it to themselves because they were afraid of homophobic backlash, even though they were still afforded free speech under the law. This is an example of extreme censorship, which demonstrates that censorship can happen without any government involvement. Today the situation is somewhat reversed, where lgbt expression is increasingly acceptable but homophobia is not. This is a victory for free speech: lgbt expression does not come at the expense of straight people's expression, and banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people.
- causi 4y ago
  This is a victory for free speech: lgbt expression does not come at the expense of straight people's expression, and banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people. There is a difference between hate speech and calls for violence. "X is awful and you should be ashamed" is not equivalent to "X should be lynched", whether X is members of the queer community or anarcho-capitalists or left-handed people.
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    What's the difference? As I understand it, you've just drawn an arbitrary line which reflects your personal views about stuff that's okay to say, and stuff that's not okay to say. Why is is not okay to say "X should be lynched"? Is is specifically just calls to murder that should be restricted? General physical violence? Or is it more generally calls to perform illegal actions – is it okay to say "X should all be deported" or "X should be burgled" or "we should round up all the X and put them into camps"? Does the manner of the speech matter – if it's targeted at an individual versus a group, or private communication versus public? The interesting questions are about how we build a tolerable consensus across society that most people can live with. The underlying principles are important to that, but black-and-white answers are rarely, if ever, correct.
matthewmacleod 4y ago
I can’t say for certain, but most likely you do personally feel that there should be some limitations on freedom of speech. You might think it should be unlawful to incite violence against someone, or to shout racist slurs at your bus driver, or for your manager to book a daily meeting to talk about how the gays are going to hell. Whatever; it doesn’t matter. There are some likely some scenarios in which you’re going to think “hey, you shouldn’t be able to do that”, where that thing involves expressing some idea. It would obviously be silly to say this means you “don’t believe in [freedom of speech] at all”. That’s why this sort of “absolutism” argument is a bit weak. The most interesting questions are about balancing the rights of different people - how to we ensure people are free to speak their minds, while trying to protect the rights of others. Simplification to the point of parody doesn’t really help advance that. There is enough stupid stuff to pick apart in this stupid legislation already and we don’t need to muddy the waters further; it makes me a bit worried to see so many people get tied up the abstraction of freedom of speech while ignoring the practical challenges - like the increasing privatisation of the public sphere.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > unlawful to ... shout racist slurs Unlawful? As in, go to jail unlawful? No, I don't feel that way at all. I don't think very many people do.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    A lot of people do. Yes, you start treating racial slurs as a mild form of sexual abuse.
    - causi 4y ago
      Yes, you start treating racial slurs as a mild form of sexual abuse ...what?
      - bergenty 4y ago
        In terms of consequence. It makes sense.
bergenty 4y ago
That mindset may have applied in a pre social media world but the rules have changed. It’s relatively easy to see objective evils in society and I for one am ready to tentatively police hate speech online.
chongli 4y ago
Hate speech can be narrowly defined in law enough to avoid most of these issues. For example, it could be restricted to “speech which calls for the death or other specific violence against a protected group.”
- causi 4y ago
  Why should speech which calls for the death or other specific violence against anyone be allowed? Threats or urges to violence are already illegal almost everywhere.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    Maybe during wartime?
  - jwarden 4y ago
    First because sometimes violence can be used towards a good cause, for example Ukrainians killing Russian invaders to defend their lives and freedom. Second because even if a thing is wrong it does not follow that it should be forbidden.
    - causi 4y ago
      I'm not trying to make a particular statement about whether threats should be illegal, I'm just saying hate speech and threats aren't the same thing.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      So only when one incites people to kill those who you dislike? Is it not hate speech for Russians to talk about murdering Ukrainians, if they believe that NATO expansion and hostile nukes on their border represents a threat to their lives and freedom (whether or not you agree with this)? If I think that somebody is going to get a gun control law passed which I think restricts my freedom, am I allowed to advocate killing them?
      - 4y ago
pessimizer 4y ago
> the definitions of those things and especially who can break the law without being prosecuted for it are largely determined by what is politically convenient. Don't forget "hate speech" laws about criticizing royalty, elected officials, or the police. These are things that will be inevitable, and hate speech/hate crime laws to protect police have already sprung up in US red states.
- notch656a 4y ago
  What "hate speech" laws for criticizing police/officials are you referring to in US red states?
stuckinhell 4y ago
So the heart is the double standards. I think that's very fair. "Kill All Men" is something you see pretty often on twitter, but "Kill All Women" would be hateful. I'm a woman, and yea I'm not a fan of "kill all women", but I also have a son and husband. I don't want "Kill All Men" to be something normalized. I think that should be considered Hate speech too. If the standards weren't so obviously double or triple, I think people would have far less of a problem with it.

