3 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 tim

> 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.
  - arminiusreturns 4y ago
    This disconnect is due to a lack of understanding the difference between individual and collective rights. People pushing collective rights are inherently in opposition to those who value individual liberty, and the dillution of this largely via education has vast swaths of people trying to apply more and more collective rights structures on an American foundation of individual freedoms in the Declaration of Independence sense. Hence why even as an atheist I find solace and value in the founders justification of The Grand Architect giving us these rights in the more gnostic sense. As it serves to emphasize that the desire of individual rights is an inherent part of being an individual human, something universal. This was the true revolution of the enlightenment and renaissance embodied in the imperfect but first nation state to buck monarchy and theocracy that is America, and the fad-of-the-moment haters who so blithely dismiss not just the Constitution but its foundational philsophical concepts from the enlightenment are increasingly dooming us to repeat history. Censorship, stasi-level totalitarianism, etc are the end result of collectivism, forever in opposition to true, stripped of its faults, Americanism.
  - HelloMcFly 4y ago
    > What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws. And yet you define Hate Speech laws as those disallowing others from "offending, mocking, or belittling" those in designated protected classes. Is that truly what these laws you are referring to are targeting? I don't see that in the UK's bill. Sincerely: am I missing it? Am I misreading? It's long, I relied on a summary for this comment. > If it's a legitimate threat then it's illegal no matter what person or group it is targeted at... If it's real abuse, if it's real threats... then it's illegal universally. The chilling effect of violent rhetoric will exist and persist whether the threat is legitimate or not. That's the debate. Should you be able to stoke those sentiments freely? The individuals who are stigmatized certainly don't have the capacity to fact-check every threat. I'm not an advocate for these laws, I don't know what's best, but I can't see it as black and white as you seem to. The person you replied to had what I thought to be a very good perspective I hadn't considered.
    - andrewmutz 4y ago
- concordDance 4y ago
  The key here is in the vagueness of "abusive". Is using the term "pedo" in a derogatory fashion abusive? What about not using someone's preferred pronouns?
  - jl6 4y ago
    I think the specific words are less important than the intent and the effect.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Seeing how the UK arrested a guy who tweeted a meme with a swastika out of pride flags I think offend, mock or belittle is accurate.

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.
- arminiusreturns 4y ago
  This disconnect is due to a lack of understanding the difference between individual and collective rights. People pushing collective rights are inherently in opposition to those who value individual liberty, and the dillution of this largely via education has vast swaths of people trying to apply more and more collective rights structures on an American foundation of individual freedoms in the Declaration of Independence sense. Hence why even as an atheist I find solace and value in the founders justification of The Grand Architect giving us these rights in the more gnostic sense. As it serves to emphasize that the desire of individual rights is an inherent part of being an individual human, something universal. This was the true revolution of the enlightenment and renaissance embodied in the imperfect but first nation state to buck monarchy and theocracy that is America, and the fad-of-the-moment haters who so blithely dismiss not just the Constitution but its foundational philsophical concepts from the enlightenment are increasingly dooming us to repeat history. Censorship, stasi-level totalitarianism, etc are the end result of collectivism, forever in opposition to true, stripped of its faults, Americanism.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  > What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws. And yet you define Hate Speech laws as those disallowing others from "offending, mocking, or belittling" those in designated protected classes. Is that truly what these laws you are referring to are targeting? I don't see that in the UK's bill. Sincerely: am I missing it? Am I misreading? It's long, I relied on a summary for this comment. > If it's a legitimate threat then it's illegal no matter what person or group it is targeted at... If it's real abuse, if it's real threats... then it's illegal universally. The chilling effect of violent rhetoric will exist and persist whether the threat is legitimate or not. That's the debate. Should you be able to stoke those sentiments freely? The individuals who are stigmatized certainly don't have the capacity to fact-check every threat. I'm not an advocate for these laws, I don't know what's best, but I can't see it as black and white as you seem to. The person you replied to had what I thought to be a very good perspective I hadn't considered.
  - andrewmutz 4y ago
concordDance 4y ago
The key here is in the vagueness of "abusive". Is using the term "pedo" in a derogatory fashion abusive? What about not using someone's preferred pronouns?
- jl6 4y ago
  I think the specific words are less important than the intent and the effect.
_-david-_ 4y ago
Seeing how the UK arrested a guy who tweeted a meme with a swastika out of pride flags I think offend, mock or belittle is accurate.