36 ms·

Banning “hate speech” without restricting political speech is prohibitively difficult because of the target’s inherent subjectivity. That's the crux right. As

Banning “hate speech” without restricting political speech is prohibitively difficult because of the target’s inherent subjectivity. That's the crux right. As soon as you decide that a certain kind of speech is "illegal", the goalposts shift to convincing others that speech you don't agree with falls in the illegal category. Even what seem like sensible categories like inciting to violence immediately get spun around and we get all sorts of things being called violence in order to try and suit political aims. Like most rights, free speech isn't perfect, it's just the least bad alternative.

majormajor 4y ago
You talk about how categories that "seem like sensible" ones get "spun around" too much for politics. So are you promoting no restrictions whatsoever? How close to violence do you want to allow? How allowable is a specific threat before it is actionable? How much intimidation is allowed to influence "free" action in your mind in the name of preserving "free speech" before it has too high a cost of preventing "free action"? How does something like fraud, or the slippier forms of it called "false advertising" or "hype" fit in? We cannot be so paranoid about potential future government harms to us that we overlook the immediate dangers of current and ongoing harms done person-to-person. If you extended the same level of paranoia to other abuses, you'd end up abolishing the police and any other sort of government body that could be abused as well... yet very few of us would choose that world. No world will be free of harm, free of crime, free of abuse of power - we must simply try to minimize their occurrence in practice vs trying to fit things into a slogan.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.
  - dbrueck 4y ago
    Slight correction: the baker refused to bake a cake celebrating a gay marriage (i.e. the refusal was not about who was asking for it but what was being asked for).
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      Yes, you are right. If I remember correctly he did offer to sell them a premade generic cake, he just did not want to create a custom one for the wedding. My memory may be faded though.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control. And if that's what the people want, that's fine. But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue against "free speech absolutism" from. Would we then change our mind later, or put different regulations in place? Quite likely! But that's perfectly fine. The only way to not change is to die.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      I think so, all of the items you mentioned are illegal and punished by the law. Laws can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, not really sure what you are advocating for.
      - majormajor 4y ago
        Things like "puffery" and other "I wasn't being serious" defenses. Good luck prosecuting those things when everyone can hide behind "speech alone is harmless." Note also that the comment I was originally replying to was saying we already have too many restrictions on speech. So they'd presumably want to loosen those things even more.
- toast0 4y ago
  > We cannot be so paranoid about potential future government harms to us that we overlook the immediate dangers of current and ongoing harms done person-to-person. We don't need to look at potential future government harms, we only need to look at past actual governments. If my past government has taken it on themselves to illegally and irresponsibly repress speech, and I believe they did, why would I want to give current governments the power to legally repress speech? The government is formed in the same structure, and is likely to repeat the same mistakes, and frankly is likely to illegally repress speech again in the future, but I'd at least like to have the courts to fall back on (although even that isn't always enough)
- drooby 4y ago
  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-sy...
- gmarx 4y ago
  The answer is that the right to free speech does not provide a trick to get around other laws. How close to violence do you have to get? That crime/tort is usually called "assault" and (IANAL) the standard is usually on the order of "would a reasonable person thing he was about to be subject to some kind of physical attack". So brandishing a knife and saying in a serious tone "prepare to be stabbed" would count. Saying "I think anyone whose favorite band is 'Green Day'" would probably not. We also have laws and civil actions for fraud, defamation, slander, libel. For all of them a key component is that you are lying to achieve some end- take money, or ruin someone's reputation. These lines are actually very easy to draw. If the thing you are bothered by and trying to outlaw is the thought behind them then they are protected. If you are trying to stop something that would be considered criminal or a civil tort regardless of how it was achieved (stealing, making some think he is about to get hurt, ruining someone's reputation) then it is not protected.
- jmuncaster 4y ago
  Sounds like a straw man. The comment did not say “no restrictions whatsoever” - my read is that it said that even the most sensible sounding restrictions on incitement to violence have their difficulties. It’s messy and nuanced. I agree with your sentiment to deal more with actual, not theoretical problems. However, I think there have been enough actual historical examples of abuses of power in free speech regulations that are self-reinforcing. This should create a high bar when considering any particular restriction. It’s not paranoia, it’s lessons learned. So some restrictions? Sure, and the courts have indeed allowed some. But they are and ought to be well-reasoned exceptions with clear distinctions so we don’t end up with something akin to a thought-police.
kashkhan 4y ago
Social discouragement is often more effective than legal. The 'n' word is mostly stopped by social means.
- majormajor 4y ago