by causi 4y ago

lbriner 4y ago

That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. Although this Bill is garbage for variou reasons, I do understand that people want to try and fix things before they get out of hand, not just after somebody has stabbed somebody else when it is objectively a crime.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers So, are we doing the whole Department of Pre-crime thing now? Minority Report, here we come.
causi 4y ago
That's the price you pay for freedom. If our ancestors were willing to pay hundreds of thousands of lives a year for liberty eighty years ago, how cowardly of us to declare that our principles must crack under the weight of a tiny fraction of that.
bluescrn 4y ago
There's a whole lot of very vicious 'hate' directed at politicians, presidents, and prime ministers (on both sides of the political spectrum) by online activists or just normal people with strong opinions. Should this be cracked down upon too? Or should you be able to freely say nasty/profane/hyperbolic things about members of the ruling class, and maybe even tweet it directly at them, particularly when they enact very controversial policies?
- lbriner 4y ago
  There is a difference between someone's opinion and something that is offensive and potentially conspiring or inciting a crime. "I hate Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" could be called hateful but wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, whereas, "We should kill Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" is at least borderline. I haven't seen many examples of something that would be considered criminal but look like they should be covered by "free speech" laws i.e. examples where a legitimate statement of opinion would be considered illegal.
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
Do we progressively move the line backwards from 'actual crime' towards 'incitement to commit crime' towards 'this type of opinion leads to incitement to commit crime' towards 'this kind of upbringing breeds criminals'. As you say, this appears to be driven by 'the people want...' and therein lies the conundrum. Enacting something resembling what the people want doesn't result in something the people want when they happen to accidentally step in it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lbriner 4y ago
  Honestly, I don't know. Incitement is already a crime in many scenarios but I think there is a relatively clean line between what might be called free speech like "I hate women" and incitement or 'hate speech' like "We should kill women". We should accept that there are very vulnerable people who can't distinguish clearly between "he said that but I won't do it because it's wrong" and "yes, we should do that thing because you suggested it"
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. I'm connected to a few British people on social media who seem to just spew constant dehumanizing vitriol and hate against the Tories, for years and years. They're traitors, they're nazis, they're destroying the country, they all hate the poor, women, gays, etc. Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized?
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized? No - not significant. No - I don't think rhetoric should be criminalized. FWIW, I don't think a Twitter post about a Tory can be violent. Potentially it's an incitement to violence; but that's already illegal (quite rightly).
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    No, but I was specifically asking the OP who believes that a person surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily start breaking the law and attacking people.
- implements 4y ago
  Isn’t that because people have internalised the value of free speech regarding politics and therefore don’t react with violence or aggression when their side is strongly criticised? In Britain we have a phrase beliefs “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (WORIADS) - ideally people should be able to express, and more importantly hear, these with zero inclination to violence - more tolerance, more moderation of emotion, less censorship - would be my ideal.

ccity88 4y ago

Yes and no. Hate speech can be arbitrarily defined, but speech inciting violence has a solid definition. There's a line between calling out refugee acceptance and questioning immigration to calling for all refugees to be hanged and for illegal immigrants to be physically harassed. There is an overlap between the two categories, but accepting hate speech and not accepting speech inciting violence is a very tough line to walk for any legislative body, and we're talking about human made bureaucratic institutions which need to make laws that can be clearly defined and followed. I don't think there's a one size fits all law here, and everything needs to be taken on a case by case basis, but free speech purists always ignore the fact that speech inciting violence can have a material impact on the world.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
"always ignore the fact that speech inciting violence can have a material impact on the world" Not as much as you think. In the US (I know that this story is about the UK but bear with me), speech inciting violence can be charged criminally already, as you can see by the investigations into the former president over whether he incited violence with his Jan 6 remarks. Whether I agree with that is irrelevant, I'm making the point that remarks inciting violence aren't 1st Amendment protected. The second problem is that Hate Speech regulation is, actually, being used against religious people in the countries with Hate Speech laws. In Finland, there was a criminal prosecution for a pastor who quoted the Bible that Men-who-have-sex-with-men is "abominable" even though none of the violent passages were mentioned, nor did the pastor have any violent comments regarding the quote. This was openly admitted by the prosecution, who said the charge was not that it was violent, but that it was "hateful."
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > This IS violence and it's a way of silencing gay people. Dehumanization is violence. This type of speech is why gay people are marginalized and why they feel the need to keep their sexuality a secret. I'm against dehumanisation, silencing and marginalisation. I don't agree that speech can be violence. I think it's important to make this distinction. Do you really want to disslove the distinction between someone beating you up, and someone saying nasty things to you?

