4 ms·

How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbit

How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters. A lot of religious texts, beliefs, and/or sermons would probably be considered hate speech to a not insignificant number of people.

Zetice 4y ago
I don’t think, “it’s hard” is a justifiable reason for an idea to be wrong, so I’m not sure the fact that having a fair way of discerning hate speech is hard means that we shouldn’t discern hate speech.
- silisili 4y ago
  It's not hard, it's quite literally impossible. If there's a person who believes God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners... and another person who is homosexual and doesn't believe in God, where can there be compromise? I'm neither, just looking at this from above. The best you can do is disenfranchising anything less than the majority's opinion. I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such. Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism, and where I fear we're headed. The private sector has already tried to be said arbiters, so it's interesting to see where this ends up.
  - brazzy 4y ago
    What you claim to be impossible is in fact routinely and successfuly done. Because the point of hate speech bans is not at all to police opinions, it's about making sure everyone can live in peace no matter what opinion anyone holds. Looking at your example for the point of view of the German criminal code, section 130 (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...): * believing that God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners is completely outside the scope of the law, since it only concerns speech, not beliefs. * saying "God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners" is also not affected (this is dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, frequently stated in public) because no matter whether you believe it to be true or not, it does not imply anyone should do anything in particular, and thus does not affect the public peace. * saying "God hates homosexuals and they will burn in hell", still the same, what God does in hell is outside the scope of the law. * saying "Every god-fearing man should do god's will and kill homosexuals on sight" in public in front of a crowd - BEEEP, BEEP, BEEP, we got ourselves a statement suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace, go to jail for between three months and five years. * saying "People should not let homosexuals into their homes" - not affected, whom people let into your private homes is not a matter of public peace. * saying "Companies should not employ homosexuals" - again not affected for the same reason, although companies who actually refuse to employ homosexuals would be in violation of an entirely different (anti-discrimination) law. So you see: it's not actually that difficult. > I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such. Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism This is a lovely example of status quo bias.
    - fennecfoxy 4y ago
      Yeah but all of those things said that you say are apparently okay can lead to declining mental health in gay individuals, who eventually kill themselves after years or decades of mental abuse.
      - brazzy 4y ago
        I'm not saying those things are "okay", they are just not something that's appropriate to handle via criminal law.
mehwoot 4y ago
How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters. Yes, real life is hard and complicated and there's no easy way to decide it. We collectively do the best we can and keep trying to improve. That's just reality. That's why free speech absolutism is naïve- it appeals to our desire for one, simple, always enforceable rule but it's not the way the world works that one simple rule is always the best outcome.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  The issue is, that collectively deciding what speech to ban, in a democratic manner, requires discussing that speech openly and publicly. But if the speech is illegal, that discussion can't happen. It's a Catch-22; censorship is incompatible with democracy!
  - brazzy 4y ago
    No, that problem is quite simple to solve by designing the laws appropriately. For example, in the German criminal code, the first basic prerequisite for the applicability of the hate speech ban is that it occurs "in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace", which does not apply when talking about it in legal debates.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > But if the speech is illegal, that discussion can't happen. What kind of argument is that ? How do you think they trial people for hate speech ? Murder is illegal you can still talk about it just don't plot an assassination. Being a nazi is illegal in germany, you can still talk about nazis and nazism It's not a banned list fo words that immediately put you in jail for uttering them
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fennecfoxy 4y ago
  Exactly. Everyone acting like we have to have the perfect, be-all-end-all solution to everything or nothing. Our society evolves over time, slowly getting better (and hopefully not regressing).
kgwxd 4y ago
A lot of religious texts, beliefs, and/or sermons are hate speech.
brazzy 4y ago
>How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? Parliaments and courts. See the battle-tested European hate speech laws I mentioned, e.g. section 130 of the criminal code of Germany: "Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace, 1. 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 2. 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" Note especially how the first sentence is a pretty tight restriction. Private speech cannot be affected. Academic texts are pretty safe. Anything arguing for moderation and careful consideration of facts is easily defensible.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  Those laws you have the temerity to call “battle-tested” regularly lead to the violation of individual right by way of both arrest and prosecution for harmless and necessary speech.
  - ttfkam 4y ago
    What does a Daily Mail (already suspect source) article about a UK musician in the UK have to do with the statute as written in Germany as it applies to Germans? Right? The previous comment was talking about German law and jurisprudence and its effect (or lack thereof) on free speech? As for the Daily Mail, you should be cautious in your commitment to its veracity and its applicability to an American audience. For example, the word “arrest” does not mean what you think it does in UK English. I think you are confusing it with the word used in the scenario you expected: “charged”. An arrest simply means that the police have started asking questions, and are notifying the subject that their questions and any answers can be admissible in court. British police reality is not the same as in a US TV series.
    - 4y ago
lm28469 4y ago
Who decide what's legal anyways right ? Who decide murder is wrong? Or rape? Or theft? See how dumb that sounds ?

