5 ms·

Could it be possible to illustrate with an example just for clarity? How does this compare to, say, the Netherlands? For example what are things that are possib

by sebosp 3y ago

Could it be possible to illustrate with an example just for clarity? How does this compare to, say, the Netherlands? For example what are things that are possible in the United States that are not possible in the Netherlands? I would assume there are things that are not legal but not penalised in the latter but under certain conditions would be addressed and penalised and there's no way around it, but would like to know of an example just to make it super clear for me. Thanks!

alwayslikethis 3y ago
In the US it is legal to advocate hate, such as denying Holocaust or promoting National Socialism or white supremacy. The courts have repeatedly struck down bans on hate speech. Not sure about the Netherlands, but this is illegal in many European countries.
- krustymeathead 3y ago
  Radiolab has a great episode about how this more broad application of the first amendment sort of came about due to Oliver Wendell Holmes changing his mind about what actually constitutes a "clear and present danger" between two Supreme Court cases in 1919. https://radiolab.org/podcast/what-holmes https://radiolab.org/podcast/what-holmes
- germandiago 3y ago
  Idk the US specifics but hate speech in Spain is something govt has used to prosecute others in the name of so many things and in so many situations that to me, it means nothing. Just having a negative opinion is "hate speech" if the right person gets annoyed and goes for you. It is a very powerful tool to shut up adversaries and it is extremely harmful for real opinions and real free speech.
  - all2 3y ago
    If you're itching to speak freely, we'd love to have you in the US. :D
- fijiaarone 3y ago
  Why is denying or promoting something considered hate? Where is the list of things we are allowed to deny or approve of?
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    Because denying a group of people (say, based on ethnicity or skin color) the right to exist is equivalent to hating them.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      Take a person who believes that "there needs to be a country for white people and white people are innately better able to form productive societies". This person would clearly be a white nationalist and a white supremacist, right? But they may also have no hate towards other ethnicities or desire their deaths. If pressed, they might even say that their vision of a "pure" society isn't worth the deaths of minorities that would come about if they tried to implement it. I think too often we confuse the stereotypical example with the definition. The stereotypical white supremacist hates minorities, but the definition itself doesn't require it (I know of no surveys that would tell us what proportion of white supremacists match the stereotype).
      - drekk 3y ago
        You can't be a white supremacist without thinking other races are inferior. That's hateful by definition. They are stereotyping an entire race in a negative manner. They are denying the basic humanity of billions for what end? The Third Reich didn't immediately start throwing Jewish people into death chambers. They had to build up to that moment by dehumanizing their victims.
        concordDance 3y ago
        > That's hateful by definition. My whole point is that you (and many others) are using a new definition of "hate" which doesn't match the old one. "Hate" used to be an emotion, a feeling, a dislike of something and a wish to see it destroyed. One can feel superior to something without having any dislike of it or a wish to see it destroyed. I consider myself superior in many respects to the rocks in my back garden, but I neither dislike them nor wish them destroyed. A supremacist may consider themselves smarter or prettier or taller than some other group, but that does not necessarily mean they want to destroy the other group.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Note that including denying the Holocaust under "advocating hate" is basically making up a new concept and using an existing word (hate) for that concept. It comes across as very dishonest. There are people who genuinely think the Holocaust was exaggerated or didn't happen at any substantial scale who bear no ill will to Jews, seeing it simply as a question of historical fact of limited relevance to the modern day.
  - drekk 3y ago
    Denying that a targeted genocide happened or saying it's exaggerated is absolutely hateful. I'm not sure how it's of limited relevance when it's within living memory. When (some) Americans start to chant "The Jews will not replace us!" I think it's very relevant to our modern era. I would really recommend doing a cursory, bare-minimum reading of the associated Wikipedia page [0] and citations. Plenty of historians revise the events surrounding the Holocaust to provide less biased and more nuanced information. Very different from taking an assumption as fact (the holocaust did not happen) and working backwards from that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I think, as ever with these things, the name is misleading. It's not "hate". We've no idea what people are feeling. Why do we a) think someone feeling "hate" is enough to suspend speech, and b) think if we want to justify censorship, we can't just say it out loud? Why not just say "we ban speech that says the Holocaust didn't happen"? Why get it classified as hate and then because somehow hate is censorable get it autocensored? It seems somehow disingenuous.
      - habinero 3y ago
        Because there's no rational or non-ideological way to deny the holocaust. The evidence is literally overwhelming. The only reason people deny it is because of anti-semitism.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Scarblac 3y ago
A politician in the Netherlands got a crowd chanting "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" "Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!" [0]. A court found him guilty for "groepsbelediging", insulting a part of society, which is a crime. He did not get a punishment. That's the only example that comes to my mind of something that the courts found not allowed in the Netherlands. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaB75uznT8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaB75uznT8o

by sebosp 3y ago

alwayslikethis 3y ago

In the US it is legal to advocate hate, such as denying Holocaust or promoting National Socialism or white supremacy. The courts have repeatedly struck down bans on hate speech. Not sure about the Netherlands, but this is illegal in many European countries.