  The recent "pro-free speech" crusades are explicitly targeting the rights of private individuals to have non-legal recourse, such as the ability of social media platforms to have editorial control over their platforms. So... fight back against that if you want to still have the right to push back in the future.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    You know what we call the right of private parties to choose which viewpoints to promote with their resources? (Hint: rhymes with “key peach”)
    - majormajor 4y ago
      That's not what the "twitter shouldn't be able to remove anything that's not illegal" folks call it.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    Would you say Code-era Hollywood was a shining example of free speech? After all, it was private organizations restricting what kinds of content and people were allowed participation, for the well-being of society.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
We want to ban speech today that was considered acceptable 60 years ago; and the things we celebrate today are things people wanted to ban or censor 60 years ago. You can’t have it both ways: if you want to speak freely about what you care about, you have to let the people you hate speak freely too. Over the last 100 years, it has done far more good than harm to let people express themselves
- croes 4y ago
  Are you sure? Didn't it help that is wasn't unacceptable to call a black person n**r and to call a homosexual f**t? Freedom of expression always goes in both directions. Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    > Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?
    - croes 4y ago
      Ever heard of bullying? You don't need physical force for that.
      - BlueDingo 4y ago
        Bullying is an additional level of action, right? If you're using a different verb it probably also means additional actions that aren't simply speech. I dislike bad stuff too. Bullying is wrong and should be stopped. Hate speech is also wrong but I'll defend people's right to speak.
      - version_five 4y ago
        "Bullying" is actually a great example of something that once we decide the concept is bad, there is a rush from people to frame everything they don't like along those lines. I'd suggest that under the blanket and nebulous headline of "bullying" are actions that are already illegal like harassment and assault.
yongjik 4y ago
As other comments said, this argument, while sounding superficially logical, does not agree with reality: most Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic.
- bacchusracine 4y ago
  >Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic. But are they really? Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?
  - wardedVibe 4y ago
    If e.g. the Lepin family can thrive in a socialist country, yes, they obviously are.
  - yongjik 4y ago
    Of course, if you define "democracy" to mean absolute free speech, then countries without absolute free speech are not democratic, by definition. That's not exactly insightful.
  - _cenw 4y ago
    Can you claim to be democratic with a two party system, first past the post, gerrymandering, vote suppression... The US really isn't the model country for democratic participation.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      Don't forget a law system that allows judges to basically legislate retrospectively because everything is vague and based on interpretations that can and do change - look at Roe v Wade for instance. Coupled with a deification of their Founding Fathers and Constitution and you have a recipe for a massive legal mess nobody can touch.
    - 4y ago
slg 4y ago
Do you think this has happened while libel and defamation laws? If not, why are those laws different? I simply don't understand why I could be sued for saying "[individual X] is a pedophile" but it is fine to say "all [race/religion/gender/sexuality Y] individuals are pedophiles" even if that individual X is included in that group Y. Aren't you defaming individual X either way? Why does including other people in your defamation make it acceptable?
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  It is best to look at this from a procedural standpoint. If you make a specific claim against an individual, that individual has the ability to prove that they are harmed/affected by what you have done. Which means they have standing and the case is much less likely to be immediately dismissed. Additionally, that individual is able to defend themselves against the claims that you have made and would actually be able to present evidence in any proceedings. Whereas accusing a group means no individual has a clear case that they have been harmed. And, there is generally no individual or organization from said group that is able to speak for it. Although there are indeed some organizations that exist for this purpose, like the ADL. It is not so much that being non-specific makes defamation acceptable, but rather, being non specific makes it so much more difficult to go after the person.
  - slg 4y ago
    What if there is a clear case of being harmed? For example, what if a mass shooter cites someone who spouts hate speech as a motivation for their actions?
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      How is that different from Charles Manson claiming that The Beatles were sending him coded messages telling him to start a race war, or David Berkowitz claiming that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people? Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?
yucky 4y ago
> Even what seem like sensible categories like inciting to violence immediately get spun around and we get all sorts of things being called violence in order to try and suit political aims. Case in point, a scary number of people ascribe to the idea that "silence is violence". So just not saying what they want you to say, is now violence. And since it's violent of course we can now restrict them..
jquery 4y ago
We already have illegal speech, and this slippery slope you’re so afraid of hasn’t appeared. The boundaries seems pretty well contained by social convention and contract. Stopping people from saying the n word online isn’t going to lead to the fall of democracy. In the upside down hypothetical future where we decide as a society that “akshually racism is good”, nobody will be getting arrested for saying the n word by then. Don’t worry so much about far future hypotheticals, worry more about concrete harms being caused today.

