On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Gallstones]

No it's not.
It's never worth it to outlaw someone else's opinion because you think it's offensive.

I agree with that. But if it's designed, or highly likely, to lead to hate crimes, that's where it starts to adversely affect other rights of other people.
Just offensive, no, definitely not. But you can be very offensive without inciting hatred.
I would definitely vote for banning incitement to violence, and I'm leaning towards favouring banning incitement to hatred. After all, the step between the two is tiny.
If you incite hatred, you will surely get violence.
Depends how it works in practice. If people can use the law to silence what's just offensive, then it's written wrong, or applied wrong, and that's what needs fixing.
.

Here is the problem with that, incitement to hatred begins in the home--parents teach it to their children and will do regardless of laws forbidding public expression. What public expression gives us is the faces of those who hold those views. We know them and what the think because they tell us, and they tell us because they can. And because they do, we get to tell them what we think; and maybe some of the children hearing the opposing POV will change. If change doesn't come to children, it won't come to the world.

I think that if public policy is always as anti-discriminatory and as inclusive and as egalitarian as possible, we need not fear the ignorance of others. It is our ignorance of them that is dangerous.

[Coito ergo sum]

No it's not.
It's never worth it to outlaw someone else's opinion because you think it's offensive.

I agree with that. But if it's designed, or highly likely, to lead to hate crimes, that's where it starts to adversely affect other rights of other people.
Just offensive, no, definitely not. But you can be very offensive without inciting hatred.
I would definitely vote for banning incitement to violence, and I'm leaning towards favouring banning incitement to hatred. After all, the step between the two is tiny.
If you incite hatred, you will surely get violence.
Depends how it works in practice. If people can use the law to silence what's just offensive, then it's written wrong, or applied wrong, and that's what needs fixing.
.

Here is the problem with that, incitement to hatred begins in the home--parents teach it to their children and will do regardless of laws forbidding public expression. What public expression gives us is the faces of those who hold those views. We know them and what the think because they tell us, and they tell us because they can. And because they do, we get to tell them what we think; and maybe some of the children hearing the opposing POV will change. If change doesn't come to children, it won't come to the world.

I think that if public policy is always as anti-discriminatory and as inclusive and as egalitarian as possible, we need not fear the ignorance of others. It is our ignorance of them that is dangerous.

Excellent points. And, I would add that driving an idea underground, and telling an individual that the government thinks you shouldn't be allowed to know it, will imbue that idea with strength and power. It will make that idea enticing.

False ideas are not powerful. They need not be driven underground. It is only the "truth" and the "real story" that governments try to keep from us, right? Alien visitations, so say the believers, are covered up by the government, why? Easy: because they don't want us to know the truth. So what would happen if the government said it was now illegal to spread alien visitation "lies" because they aren't true, and we can only spread the truth? Easy again - it would make people believe it all the more.

[Gallstones]

Nonsense.

That person shouldn't be silenced, he should be routinely and publically ridiculed.

• Or something like it.

[Gallstones]

I'm still not completely sure what I think about this. Hitchens was very convincing and I am mostly leaning towards free speech no matter what. - But I think it gets more complicated with increased influence over people. If you look at things like subliminal messaging, brain washing, propaganda - I'm not sure what to think.

Propaganda should be free no matter what. All propaganda is is peaceful political speech. Sometimes it's true, often it's not. But, there can't be a blanket law against saying things that aren't true. If that were the case, most of what people say would be illegal.

Brainwashing requires compulsion and coercion. If one captures a person and subjects them to brainwashing against their will, then that's illegal kidnapping, assault, etc. If a person goes to a lot of Creationist or 9/11 Truther conventions and gets himself brainwashed, well, tough titty said the kitty.

If an individual in a community has alternative views, whatever they are, I agree it's important that they can be listened to, - even if it's only so everyone can explain why they're wrong and tell them to fuck off.

And, that is one of the keys. Hate speech laws are laws that infringe upon the LISTENING PUBLIC'S right to hear something. It is a governmental restraint on our right to know. It is a paternalistic statement that certain things are too sensitive to be heard by us. Banning Mein Kampf means you and I don't get to read it. Fuck that. I read it, and I'm glad I read it.