krustymeathead 3y ago
Radiolab has a great episode about how this more broad application of the first amendment sort of came about due to Oliver Wendell Holmes changing his mind about what actually constitutes a "clear and present danger" between two Supreme Court cases in 1919. https://radiolab.org/podcast/what-holmes https://radiolab.org/podcast/what-holmes
germandiago 3y ago
Idk the US specifics but hate speech in Spain is something govt has used to prosecute others in the name of so many things and in so many situations that to me, it means nothing. Just having a negative opinion is "hate speech" if the right person gets annoyed and goes for you. It is a very powerful tool to shut up adversaries and it is extremely harmful for real opinions and real free speech.
- all2 3y ago
  If you're itching to speak freely, we'd love to have you in the US. :D
fijiaarone 3y ago
Why is denying or promoting something considered hate? Where is the list of things we are allowed to deny or approve of?
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  Because denying a group of people (say, based on ethnicity or skin color) the right to exist is equivalent to hating them.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Take a person who believes that "there needs to be a country for white people and white people are innately better able to form productive societies". This person would clearly be a white nationalist and a white supremacist, right? But they may also have no hate towards other ethnicities or desire their deaths. If pressed, they might even say that their vision of a "pure" society isn't worth the deaths of minorities that would come about if they tried to implement it. I think too often we confuse the stereotypical example with the definition. The stereotypical white supremacist hates minorities, but the definition itself doesn't require it (I know of no surveys that would tell us what proportion of white supremacists match the stereotype).
    - drekk 3y ago
      You can't be a white supremacist without thinking other races are inferior. That's hateful by definition. They are stereotyping an entire race in a negative manner. They are denying the basic humanity of billions for what end? The Third Reich didn't immediately start throwing Jewish people into death chambers. They had to build up to that moment by dehumanizing their victims.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        > That's hateful by definition. My whole point is that you (and many others) are using a new definition of "hate" which doesn't match the old one. "Hate" used to be an emotion, a feeling, a dislike of something and a wish to see it destroyed. One can feel superior to something without having any dislike of it or a wish to see it destroyed. I consider myself superior in many respects to the rocks in my back garden, but I neither dislike them nor wish them destroyed. A supremacist may consider themselves smarter or prettier or taller than some other group, but that does not necessarily mean they want to destroy the other group.
concordDance 3y ago
Note that including denying the Holocaust under "advocating hate" is basically making up a new concept and using an existing word (hate) for that concept. It comes across as very dishonest. There are people who genuinely think the Holocaust was exaggerated or didn't happen at any substantial scale who bear no ill will to Jews, seeing it simply as a question of historical fact of limited relevance to the modern day.
- drekk 3y ago
  Denying that a targeted genocide happened or saying it's exaggerated is absolutely hateful. I'm not sure how it's of limited relevance when it's within living memory. When (some) Americans start to chant "The Jews will not replace us!" I think it's very relevant to our modern era. I would really recommend doing a cursory, bare-minimum reading of the associated Wikipedia page [0] and citations. Plenty of historians revise the events surrounding the Holocaust to provide less biased and more nuanced information. Very different from taking an assumption as fact (the holocaust did not happen) and working backwards from that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I think, as ever with these things, the name is misleading. It's not "hate". We've no idea what people are feeling. Why do we a) think someone feeling "hate" is enough to suspend speech, and b) think if we want to justify censorship, we can't just say it out loud? Why not just say "we ban speech that says the Holocaust didn't happen"? Why get it classified as hate and then because somehow hate is censorable get it autocensored? It seems somehow disingenuous.
    - habinero 3y ago
      Because there's no rational or non-ideological way to deny the holocaust. The evidence is literally overwhelming. The only reason people deny it is because of anti-semitism.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Scarblac 3y ago

A politician in the Netherlands got a crowd chanting "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" "Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!" [0]. A court found him guilty for "groepsbelediging", insulting a part of society, which is a crime. He did not get a punishment. That's the only example that comes to my mind of something that the courts found not allowed in the Netherlands. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaB75uznT8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaB75uznT8o