dontreact 4y ago

I agree that government-level banning of hate speech is problematic for the reasons you describe. However, as a member of a minority group who grew up being the butt of many racist jokes, I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally. I don’t think I’m alone in this point of view.

causi 4y ago
* I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally.* That's great, but it doesn't have anything to do with government-mandated censorship. I too wouldn't exclusively use unmoderated online communities.
- dontreact 4y ago
  I was responding to the parent comment and tried to make clear that I too am against government mandated censorship. I’m talking about platform level censorship because I thought it would be interesting to the discussion to clarify these two different levels. At least in American discourse about tech platforms I often feel these two levels are conflated.
colpabar 4y ago
No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom. What we do want is for the government to stop trying to make it illegal (as in throw-your-ass-in-jail illegal) to make those jokes online.
- dontreact 4y ago
  I also disagree with government level censorship. At least in the American right, there is some political pressure and discourse around pushing free speech as a principle from the government level (where I agree with it) down into the platform level (where I do not agree with it). It seems like you are not one of those people advocating for that, but this is why I would push back on the statement “No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn’t want you to have that freedom”

corobo 4y ago

> If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all. I don't think we have freedom of speech (as Americans know it) in the UK anyway so you're not wrong.

bitwize 4y ago
The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. Technically it's as easily overturned as Roe v. Wade was, but I doubt the Trump-stacked Supreme Court would even try. If it were overturned, we could finally pass sensible hate speech laws even in the USA.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Please give a very specific explanation of what would be "sensible".
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Anyone who disagrees with me should have their mouth taped shut.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. This really highlights the creeping cancerous nature of 'speech as violence'. It was Bradenburg v. Ohio that partially overturned Schenck v. United States, in which protesting the draft was considered a sort of violence against the state (creating a "clear and present danger" to the government.) The premise of 'speech as violence' always starts out with examples most people find reasonable, but its way too easy for authoritarians to expand the scope of what speech constitutes violence inch by inch until one day you can no longer protest your own government forcing young men into a meat grinder. It's way too easy. "Your words offend me, causing a stress reaction which shortens my life. Anything that offends me is ipso facto violence." There needs to be a line drawn in the sand to prevent this escalating madness. Brandenburg v. Ohio does that fairly well.

welshwelsh 4y ago

I am skeptical of giving the government the power to censor speech and to determine what is hate speech, because this power can be abused. But at the same time, hate speech is a real thing and allowing it does not promote freedom of speech. For example, suppose someone says "I think that everyone who does not believe in my religion should be killed." That type of speech is intimidating and comes with the threat of violence. Therefore any non-believer might pretend to believe and censor themselves out of fear for their lives. In this way, the speech itself acts as a form of censorship, and allowing it to occur silences more people than banning it. Such is the case with all hate speech: hate speech is never about expressing oneself, it is about censoring the opposition through intimidation and organizing violence against them. In extreme cases, a single demagogue spewing hate can silence millions. One example- until relatively recently, the vast majority of gay people would keep it to themselves because they were afraid of homophobic backlash, even though they were still afforded free speech under the law. This is an example of extreme censorship, which demonstrates that censorship can happen without any government involvement. Today the situation is somewhat reversed, where lgbt expression is increasingly acceptable but homophobia is not. This is a victory for free speech: lgbt expression does not come at the expense of straight people's expression, and banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people.

