3 ms·

I suspect the term "hate speech" is doing a lot more work than it should be and you two have different understandings of the term. For instance, for some peopl

I suspect the term "hate speech" is doing a lot more work than it should be and you two have different understandings of the term. For instance, for some people talking about embryo selection is hate speech against the disabled, while for others only explicitly calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group> would meet the hate speech bar. What would be your standard for "hate speech"?

account42 3y ago
That's entirely the problem though: Hate isn't a property of the speech but a possible motivation behind it. But banning speech based on motivation is eerily close to making certain thoughts illegal. There are also a lot of speech motivated by hate that those pushing for hate speech regulation almost never want to see controlled. What is "ACAB" if not an expression for hate. What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". Even "calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group>" is entirely tolerated depending on the ethinc group in question. You see the motivation behind trying to ban the speech was never that its based on hate but wether it is "good" or "bad" speech - wether those in power agree with it or not. So no, I do not have a standard for "hate speech". I reject the concept of "hate speech" entirely. There is no standard. And there can't be one - surely you have heard the expression "one man's terrorist is anther man's freedom fighter". That abiguity is exactly what makes hate speech such an attractive moderation excuse. It is blank cheque that can and will be used to suppress whatever you want to suppress. The question should be what kind of speech directly and provably causes actual harm. That is the only valid baseline for what should be outright banned everywhere. Not speech that could motivate others do do harm. Not speech that offends someone. Not speech goes against the current narrative. Of course you can have communities that have further restrictions. And you probably should. But you're not banning "hate speech", your're banning speech YOU don't like.
- mftrhu 3y ago
  > What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". That's not motivated by hate, don't be absurd. People just want their local Nazis to improve themselves - why would they care about what constitutes a "good Nazi" otherwise?

account42 3y ago

That's entirely the problem though: Hate isn't a property of the speech but a possible motivation behind it. But banning speech based on motivation is eerily close to making certain thoughts illegal. There are also a lot of speech motivated by hate that those pushing for hate speech regulation almost never want to see controlled. What is "ACAB" if not an expression for hate. What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". Even "calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group>" is entirely tolerated depending on the ethinc group in question. You see the motivation behind trying to ban the speech was never that its based on hate but wether it is "good" or "bad" speech - wether those in power agree with it or not. So no, I do not have a standard for "hate speech". I reject the concept of "hate speech" entirely. There is no standard. And there can't be one - surely you have heard the expression "one man's terrorist is anther man's freedom fighter". That abiguity is exactly what makes hate speech such an attractive moderation excuse. It is blank cheque that can and will be used to suppress whatever you want to suppress. The question should be what kind of speech directly and provably causes actual harm. That is the only valid baseline for what should be outright banned everywhere. Not speech that could motivate others do do harm. Not speech that offends someone. Not speech goes against the current narrative. Of course you can have communities that have further restrictions. And you probably should. But you're not banning "hate speech", your're banning speech YOU don't like.

mftrhu 3y ago
> What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". That's not motivated by hate, don't be absurd. People just want their local Nazis to improve themselves - why would they care about what constitutes a "good Nazi" otherwise?