majormajor 4y ago

You talk about how categories that "seem like sensible" ones get "spun around" too much for politics. So are you promoting no restrictions whatsoever? How close to violence do you want to allow? How allowable is a specific threat before it is actionable? How much intimidation is allowed to influence "free" action in your mind in the name of preserving "free speech" before it has too high a cost of preventing "free action"? How does something like fraud, or the slippier forms of it called "false advertising" or "hype" fit in? We cannot be so paranoid about potential future government harms to us that we overlook the immediate dangers of current and ongoing harms done person-to-person. If you extended the same level of paranoia to other abuses, you'd end up abolishing the police and any other sort of government body that could be abused as well... yet very few of us would choose that world. No world will be free of harm, free of crime, free of abuse of power - we must simply try to minimize their occurrence in practice vs trying to fit things into a slogan.

wonderwonder 4y ago
In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.
- dbrueck 4y ago
  Slight correction: the baker refused to bake a cake celebrating a gay marriage (i.e. the refusal was not about who was asking for it but what was being asked for).
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    Yes, you are right. If I remember correctly he did offer to sell them a premade generic cake, he just did not want to create a custom one for the wedding. My memory may be faded though.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control. And if that's what the people want, that's fine. But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue against "free speech absolutism" from. Would we then change our mind later, or put different regulations in place? Quite likely! But that's perfectly fine. The only way to not change is to die.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    I think so, all of the items you mentioned are illegal and punished by the law. Laws can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, not really sure what you are advocating for.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      Things like "puffery" and other "I wasn't being serious" defenses. Good luck prosecuting those things when everyone can hide behind "speech alone is harmless." Note also that the comment I was originally replying to was saying we already have too many restrictions on speech. So they'd presumably want to loosen those things even more.
toast0 4y ago
> We cannot be so paranoid about potential future government harms to us that we overlook the immediate dangers of current and ongoing harms done person-to-person. We don't need to look at potential future government harms, we only need to look at past actual governments. If my past government has taken it on themselves to illegally and irresponsibly repress speech, and I believe they did, why would I want to give current governments the power to legally repress speech? The government is formed in the same structure, and is likely to repeat the same mistakes, and frankly is likely to illegally repress speech again in the future, but I'd at least like to have the courts to fall back on (although even that isn't always enough)
drooby 4y ago
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-sy...
gmarx 4y ago
The answer is that the right to free speech does not provide a trick to get around other laws. How close to violence do you have to get? That crime/tort is usually called "assault" and (IANAL) the standard is usually on the order of "would a reasonable person thing he was about to be subject to some kind of physical attack". So brandishing a knife and saying in a serious tone "prepare to be stabbed" would count. Saying "I think anyone whose favorite band is 'Green Day'" would probably not. We also have laws and civil actions for fraud, defamation, slander, libel. For all of them a key component is that you are lying to achieve some end- take money, or ruin someone's reputation. These lines are actually very easy to draw. If the thing you are bothered by and trying to outlaw is the thought behind them then they are protected. If you are trying to stop something that would be considered criminal or a civil tort regardless of how it was achieved (stealing, making some think he is about to get hurt, ruining someone's reputation) then it is not protected.
jmuncaster 4y ago
Sounds like a straw man. The comment did not say “no restrictions whatsoever” - my read is that it said that even the most sensible sounding restrictions on incitement to violence have their difficulties. It’s messy and nuanced. I agree with your sentiment to deal more with actual, not theoretical problems. However, I think there have been enough actual historical examples of abuses of power in free speech regulations that are self-reinforcing. This should create a high bar when considering any particular restriction. It’s not paranoia, it’s lessons learned. So some restrictions? Sure, and the courts have indeed allowed some. But they are and ought to be well-reasoned exceptions with clear distinctions so we don’t end up with something akin to a thought-police.

kashkhan 4y ago

Social discouragement is often more effective than legal. The 'n' word is mostly stopped by social means.