But when an individual has great influence over a significant portion of the community, I'm not sure. - whether it's a politician, a media mogul, or a religious leader - I think it gets dangerous when too much power is in the hands of too few people.

In the case of the media, it's the wild west. A lot of people watch Fox News, but they do so by choice. There are 200 other channels on my cable television, and the news sources I have at my fingertips at any moment are legion. Newspapers, websites, radio, television, magazines, you name it. There are so many choices in so many differing views, that the only way one media mogul is getting power is by producing programming people like to watch.

The highlighted portion is a very interesting take on the issue. I think that most people who advocate for censorship of any kind don't bother to follow their idea through to being aware of this aspect. They are imposing censorship upon themselves as well. And even if that is what they want, that is all well and good, except that their desire to be protected interferes with my desire to know.

[Robert_S]

My solution, mandatory education in logic and it's fallacies for all children and adults.

[Cunt]

Exactly what 'speech' do YOU need protecting from, FBM?

Is anyone here to protect themselves? Or are you all looking out for some (imagined) victim?

I thought I would quote myself, since I still would like an answer from FBM (and any others who have been duped into thinking that free speech is only good up to a point)

Is anyone willing to say there should be limits on free speech without dodging by saying they are protecting someone else?

Anyone able to man-up and admit that they need protecting via censorship?

[Robert_S]

Exactly what 'speech' do YOU need protecting from, FBM?

Is anyone here to protect themselves? Or are you all looking out for some (imagined) victim?

I thought I would quote myself, since I still would like an answer from FBM (and any others who have been duped into thinking that free speech is only good up to a point)

Is anyone willing to say there should be limits on free speech without dodging by saying they are protecting someone else?

Anyone able to man-up and admit that they need protecting via censorship?

Yep. I need protection from people slandering and/or libeling me or bearing false witness against me in a court of law. I need protection from people inciting violence against me. I also need protection against fraudulent product claims.

[Cunt]

Anyone able to man-up and admit that they need protecting via censorship?

Yep. I need protection from people slandering and/or libeling me or bearing false witness against me in a court of law.

Nothing here about hate crimes, though...

I also need protection against fraudulent product claims.

The best protection for this also has nothing to do with hate-speech laws.

In your other examples, there are plenty of other ways to help you (the individual) without resorting to censorship. For instance, in my country, fraudulent product claims are made pretty steadily, but when they are demonstrated (by a complainant) to be false claim, the defrauder has legal sanctions placed against them.

I need protection from people inciting violence against me.

I have to ask...how often has this come up?
Also, would a 'hate-speech' law have helped any time it DID happen?

A specific example would be useful, rather than the claim that you want protection for a future self of yours in a future (imaginary) encounter.

[Robert_S]

Anyone able to man-up and admit that they need protecting via censorship?

Yep. I need protection from people slandering and/or libeling me or bearing false witness against me in a court of law.

Nothing here about hate crimes, though...

I also need protection against fraudulent product claims.

The best protection for this also has nothing to do with hate-speech laws.

In your other examples, there are plenty of other ways to help you (the individual) without resorting to censorship. For instance, in my country, fraudulent product claims are made pretty steadily, but when they are demonstrated (by a complainant) to be false claim, the defrauder has legal sanctions placed against them.

I need protection from people inciting violence against me.

I have to ask...how often has this come up?
Also, would a 'hate-speech' law have helped any time it DID happen?

A specific example would be useful, rather than the claim that you want protection for a future self of yours in a future (imaginary) encounter.

My point is that even though "Hate Speech" is a stupid and horribly misguided designation, we do need some restrictions on speech. I think that "incitement to violence" would be a much better way to put it.

I was on a Muslim forum once, (just to expand my awareness) and I was struck that calls for violence and support for terrorism were fine, but to say nasty things about GW Bush as a person were frowned upon.

[Cunt]

A specific example would be useful, rather than the claim that you want protection for a future self of yours in a future (imaginary) encounter.

My point is that even though "Hate Speech" is a stupid and horribly misguided designation, we do need some restrictions on speech. I think that "incitement to violence" would be a much better way to put it.

I was on a Muslim forum once, (just to expand my awareness) and I was struck that calls for violence and support for terrorism were fine,

Did any of these result in violence?
If you had been struck by a call for violence to the point that you actually committed it, would you blame the call?
Or your own decision?

