11 ms·

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,

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.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    And indeed what about advocating for state sanctioned violence? E.g. if you're saying that buggery (or pedophilic cartoons) should be illegal you are advocating for men with guns to use violence or threat of violence to imprison those who do it.
  - retrac 4y ago
    I would point out that in constitutional law, in both Canada and the USA, it is decided by its proximity to violence, basically. The specifics vary, but that's the core of it. The more immediately linked the speech is to violent illegal action, the more likely it falls outside constitutional protection. The American standard is called imminent lawless action [1], and so yes, openly encouraging a murder that might realistically happen can be illegal, and so is encouraging rioters to riot harder. Canada uses the same basic framework, with a somewhat less strict threshold for immediacy which is how laws there about inciting hatred squeak by constitutionally, while they don't in the USA. Still not quite sure where the line should be, but such criteria seems like how we should decide where it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
benj111 4y ago
>banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people. 'violent'? If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? If we have freedom of speech that applies to everyone. LGBT or homophobic. Each have the same right to speech, neither has the right to threaten with violence. Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though.
- onion2k 4y ago
  If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? Speech can cause a physical reaction just as much as a punch in the face can. If someone says they hate you for existing that's violence. This is a good explaination https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... Also "Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though." That's exactly what you're doing with the word 'violence' in your post. You're claiming it doesn't have a meaning that it definitely does, in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense.
  - intimidated 4y ago
    How about this: "I hate evil people. You are evil unless you pay me reparations." Should the state jail someone for saying that?
    - onion2k 4y ago
      Yes. It's literally a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States Note that the way you phrased that, "You are evil unless you pay me reparations." makes it so that the person isn't considered evil if they pay. That is significantly different to "You are evil therefore you pay me reparations.", in which the burden of proof of evilness is not based on payment. The person is still considered evil if they pay; they pay because they accept that and want to make things right. That's important.
      - intimidated 4y ago
lotharcable 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. No. > 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. You are conflating things. Hate speech isn't about threats of violence. Hate speech is when you have specially classified groups of protected people that you are not allowed to offend or mock or belittle. It is also about making it illegal to talk about subjects that are not approved by the government. Like how you are not allowed to show nazi flags in video games. You can go ahead and offend, mock, or belittle people that are not part of a protected class. That isn't illegal under "hate speech laws". Nobody is defending or claiming that threatening people with violence is "free speech". Trying to claim this is grossly misrepresenting the entire argument. Either for, or against, hate speech.
- anon84873628 4y ago
  You are misrepresenting the definition of hate speech in order to create a strawman. Here is the definition from Google search card: >abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. So it's not just "offend or mock or belittle", but rather "abusive or threatening". And if you think "offend or mock or belittle" are the same as "abusive", then you just don't get it yet.
  - lotharcable 4y ago
    > You are misrepresenting the definition of hate speech in order to create a strawman. Here is the definition from Google search card: I don't give a shit what Google has to say about it. What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws. The law is what matters. Not your cherry picked definitions that help prop up your misrepresentation/misunderstanding of what is going on. > So it's not just "offend or mock or belittle", but rather "abusive or threatening". The issue is that 'abusive' is nonsense. If it's a legitimate threat then it's illegal no matter what person or group it is targeted at. When it's legal to do it against one political classification of persons, but it's illegal to do it against another one... That is a big freaking problem. For justice under the law it needs to be universal in application. If you can be "abusive" against one person, but not another because of politically defined group classifications or you are not allowed to talk about or discuss or bring up certain projects because protected classes of people might find it "threatening", then that is objectively immoral. > And if you think "offend or mock or belittle" are the same as "abusive", then you just don't get it yet. Well there isn't much to get here. So I get it. Do you? Euphemistic usage and strange definitions of "abusive" and "threatening" doesn't change anything. It's just abusing the language to obscure a position. If it's real abuse, if it's real threats... then it's illegal universally. Nobody is arguing against that.
jiscariot 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... Good example of what Salman Rushdie call's the Free Speech "But Brigade": "And now, the moment somebody says, "yes I believe in free speech, BUT," I stop listening."
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  I think this is bad advice, what follows the "but" can be on a spectrum. It can run from struggling with one's own beliefs, to empathizing with the real-world consequences of others, to all-out advocating for an abandonment of the beliefs that came before the "but". Life is complicated, trite quotes like this don't leave much room to explore the corners - personal and social - of nuanced topics.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I think the context here is important. Rushdie was nearly killed multiple times for speech, and during his travails may people he knew who who claimed to support free speech were saying thing to him like, "I support free speech, but maybe you shouldn't have [insulted Islam]...". He was talking about people making excuses for his would be murderers.
    - HelloMcFly 4y ago
      I think it's a great quote in context.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        He's spoken about it at some length and contextualizes what he means and how when people say it they almost never have anything nuanced to say after the but.
        HelloMcFly 4y ago
        I suppose all I can say is that I like the quote in context, and think most people who use the quote to dismiss the perspectives of others outright deserve an exasperated eye-roll. Life is not as simple as many want to make it.
concordDance 4y ago
> hate speech is never about expressing oneself, it is about censoring the opposition through intimidation and organizing violence against them. This is simply untrue. Both in terms of how the term "hate speech" is commonly used and the actual practice of the law. Was nazi pug guy trying to censor other people's speech? > Today the situation is somewhat reversed, where lgbt expression is increasingly acceptable but homophobia is not. This is a victory for free speech: This confuses me, though I suppose your meaning of "homophobia" might be different from the one I am familiar with (like many politically charged words its meaning is vague and varies). Would saying things like "Fags will go to hell, homosexuality is wrong and unnatural and homos should be kept away from children so they don't pass on the gay." be homophobia or hate speech? What about "we should imprison gays so they repent their evil ways and stop infecting our children"?
asiachick 4y ago
> 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 this is exactly the situation we are in now with wokeness. Say the wrong thing and get cancelled, fired, banned even if your point is valid and intensions are good