Zetice 4y ago

I don’t think, “it’s hard” is a justifiable reason for an idea to be wrong, so I’m not sure the fact that having a fair way of discerning hate speech is hard means that we shouldn’t discern hate speech.

silisili 4y ago
It's not hard, it's quite literally impossible. If there's a person who believes God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners... and another person who is homosexual and doesn't believe in God, where can there be compromise? I'm neither, just looking at this from above. The best you can do is disenfranchising anything less than the majority's opinion. I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such. Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism, and where I fear we're headed. The private sector has already tried to be said arbiters, so it's interesting to see where this ends up.
- brazzy 4y ago
  What you claim to be impossible is in fact routinely and successfuly done. Because the point of hate speech bans is not at all to police opinions, it's about making sure everyone can live in peace no matter what opinion anyone holds. Looking at your example for the point of view of the German criminal code, section 130 (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...): * believing that God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners is completely outside the scope of the law, since it only concerns speech, not beliefs. * saying "God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners" is also not affected (this is dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, frequently stated in public) because no matter whether you believe it to be true or not, it does not imply anyone should do anything in particular, and thus does not affect the public peace. * saying "God hates homosexuals and they will burn in hell", still the same, what God does in hell is outside the scope of the law. * saying "Every god-fearing man should do god's will and kill homosexuals on sight" in public in front of a crowd - BEEEP, BEEP, BEEP, we got ourselves a statement suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace, go to jail for between three months and five years. * saying "People should not let homosexuals into their homes" - not affected, whom people let into your private homes is not a matter of public peace. * saying "Companies should not employ homosexuals" - again not affected for the same reason, although companies who actually refuse to employ homosexuals would be in violation of an entirely different (anti-discrimination) law. So you see: it's not actually that difficult. > I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such. Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism This is a lovely example of status quo bias.
  - fennecfoxy 4y ago
    Yeah but all of those things said that you say are apparently okay can lead to declining mental health in gay individuals, who eventually kill themselves after years or decades of mental abuse.
    - brazzy 4y ago
      I'm not saying those things are "okay", they are just not something that's appropriate to handle via criminal law.

mehwoot 4y ago

How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters. Yes, real life is hard and complicated and there's no easy way to decide it. We collectively do the best we can and keep trying to improve. That's just reality. That's why free speech absolutism is naïve- it appeals to our desire for one, simple, always enforceable rule but it's not the way the world works that one simple rule is always the best outcome.

Georgelemental 4y ago
The issue is, that collectively deciding what speech to ban, in a democratic manner, requires discussing that speech openly and publicly. But if the speech is illegal, that discussion can't happen. It's a Catch-22; censorship is incompatible with democracy!
- brazzy 4y ago
  No, that problem is quite simple to solve by designing the laws appropriately. For example, in the German criminal code, the first basic prerequisite for the applicability of the hate speech ban is that it occurs "in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace", which does not apply when talking about it in legal debates.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > But if the speech is illegal, that discussion can't happen. What kind of argument is that ? How do you think they trial people for hate speech ? Murder is illegal you can still talk about it just don't plot an assassination. Being a nazi is illegal in germany, you can still talk about nazis and nazism It's not a banned list fo words that immediately put you in jail for uttering them
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fennecfoxy 4y ago
Exactly. Everyone acting like we have to have the perfect, be-all-end-all solution to everything or nothing. Our society evolves over time, slowly getting better (and hopefully not regressing).

kgwxd 4y ago

A lot of religious texts, beliefs, and/or sermons are hate speech.

brazzy 4y ago

>How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? Parliaments and courts. See the battle-tested European hate speech laws I mentioned, e.g. section 130 of the criminal code of Germany: "Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace, 1. 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 2. 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" Note especially how the first sentence is a pretty tight restriction. Private speech cannot be affected. Academic texts are pretty safe. Anything arguing for moderation and careful consideration of facts is easily defensible.

catiopatio 4y ago
Those laws you have the temerity to call “battle-tested” regularly lead to the violation of individual right by way of both arrest and prosecution for harmless and necessary speech.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  What does a Daily Mail (already suspect source) article about a UK musician in the UK have to do with the statute as written in Germany as it applies to Germans? Right? The previous comment was talking about German law and jurisprudence and its effect (or lack thereof) on free speech? As for the Daily Mail, you should be cautious in your commitment to its veracity and its applicability to an American audience. For example, the word “arrest” does not mean what you think it does in UK English. I think you are confusing it with the word used in the scenario you expected: “charged”. An arrest simply means that the police have started asking questions, and are notifying the subject that their questions and any answers can be admissible in court. British police reality is not the same as in a US TV series.
  - 4y ago

lm28469 4y ago

Who decide what's legal anyways right ? Who decide murder is wrong? Or rape? Or theft? See how dumb that sounds ?