[mistermack]

I think that those who present this argument as a choice between total freedom and less freedom are kidding themselves. There is no such thing as total freedom. One man's total freedom reduces that of another. Total free speech means minorities losing some of their freedom to live in safety. Or to go out on their own, rather than in groups for security. Not to feel threatened.
Rights are just a balancing act. You give rights to some, you take from others. That's the reality.
Just out of interest, is there any country where it's legal to incite hatred of citizens of that country in public?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.
.

[Cunt]

I think that those who present this argument as a choice between total freedom and less freedom are kidding themselves. There is no such thing as total freedom. One man's total freedom reduces that of another. Total free speech means minorities losing some of their freedom to live in safety. Or to go out on their own, rather than in groups for security. Not to feel threatened.
Rights are just a balancing act. You give rights to some, you take from others. That's the reality.
Just out of interest, is there any country where it's legal to incite hatred of citizens of that country in public?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.
.

Any country which allows the reading of the Bible (or Quran) in public. (these books clearly incite hatred)

[Gallstones]

Just an aside, because I'm curious--should talk of harming self be censored?

[Robert_S]

A specific example would be useful, rather than the claim that you want protection for a future self of yours in a future (imaginary) encounter.

My point is that even though "Hate Speech" is a stupid and horribly misguided designation, we do need some restrictions on speech. I think that "incitement to violence" would be a much better way to put it.

I was on a Muslim forum once, (just to expand my awareness) and I was struck that calls for violence and support for terrorism were fine,

Did any of these result in violence?

I have no idea if anyone on that forum ever committed an act of violence because of their policy. What struck me was that they did not allow "hate speech" yet allowed calls for violence, highlighting the fact that there is a difference.

If you had been struck by a call for violence to the point that you actually committed it, would you blame the call?
Or your own decision?[/quote

If I carried out an act of violence that I later came to regret, then I would hold myself responsible. If I was the victim of violence that was incited on that forum, I would hold both the individual/s and the forum responsible.

There is a huge difference between "I am sick to death of that towelhead religion and all the paedos that follow it" which I find reprehensible, but ought to be allowable under the law and "I greatly respect the prophet and it's followers are pretty good people, but unfortunately we need to kill them all to preserve our national character." which I don't think ought to be allowed by law, even though there is not a hateful word in it.

Just an aside, because I'm curious--should talk of harming self be censored?

I don't think so.

[Cunt]

A specific example would be useful, rather than the claim that you want protection for a future self of yours in a future (imaginary) encounter.

My point is that even though "Hate Speech" is a stupid and horribly misguided designation, we do need some restrictions on speech. I think that "incitement to violence" would be a much better way to put it.

I was on a Muslim forum once, (just to expand my awareness) and I was struck that calls for violence and support for terrorism were fine,

Did any of these result in violence?

I have no idea if anyone on that forum ever committed an act of violence because of their policy. What struck me was that they did not allow "hate speech" yet allowed calls for violence, highlighting the fact that there is a difference.

So far, we have the fact that you didn't like what you heard.
That's our only fact. Also, they were not restricted from the speech you didn't like, and you remain unmolested.

If you had been struck by a call for violence to the point that you actually committed it, would you blame the call?
Or your own decision?

If I carried out an act of violence that I later came to regret, then I would hold myself responsible. If I was the victim of violence that was incited on that forum, I would hold both the individual/s and the forum responsible.

They used the spell 'incite to violence' on you...did it have an effect?
Did it cause you to become violent? If not, what makes you think others need to be protected from it?

There is a huge difference between "I am sick to death of that towelhead religion and all the paedos that follow it" which I find reprehensible, but ought to be allowable under the law and "I greatly respect the prophet and it's followers are pretty good people, but unfortunately we need to kill them all to preserve our national character." which I don't think ought to be allowed by law, even though there is not a hateful word in it.

Good to understand your position a bit better, but you still don't say why specifically it should not be allowed by law.

Just an aside, because I'm curious--should talk of harming self be censored?

I don't think so.[/quote]

One of the most hated groups in my country are pedophiles. If I were to 'speech' that someone was a pedophile, I would be 'inciting hate' almost definitively.

Oh look - I am free to do this.