4 ms·

Just like hate speech can be any thought that I disagree with, price gouging is when anyone other than me or my friends increases their price.

Spivak 4y ago
I know this might be taking the bait but please find some actual academic sources on hate speech. You're letting the very people who want to dismiss policies that limit hate speech because it's just wrongthink define it as wrongthink. You can hold and express the most offensive vile opinions on any subject you can imagine without it being hate speech. Don't let the very worst of people convince you that their hate speech is the same you holding or expressing minority or counterculture opinions on controversial topics. It's just a tactic to get normal people to defend them becasuse "they're coming for you too."
- gruez 4y ago
  >I know this might be taking the bait but please find some actual academic sources on hate speech. What do you propose should be the legal definition of hate speech then? And why do we need it as a separate category compared to existing laws (eg. existing laws against threats)?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Any of these work for you? And because hate speech isn't a direct threat of violence. The UN: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Canada: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group. Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust Germany: Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origin, against sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population, or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or violates the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming one of the aforementioned groups, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population. Russia: Actions aimed at the incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as abasement of dignity of a person or a group of persons on the basis of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as affiliation to any social group, if these acts have been committed in public or with the use of mass media. South Africa: No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, be harmful or to incite harm, promote or propagate hatred. Sweden: Anyone who, in a statement or in another message that is disseminated, threatens or expresses disrespect for a people group or another such group of persons with allusion to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender-transgender identity or expression [1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... [2] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.ht... [3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... [4] https://www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Russian_Federation_Criminal_Code.pdf https://www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Russian_Federation_Criminal... [5] http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf [6] https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1 https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1
    - gruez 4y ago
      > Any of these work for you? And because hate speech isn't a direct threat of violence. The problem I see with all of them is that they either allow prosecution of hurt feelings[1], or cover acts that are already covered by existing criminal legislation. [1] being slightly facetious here Going through the first few: >The UN: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. In typical UN fashion, all of their pronouncements are filled with vague platitudes that, depending on how you look at it, are either routinely ignored by the signatories, or leave so much room for interpretation that it's possible to drive a truck through such a loophole. What counts as "hatred"/"hostility"? Is it as simple as "[insert ethnicity here] are bad"? Going back to your previous claim of "You can hold and express the most offensive vile opinions on any subject you can imagine without it being hate speech", can you provide an illustrative example of "most offensive vile opinions" that would be allowed under that definition, and what would make it not allowed? >Canada: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. What does "breach of the peace" mean? This could mean anywhere between "hurt feelings" and "imminent lawless action". I'm sure that canada already has legislation that prohibits the latter, hate speech or not. So what's the difference here? Is it merely an aggravating factor? Are there things you can say that only become illegal if it's against an "identifiable group"? >Germany: Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origin, against sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population, or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or violates the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming one of the aforementioned groups, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population. Same as above
      - Spivak 4y ago
        None of these allow prosecution of hurt feelings, how the target of the hate speech feels or reacts to it doesn't matter at all. In fact in all these cases there doesn't have to be a victim present. The word incitement in the Canadian definition is inciting the aggressors to violence, not the targets. It's not like how it's used in "fighting words" laws.

Spivak 4y ago

I know this might be taking the bait but please find some actual academic sources on hate speech. You're letting the very people who want to dismiss policies that limit hate speech because it's just wrongthink define it as wrongthink. You can hold and express the most offensive vile opinions on any subject you can imagine without it being hate speech. Don't let the very worst of people convince you that their hate speech is the same you holding or expressing minority or counterculture opinions on controversial topics. It's just a tactic to get normal people to defend them becasuse "they're coming for you too."

gruez 4y ago
>I know this might be taking the bait but please find some actual academic sources on hate speech. What do you propose should be the legal definition of hate speech then? And why do we need it as a separate category compared to existing laws (eg. existing laws against threats)?
- Spivak 4y ago
  Any of these work for you? And because hate speech isn't a direct threat of violence. The UN: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Canada: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group. Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust Germany: Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origin, against sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population, or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or violates the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming one of the aforementioned groups, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population. Russia: Actions aimed at the incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as abasement of dignity of a person or a group of persons on the basis of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as affiliation to any social group, if these acts have been committed in public or with the use of mass media. South Africa: No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, be harmful or to incite harm, promote or propagate hatred. Sweden: Anyone who, in a statement or in another message that is disseminated, threatens or expresses disrespect for a people group or another such group of persons with allusion to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender-transgender identity or expression [1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... [2] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.ht... [3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... [4] https://www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Russian_Federation_Criminal_Code.pdf https://www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Russian_Federation_Criminal... [5] http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf [6] https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1 https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1
  - gruez 4y ago
    > Any of these work for you? And because hate speech isn't a direct threat of violence. The problem I see with all of them is that they either allow prosecution of hurt feelings[1], or cover acts that are already covered by existing criminal legislation. [1] being slightly facetious here Going through the first few: >The UN: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. In typical UN fashion, all of their pronouncements are filled with vague platitudes that, depending on how you look at it, are either routinely ignored by the signatories, or leave so much room for interpretation that it's possible to drive a truck through such a loophole. What counts as "hatred"/"hostility"? Is it as simple as "[insert ethnicity here] are bad"? Going back to your previous claim of "You can hold and express the most offensive vile opinions on any subject you can imagine without it being hate speech", can you provide an illustrative example of "most offensive vile opinions" that would be allowed under that definition, and what would make it not allowed? >Canada: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. What does "breach of the peace" mean? This could mean anywhere between "hurt feelings" and "imminent lawless action". I'm sure that canada already has legislation that prohibits the latter, hate speech or not. So what's the difference here? Is it merely an aggravating factor? Are there things you can say that only become illegal if it's against an "identifiable group"? >Germany: Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origin, against sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population, or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or violates the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming one of the aforementioned groups, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population. Same as above
    - Spivak 4y ago
      None of these allow prosecution of hurt feelings, how the target of the hate speech feels or reacts to it doesn't matter at all. In fact in all these cases there doesn't have to be a victim present. The word incitement in the Canadian definition is inciting the aggressors to violence, not the targets. It's not like how it's used in "fighting words" laws.