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.
- concordDance 4y ago
  And indeed what about advocating for state sanctioned violence? E.g. if you're saying that buggery (or pedophilic cartoons) should be illegal you are advocating for men with guns to use violence or threat of violence to imprison those who do it.
- retrac 4y ago
  I would point out that in constitutional law, in both Canada and the USA, it is decided by its proximity to violence, basically. The specifics vary, but that's the core of it. The more immediately linked the speech is to violent illegal action, the more likely it falls outside constitutional protection. The American standard is called imminent lawless action [1], and so yes, openly encouraging a murder that might realistically happen can be illegal, and so is encouraging rioters to riot harder. Canada uses the same basic framework, with a somewhat less strict threshold for immediacy which is how laws there about inciting hatred squeak by constitutionally, while they don't in the USA. Still not quite sure where the line should be, but such criteria seems like how we should decide where it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

benj111 4y ago

>banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people. 'violent'? If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? If we have freedom of speech that applies to everyone. LGBT or homophobic. Each have the same right to speech, neither has the right to threaten with violence. Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though.

onion2k 4y ago
If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? Speech can cause a physical reaction just as much as a punch in the face can. If someone says they hate you for existing that's violence. This is a good explaination https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... Also "Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though." That's exactly what you're doing with the word 'violence' in your post. You're claiming it doesn't have a meaning that it definitely does, in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense.
- intimidated 4y ago
  How about this: "I hate evil people. You are evil unless you pay me reparations." Should the state jail someone for saying that?
  - onion2k 4y ago
    Yes. It's literally a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States Note that the way you phrased that, "You are evil unless you pay me reparations." makes it so that the person isn't considered evil if they pay. That is significantly different to "You are evil therefore you pay me reparations.", in which the burden of proof of evilness is not based on payment. The person is still considered evil if they pay; they pay because they accept that and want to make things right. That's important.
    - intimidated 4y ago

lotharcable 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. No. > 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. You are conflating things. Hate speech isn't about threats of violence. Hate speech is when you have specially classified groups of protected people that you are not allowed to offend or mock or belittle. It is also about making it illegal to talk about subjects that are not approved by the government. Like how you are not allowed to show nazi flags in video games. You can go ahead and offend, mock, or belittle people that are not part of a protected class. That isn't illegal under "hate speech laws". Nobody is defending or claiming that threatening people with violence is "free speech". Trying to claim this is grossly misrepresenting the entire argument. Either for, or against, hate speech.

