4 ms·

> hate speech being free speech is an American thing It's the constitution, innit? It's a confusing document, with many compromises. But many US citizens treat

> hate speech being free speech is an American thing It's the constitution, innit? It's a confusing document, with many compromises. But many US citizens treat it like the Shroud of Turin. The German laws are tied up with Germany's history in the 20th C. In other parts of Western Europe, restrictions are less stringent and less specific. Obviously there are types of "harmless" speech that are likely to provoke a violent response. Personal abuse is an example, but so is the language of the likes of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech. Do people really think that speech that's likely to cause public disorder is OK? I like the author's distinction between "cultural" and "legal" freedom of speech. I instinctively dislike restrictions on speech; but provided they are used mainly to nudge people into treating their fellow citiziens with respect (and with an explicit exception for satire), I see them as an overall good. That is, you can use legal restrictions, with a light touch, to encourage an atmosphere of cultural restraint. Arresting that guy who protested Charles III's accession by holding up a blank sheet of paper: that's not a good thing.

mcv 4y ago
> > hate speech being free speech is an American thing > It's the constitution, innit? Is it? I wasn't aware that hate speech was explicitly singled out as protected in the Constitution. > Do people really think that speech that's likely to cause public disorder is OK? Public disorder, no. But innocent people getting heard? Well, maybe. Lots of speech that hurts innocent people is already banned. Things like libel/slander. Threats. Blackmail. All of these can hurt someone, silence someone, inspire someone else to hurt someone. I don't think anyone ever objected to these being banned, and even punishable with real prison sentences. > Arresting that guy who protested Charles III's accession by holding up a blank sheet of paper: that's not a good thing. Did that happen? That's a silly thing to arrest someone for. It calls back to Putin arresting people for holding up blank sheets of paper.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  As an aside, I love it that blank sheets of paper turned into the go to way to message a protest. You can't get less menacing and a stronger "the emperor has no clothes" message than that.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Things like libel/slander. Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. > Threats. Blackmail. Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. > Did that happen? That's a silly thing to arrest someone for. Oh yes, it did: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-arrest-blank-paper-king-charles-monarchy-b1025152.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-arrest-blank-paper... "Silly" is rather a gentle way to characterize it; it was oppressive. But this country is very silly about it's monarchy - as the USA is about it's constitution. I am a republican (small 'r'), and using the police to suppress anti-monarchist sentiment is offensive, and to me scary. Anti-monarchist opinions have a long tradition here; there was some other king called Charles, that we decapitated 400 years ago. [Edit] No threat to Charles III intended; got to be careful what you say, if you can be arrested for holding a blank piece of paper, maybe you can be arrested for having a blank mind.
  - mcv 4y ago
    > Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. Is that not still a form of punishment? And a reason why most people would refrain from saying these things? > > Threats. Blackmail. > Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do something that's often completely legal, but sufficiently embarrassing that it would still make the target change their behaviour. But as with libel and slander, the fact that they're illegal doesn't mean they don't happen. In fact, there's plenty of people threatening others online. And often it takes a judge to decide whether or not that threat counts as a credible threat. And then there's indirect threats, where the threatener doesn't directly threaten, but directs others to do it. Possibly in an unspoken way. And sometimes the vague things someone says can still inspire a mob to storm the Capitol with a gallows from which to have the Vice President. Where do you draw that line? And can you only draw it after people act on it? These issues are incredibly complex, and very context dependent. And pretending they're simple is going to make us ignore all the edge cases. And there's a lot of those.
    - 4y ago
- kolanos 4y ago
  > Things like libel/slander. Threats. Blackmail. Libel and slander are civil matters in the United States.

mcv 4y ago

> > hate speech being free speech is an American thing > It's the constitution, innit? Is it? I wasn't aware that hate speech was explicitly singled out as protected in the Constitution. > Do people really think that speech that's likely to cause public disorder is OK? Public disorder, no. But innocent people getting heard? Well, maybe. Lots of speech that hurts innocent people is already banned. Things like libel/slander. Threats. Blackmail. All of these can hurt someone, silence someone, inspire someone else to hurt someone. I don't think anyone ever objected to these being banned, and even punishable with real prison sentences. > Arresting that guy who protested Charles III's accession by holding up a blank sheet of paper: that's not a good thing. Did that happen? That's a silly thing to arrest someone for. It calls back to Putin arresting people for holding up blank sheets of paper.

marcosdumay 4y ago
As an aside, I love it that blank sheets of paper turned into the go to way to message a protest. You can't get less menacing and a stronger "the emperor has no clothes" message than that.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> Things like libel/slander. Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. > Threats. Blackmail. Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. > Did that happen? That's a silly thing to arrest someone for. Oh yes, it did: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-arrest-blank-paper-king-charles-monarchy-b1025152.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-arrest-blank-paper... "Silly" is rather a gentle way to characterize it; it was oppressive. But this country is very silly about it's monarchy - as the USA is about it's constitution. I am a republican (small 'r'), and using the police to suppress anti-monarchist sentiment is offensive, and to me scary. Anti-monarchist opinions have a long tradition here; there was some other king called Charles, that we decapitated 400 years ago. [Edit] No threat to Charles III intended; got to be careful what you say, if you can be arrested for holding a blank piece of paper, maybe you can be arrested for having a blank mind.
- mcv 4y ago
  > Those are civil offences; they're not "banned", the victim has to sue for damages. Is that not still a form of punishment? And a reason why most people would refrain from saying these things? > > Threats. Blackmail. > Those are indeed banned, i.e. criminal. They are both effectively threats. It's a criminal act to threaten a criminal act. A threat is a threat to do something illegal. Blackmail is a threat to do something that's often completely legal, but sufficiently embarrassing that it would still make the target change their behaviour. But as with libel and slander, the fact that they're illegal doesn't mean they don't happen. In fact, there's plenty of people threatening others online. And often it takes a judge to decide whether or not that threat counts as a credible threat. And then there's indirect threats, where the threatener doesn't directly threaten, but directs others to do it. Possibly in an unspoken way. And sometimes the vague things someone says can still inspire a mob to storm the Capitol with a gallows from which to have the Vice President. Where do you draw that line? And can you only draw it after people act on it? These issues are incredibly complex, and very context dependent. And pretending they're simple is going to make us ignore all the edge cases. And there's a lot of those.
  - 4y ago
kolanos 4y ago
> Things like libel/slander. Threats. Blackmail. Libel and slander are civil matters in the United States.