4 ms·

I dunno, this whole idea of "hate speech" or even "hate" being something prohibited feels like a sleight of hand. I'm sure it's been said before many times, but

I dunno, this whole idea of "hate speech" or even "hate" being something prohibited feels like a sleight of hand. I'm sure it's been said before many times, but it's so easy to subvert and weaponise this against a society - including those it was meant to protect. Is it not my right to not like something? Or even to hate it? If it is not, then we're policing thought crime through the only visible evidence - what is said. Whatever this is a cure for, it's worse than the disease. The cynic in me suspects it not intended as a cure though. It's intended to control.

pixxel 1y ago
[dead]
hbogert 1y ago
Precedent are already happening. Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet and continue to do so. Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars. I expect this to happen with those new laws as well. Hard rules and seemingly random application of them when it suits someone in power.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet Can you provide some specific examples of this please? > Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars Have you some specific examples that are not due to violent behaviour or inciting violence?
- arp242 1y ago
  > people saying "go home" are behind bars Who has been arrested for saying "go home"? I can't find any example of this. Or what is "the most ridiculous stuff" Islamists are spouting for that matter?
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    A bus driver in Ireland was arrested and convicted for telling a Gambian "You should go back to where you came from". However this was later overturned on appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ir...
- minecraft002 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    It's getting like it's not even safe to encourage lynching non-whites anymore! Where will this madness end? /s
Anonbrit 1y ago
It isn't hating it that's illegal, it's inciting violence against it via speech that's illegal. It's already a crime to incite violence in many countries, with a spectrum of definitions. Including the USA
- dissent 1y ago
  Even that's a slippery slope. If I was to say publicly "death to all agile practitioners", it's up to interpretation whether I'm serious or not. I deserve the benefit of the doubt, which is traditionally how it's been handled. Perhaps if I was successful in inciting violence, I could be held accountable for my success. That would make a lot more sense.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    I'd say that it depends on how threatened the targets feel - I'd guess that "agile practitioners" as a group wouldn't take it seriously as a threat, but instead as a joke. However, if there's often rallies and protests against "agile practitioners" and cases of violence against them, then it should count as "hate speech". In some ways, I see this as similar to "assault" laws where it depends on the specifics of the situation and whether the target is in fear of their safety. e.g. someone holding a knife and backing away from the victim would not be assault, but holding a knife and advancing towards them in a threatening manner most likely would be assault.
    - dissent 1y ago
      Is that not a rather pernicious idea? That I may or may not be punished based on how the recipient of my speech "feels"? Why can't the rallies be permitted while policing the violence if and when it erupts? Banning the rallies themselves preemptively sounds like a great tool for an authoritarian dictator.
      - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        > Is that not a rather pernicious idea? That I may or may not be punished based on how the recipient of my speech "feels"? I'd consider this more the issue of "consequences". If you think that your speech should be entirely consequence-free, then I completely disagree with you (c.f. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema). It's not like there's typically any confusion around what "hate speech" sounds like. > Why can't the rallies be permitted while policing the violence if and when it erupts? That would be one way to deal with issues, but I'd liken it to a doctor that only treats symptoms and never pre-emptive medication (e.g. medication to lower high blood pressure, but not providing exercise/diet advice that could prevent it). There's also the issue of allowing the extremely dangerous types that motivate crowds to go and commit violence whilst never involving themselves - that would seem like a recipe for disaster.

pixxel 1y ago

[dead]

hbogert 1y ago

Precedent are already happening. Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet and continue to do so. Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars. I expect this to happen with those new laws as well. Hard rules and seemingly random application of them when it suits someone in power.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
> Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet Can you provide some specific examples of this please? > Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars Have you some specific examples that are not due to violent behaviour or inciting violence?
arp242 1y ago
> people saying "go home" are behind bars Who has been arrested for saying "go home"? I can't find any example of this. Or what is "the most ridiculous stuff" Islamists are spouting for that matter?
- like_any_other 1y ago
  A bus driver in Ireland was arrested and convicted for telling a Gambian "You should go back to where you came from". However this was later overturned on appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ir...
minecraft002 1y ago
[flagged]
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  It's getting like it's not even safe to encourage lynching non-whites anymore! Where will this madness end? /s

Anonbrit 1y ago

It isn't hating it that's illegal, it's inciting violence against it via speech that's illegal. It's already a crime to incite violence in many countries, with a spectrum of definitions. Including the USA

dissent 1y ago
Even that's a slippery slope. If I was to say publicly "death to all agile practitioners", it's up to interpretation whether I'm serious or not. I deserve the benefit of the doubt, which is traditionally how it's been handled. Perhaps if I was successful in inciting violence, I could be held accountable for my success. That would make a lot more sense.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  I'd say that it depends on how threatened the targets feel - I'd guess that "agile practitioners" as a group wouldn't take it seriously as a threat, but instead as a joke. However, if there's often rallies and protests against "agile practitioners" and cases of violence against them, then it should count as "hate speech". In some ways, I see this as similar to "assault" laws where it depends on the specifics of the situation and whether the target is in fear of their safety. e.g. someone holding a knife and backing away from the victim would not be assault, but holding a knife and advancing towards them in a threatening manner most likely would be assault.
  - dissent 1y ago
    Is that not a rather pernicious idea? That I may or may not be punished based on how the recipient of my speech "feels"? Why can't the rallies be permitted while policing the violence if and when it erupts? Banning the rallies themselves preemptively sounds like a great tool for an authoritarian dictator.
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      > Is that not a rather pernicious idea? That I may or may not be punished based on how the recipient of my speech "feels"? I'd consider this more the issue of "consequences". If you think that your speech should be entirely consequence-free, then I completely disagree with you (c.f. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema). It's not like there's typically any confusion around what "hate speech" sounds like. > Why can't the rallies be permitted while policing the violence if and when it erupts? That would be one way to deal with issues, but I'd liken it to a doctor that only treats symptoms and never pre-emptive medication (e.g. medication to lower high blood pressure, but not providing exercise/diet advice that could prevent it). There's also the issue of allowing the extremely dangerous types that motivate crowds to go and commit violence whilst never involving themselves - that would seem like a recipe for disaster.