anon84873628 4y ago
You are misrepresenting the definition of hate speech in order to create a strawman. Here is the definition from Google search card: >abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. So it's not just "offend or mock or belittle", but rather "abusive or threatening". And if you think "offend or mock or belittle" are the same as "abusive", then you just don't get it yet.
- lotharcable 4y ago
  > You are misrepresenting the definition of hate speech in order to create a strawman. Here is the definition from Google search card: I don't give a shit what Google has to say about it. What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws. The law is what matters. Not your cherry picked definitions that help prop up your misrepresentation/misunderstanding of what is going on. > So it's not just "offend or mock or belittle", but rather "abusive or threatening". The issue is that 'abusive' is nonsense. If it's a legitimate threat then it's illegal no matter what person or group it is targeted at. When it's legal to do it against one political classification of persons, but it's illegal to do it against another one... That is a big freaking problem. For justice under the law it needs to be universal in application. If you can be "abusive" against one person, but not another because of politically defined group classifications or you are not allowed to talk about or discuss or bring up certain projects because protected classes of people might find it "threatening", then that is objectively immoral. > And if you think "offend or mock or belittle" are the same as "abusive", then you just don't get it yet. Well there isn't much to get here. So I get it. Do you? Euphemistic usage and strange definitions of "abusive" and "threatening" doesn't change anything. It's just abusing the language to obscure a position. If it's real abuse, if it's real threats... then it's illegal universally. Nobody is arguing against that.

jiscariot 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... Good example of what Salman Rushdie call's the Free Speech "But Brigade": "And now, the moment somebody says, "yes I believe in free speech, BUT," I stop listening."

HelloMcFly 4y ago
I think this is bad advice, what follows the "but" can be on a spectrum. It can run from struggling with one's own beliefs, to empathizing with the real-world consequences of others, to all-out advocating for an abandonment of the beliefs that came before the "but". Life is complicated, trite quotes like this don't leave much room to explore the corners - personal and social - of nuanced topics.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I think the context here is important. Rushdie was nearly killed multiple times for speech, and during his travails may people he knew who who claimed to support free speech were saying thing to him like, "I support free speech, but maybe you shouldn't have [insulted Islam]...". He was talking about people making excuses for his would be murderers.
  - HelloMcFly 4y ago
    I think it's a great quote in context.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      He's spoken about it at some length and contextualizes what he means and how when people say it they almost never have anything nuanced to say after the but.
      - HelloMcFly 4y ago
        I suppose all I can say is that I like the quote in context, and think most people who use the quote to dismiss the perspectives of others outright deserve an exasperated eye-roll. Life is not as simple as many want to make it.

concordDance 4y ago

> hate speech is never about expressing oneself, it is about censoring the opposition through intimidation and organizing violence against them. This is simply untrue. Both in terms of how the term "hate speech" is commonly used and the actual practice of the law. Was nazi pug guy trying to censor other people's speech? > Today the situation is somewhat reversed, where lgbt expression is increasingly acceptable but homophobia is not. This is a victory for free speech: This confuses me, though I suppose your meaning of "homophobia" might be different from the one I am familiar with (like many politically charged words its meaning is vague and varies). Would saying things like "Fags will go to hell, homosexuality is wrong and unnatural and homos should be kept away from children so they don't pass on the gay." be homophobia or hate speech? What about "we should imprison gays so they repent their evil ways and stop infecting our children"?

asiachick 4y ago

> 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 this is exactly the situation we are in now with wokeness. Say the wrong thing and get cancelled, fired, banned even if your point is valid and intensions are good