majormajor 4y ago
The recent "pro-free speech" crusades are explicitly targeting the rights of private individuals to have non-legal recourse, such as the ability of social media platforms to have editorial control over their platforms. So... fight back against that if you want to still have the right to push back in the future.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  You know what we call the right of private parties to choose which viewpoints to promote with their resources? (Hint: rhymes with “key peach”)
  - majormajor 4y ago
    That's not what the "twitter shouldn't be able to remove anything that's not illegal" folks call it.
- scarmig 4y ago
  Would you say Code-era Hollywood was a shining example of free speech? After all, it was private organizations restricting what kinds of content and people were allowed participation, for the well-being of society.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

We want to ban speech today that was considered acceptable 60 years ago; and the things we celebrate today are things people wanted to ban or censor 60 years ago. You can’t have it both ways: if you want to speak freely about what you care about, you have to let the people you hate speak freely too. Over the last 100 years, it has done far more good than harm to let people express themselves

croes 4y ago
Are you sure? Didn't it help that is wasn't unacceptable to call a black person n**r and to call a homosexual f**t? Freedom of expression always goes in both directions. Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression.
- scarmig 4y ago
  > Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?
  - croes 4y ago
    Ever heard of bullying? You don't need physical force for that.
    - BlueDingo 4y ago
      Bullying is an additional level of action, right? If you're using a different verb it probably also means additional actions that aren't simply speech. I dislike bad stuff too. Bullying is wrong and should be stopped. Hate speech is also wrong but I'll defend people's right to speak.
    - version_five 4y ago
      "Bullying" is actually a great example of something that once we decide the concept is bad, there is a rush from people to frame everything they don't like along those lines. I'd suggest that under the blanket and nebulous headline of "bullying" are actions that are already illegal like harassment and assault.

yongjik 4y ago

As other comments said, this argument, while sounding superficially logical, does not agree with reality: most Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic.

bacchusracine 4y ago
>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic. But are they really? Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?
- wardedVibe 4y ago
  If e.g. the Lepin family can thrive in a socialist country, yes, they obviously are.
- yongjik 4y ago
  Of course, if you define "democracy" to mean absolute free speech, then countries without absolute free speech are not democratic, by definition. That's not exactly insightful.
- _cenw 4y ago
  Can you claim to be democratic with a two party system, first past the post, gerrymandering, vote suppression... The US really isn't the model country for democratic participation.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Don't forget a law system that allows judges to basically legislate retrospectively because everything is vague and based on interpretations that can and do change - look at Roe v Wade for instance. Coupled with a deification of their Founding Fathers and Constitution and you have a recipe for a massive legal mess nobody can touch.
  - 4y ago

slg 4y ago

Do you think this has happened while libel and defamation laws? If not, why are those laws different? I simply don't understand why I could be sued for saying "[individual X] is a pedophile" but it is fine to say "all [race/religion/gender/sexuality Y] individuals are pedophiles" even if that individual X is included in that group Y. Aren't you defaming individual X either way? Why does including other people in your defamation make it acceptable?

BitwiseFool 4y ago
It is best to look at this from a procedural standpoint. If you make a specific claim against an individual, that individual has the ability to prove that they are harmed/affected by what you have done. Which means they have standing and the case is much less likely to be immediately dismissed. Additionally, that individual is able to defend themselves against the claims that you have made and would actually be able to present evidence in any proceedings. Whereas accusing a group means no individual has a clear case that they have been harmed. And, there is generally no individual or organization from said group that is able to speak for it. Although there are indeed some organizations that exist for this purpose, like the ADL. It is not so much that being non-specific makes defamation acceptable, but rather, being non specific makes it so much more difficult to go after the person.
- slg 4y ago
  What if there is a clear case of being harmed? For example, what if a mass shooter cites someone who spouts hate speech as a motivation for their actions?
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    How is that different from Charles Manson claiming that The Beatles were sending him coded messages telling him to start a race war, or David Berkowitz claiming that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people? Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?

yucky 4y ago

> Even what seem like sensible categories like inciting to violence immediately get spun around and we get all sorts of things being called violence in order to try and suit political aims. Case in point, a scary number of people ascribe to the idea that "silence is violence". So just not saying what they want you to say, is now violence. And since it's violent of course we can now restrict them..

jquery 4y ago

We already have illegal speech, and this slippery slope you’re so afraid of hasn’t appeared. The boundaries seems pretty well contained by social convention and contract. Stopping people from saying the n word online isn’t going to lead to the fall of democracy. In the upside down hypothetical future where we decide as a society that “akshually racism is good”, nobody will be getting arrested for saying the n word by then. Don’t worry so much about far future hypotheticals, worry more about concrete harms being caused today.