causi 4y ago
This is a victory for free speech: lgbt expression does not come at the expense of straight people's expression, and banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people. There is a difference between hate speech and calls for violence. "X is awful and you should be ashamed" is not equivalent to "X should be lynched", whether X is members of the queer community or anarcho-capitalists or left-handed people.
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  What's the difference? As I understand it, you've just drawn an arbitrary line which reflects your personal views about stuff that's okay to say, and stuff that's not okay to say. Why is is not okay to say "X should be lynched"? Is is specifically just calls to murder that should be restricted? General physical violence? Or is it more generally calls to perform illegal actions – is it okay to say "X should all be deported" or "X should be burgled" or "we should round up all the X and put them into camps"? Does the manner of the speech matter – if it's targeted at an individual versus a group, or private communication versus public? The interesting questions are about how we build a tolerable consensus across society that most people can live with. The underlying principles are important to that, but black-and-white answers are rarely, if ever, correct.

matthewmacleod 4y ago

I can’t say for certain, but most likely you do personally feel that there should be some limitations on freedom of speech. You might think it should be unlawful to incite violence against someone, or to shout racist slurs at your bus driver, or for your manager to book a daily meeting to talk about how the gays are going to hell. Whatever; it doesn’t matter. There are some likely some scenarios in which you’re going to think “hey, you shouldn’t be able to do that”, where that thing involves expressing some idea. It would obviously be silly to say this means you “don’t believe in [freedom of speech] at all”. That’s why this sort of “absolutism” argument is a bit weak. The most interesting questions are about balancing the rights of different people - how to we ensure people are free to speak their minds, while trying to protect the rights of others. Simplification to the point of parody doesn’t really help advance that. There is enough stupid stuff to pick apart in this stupid legislation already and we don’t need to muddy the waters further; it makes me a bit worried to see so many people get tied up the abstraction of freedom of speech while ignoring the practical challenges - like the increasing privatisation of the public sphere.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> unlawful to ... shout racist slurs Unlawful? As in, go to jail unlawful? No, I don't feel that way at all. I don't think very many people do.
- bergenty 4y ago
  A lot of people do. Yes, you start treating racial slurs as a mild form of sexual abuse.
  - causi 4y ago
    Yes, you start treating racial slurs as a mild form of sexual abuse ...what?
    - bergenty 4y ago
      In terms of consequence. It makes sense.

bergenty 4y ago

That mindset may have applied in a pre social media world but the rules have changed. It’s relatively easy to see objective evils in society and I for one am ready to tentatively police hate speech online.

chongli 4y ago

Hate speech can be narrowly defined in law enough to avoid most of these issues. For example, it could be restricted to “speech which calls for the death or other specific violence against a protected group.”

causi 4y ago
Why should speech which calls for the death or other specific violence against anyone be allowed? Threats or urges to violence are already illegal almost everywhere.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Maybe during wartime?
- jwarden 4y ago
  First because sometimes violence can be used towards a good cause, for example Ukrainians killing Russian invaders to defend their lives and freedom. Second because even if a thing is wrong it does not follow that it should be forbidden.
  - causi 4y ago
    I'm not trying to make a particular statement about whether threats should be illegal, I'm just saying hate speech and threats aren't the same thing.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    So only when one incites people to kill those who you dislike? Is it not hate speech for Russians to talk about murdering Ukrainians, if they believe that NATO expansion and hostile nukes on their border represents a threat to their lives and freedom (whether or not you agree with this)? If I think that somebody is going to get a gun control law passed which I think restricts my freedom, am I allowed to advocate killing them?
    - 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

> the definitions of those things and especially who can break the law without being prosecuted for it are largely determined by what is politically convenient. Don't forget "hate speech" laws about criticizing royalty, elected officials, or the police. These are things that will be inevitable, and hate speech/hate crime laws to protect police have already sprung up in US red states.

notch656a 4y ago
What "hate speech" laws for criticizing police/officials are you referring to in US red states?

stuckinhell 4y ago

So the heart is the double standards. I think that's very fair. "Kill All Men" is something you see pretty often on twitter, but "Kill All Women" would be hateful. I'm a woman, and yea I'm not a fan of "kill all women", but I also have a son and husband. I don't want "Kill All Men" to be something normalized. I think that should be considered Hate speech too. If the standards weren't so obviously double or triple, I think people would have far less of a problem with it.