6 ms·

"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more specific than "saying something controversial". I don't see that this is any differen

by rlpb 15y ago

"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more specific than "saying something controversial". I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like freedom of speech or anything like that.

Argorak 15y ago
As far as I see the article, the attacks were also personal, which is illegal in most countries around the globe.
SamReidHughes 15y ago
They aren't equivalent restrictions at all. One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
- rlpb 15y ago
  They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases. They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics. > One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic. This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
  - defen 15y ago
    The difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Heh heh, that’s an old argument. So if my idea is, “Death to the Jews,” is that an incitement to action or an idea? We might disagree about this application of the law or that one, but the underlying principle is that certain types of ideas are considered to contribute towards certain types of crimes, or contribute towards an environment of fear, or contribute towards certain types of discrimination (which may not be criminal but is nevertheless illegal) and so forth.. Some people shrug and say, “Inciting a crime indirectly shouldn’t be a crime.” Others say, “Inciting a crime indirectly might be a crime, it depends on how indirectly, we need to talk about where to draw the line.” Others might say, “Inciting a crime ought to be a crime, but because there’s no unambiguous way to draw the line, we can’t make a law against it” and so on. So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
  - gregbair 15y ago
    >So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour. Not always. Hate speech is just that - if you're dumb enough to go and do something stupid based on what someone else says, that's your fault, not his.
  - ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
    "'Death to the Jews,' is that an incitement to action or an idea?" Neither. It's an opinion, which should not only be allowed, but there should not even be a debate. Also, people seem to forget that, up until recently, it was okay to say that you wanted the death of an entire group of people. What wasn't okay was to single out a specific, identifiable person. Now, the former is becoming the norm, and you can see this actually covered in many online Terms of Service, which is, on its face, ridiculous in the extreme. "But I don't think anyone is saying that 'hate speech' is just the expression of ideas. It's the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour." I AM SAYING THAT. I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you see the swastika on my arm, yet that same swastika can get me arrested in some places. Likewise, I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you hear certain words that I might say. I don't control what goes on inside of your brain when certain auditory or visual impulses hit it. I AM SERIOUSLY UPSET THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD. You actually believe that the mere conveyance of opinion should be banned because it might cause someone to do something. Think about what kind of world your children and their children will have if this kind of thinking becomes even more pervasive. The true meaning of life is to continuously evolve towards some end, of which we are presently unaware. Said evolution requires unfettered communication to proceed apace, especially given that "evolution" is now becoming less rampantly biological and more self-directed, such as through technology, particularly nanotechnology. When said communication is censored, in any fashion, evolutionary progress is hampered. Thus, any act of censorship stands against life itself, and is therefore "evil" in the truest sense of the word. That is my belief. It's extreme, it's in the minority, it's completely at odds with yours, and I will firmly hold onto this belief until the day I die.
p4lto 15y ago
Understood, I should know better than to put everything on one distinct level. Thanks.
pfedor 15y ago
The metaphor of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" was actually used in a Supreme Court ruling in Schenck v. United States, which justified putting a guy in prison for speaking (distributing leaflets) against the military draft. This decision was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. (Source: wikipedia)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
GFKjunior 15y ago
I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. Anyone can unfollow or even block his twitter, if you were even able to see it in the first place. It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail time for the 'naughty' things you say. I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.
- ugh 15y ago
  Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†. I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense. Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected. Being racist while doing it: Not ok. It’s quite simple. — † In most cases and in this case.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
    - ugh 15y ago
      It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.
Locke1689 15y ago
You seem to misunderstand US law. The only comparative speech which is banned in the US is "fighting words," which must meet the much more strenuous requirement of "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." If the words themselves do not cause an imminent and immediate threat of violence they are protected.

by rlpb 15y ago

Argorak 15y ago

As far as I see the article, the attacks were also personal, which is illegal in most countries around the globe.

SamReidHughes 15y ago

They aren't equivalent restrictions at all. One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.

rlpb 15y ago
They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases. They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics. > One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic. This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
- defen 15y ago
  The difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.
raganwald 15y ago
Heh heh, that’s an old argument. So if my idea is, “Death to the Jews,” is that an incitement to action or an idea? We might disagree about this application of the law or that one, but the underlying principle is that certain types of ideas are considered to contribute towards certain types of crimes, or contribute towards an environment of fear, or contribute towards certain types of discrimination (which may not be criminal but is nevertheless illegal) and so forth.. Some people shrug and say, “Inciting a crime indirectly shouldn’t be a crime.” Others say, “Inciting a crime indirectly might be a crime, it depends on how indirectly, we need to talk about where to draw the line.” Others might say, “Inciting a crime ought to be a crime, but because there’s no unambiguous way to draw the line, we can’t make a law against it” and so on. So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
- gregbair 15y ago
  >So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour. Not always. Hate speech is just that - if you're dumb enough to go and do something stupid based on what someone else says, that's your fault, not his.
- ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
  "'Death to the Jews,' is that an incitement to action or an idea?" Neither. It's an opinion, which should not only be allowed, but there should not even be a debate. Also, people seem to forget that, up until recently, it was okay to say that you wanted the death of an entire group of people. What wasn't okay was to single out a specific, identifiable person. Now, the former is becoming the norm, and you can see this actually covered in many online Terms of Service, which is, on its face, ridiculous in the extreme. "But I don't think anyone is saying that 'hate speech' is just the expression of ideas. It's the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour." I AM SAYING THAT. I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you see the swastika on my arm, yet that same swastika can get me arrested in some places. Likewise, I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you hear certain words that I might say. I don't control what goes on inside of your brain when certain auditory or visual impulses hit it. I AM SERIOUSLY UPSET THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD. You actually believe that the mere conveyance of opinion should be banned because it might cause someone to do something. Think about what kind of world your children and their children will have if this kind of thinking becomes even more pervasive. The true meaning of life is to continuously evolve towards some end, of which we are presently unaware. Said evolution requires unfettered communication to proceed apace, especially given that "evolution" is now becoming less rampantly biological and more self-directed, such as through technology, particularly nanotechnology. When said communication is censored, in any fashion, evolutionary progress is hampered. Thus, any act of censorship stands against life itself, and is therefore "evil" in the truest sense of the word. That is my belief. It's extreme, it's in the minority, it's completely at odds with yours, and I will firmly hold onto this belief until the day I die.

p4lto 15y ago

Understood, I should know better than to put everything on one distinct level. Thanks.

pfedor 15y ago

The metaphor of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" was actually used in a Supreme Court ruling in Schenck v. United States, which justified putting a guy in prison for speaking (distributing leaflets) against the military draft. This decision was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. (Source: wikipedia)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

GFKjunior 15y ago

I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. Anyone can unfollow or even block his twitter, if you were even able to see it in the first place. It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail time for the 'naughty' things you say. I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.

ugh 15y ago
Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†. I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense. Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected. Being racist while doing it: Not ok. It’s quite simple. — † In most cases and in this case.
- Locke1689 15y ago
  The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
  - ugh 15y ago
    It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.

Locke1689 15y ago

You seem to misunderstand US law. The only comparative speech which is banned in the US is "fighting words," which must meet the much more strenuous requirement of "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." If the words themselves do not cause an imminent and immediate threat of violence they are protected.