On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[mistermack]

Accept the good with the bad.

You might be right. It's not an easy one. But I would be inclined to be ambitious, and try to somehow extract the best out of both camps, and ditch the bad bits. It might be impossible, but it's worth a go.

[Trolldor]

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

[PsychoSerenity]

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.

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.

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.

But I don't know what I'd suggest as an alternative anyway.

[Trolldor]

Subliminal messaging doesn't work, precisely because it's subliminal.
Secondly, the right to free speech guarantees us the freedom to oppose those in power.

[mistermack]

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.
.

[Trolldor]

Is that a fact?
We ought to ban political parties too I suppose.

[Coito ergo sum]

Accept the good with the bad.

You might be right. It's not an easy one. But I would be inclined to be ambitious, and try to somehow extract the best out of both camps, and ditch the bad bits. It might be impossible, but it's worth a go.

It's not as if it hasn't been tried. It all depends whose ox is being gored, and what cows one holds sacred.

Most people here think "race" should be off limits to insult and incitement, but not religion. Billions of people take the position that religion should not be fair game for insult and incitement.

When it's the offensive or insulting words that doesn't get a person's dander up that are being used, then the response is "you have no right to 'not be offended'." When it's the thing that a person holds dear that is being insulted or maligned, then "nobody has a right to incite or insult..."

Watch for that pattern.

[FBM]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable. As usual, the best answer is somewhere between the extremes. With no rules at all, people will be at each others' throats in short order, and nobody would enjoy being at Ratz anymore. Too much restriction would produce the same results. If somebody makes an occasional statement, racist or otherwise, that's objectionable to some others' sensibilities, that should be settled in a civil manner between them or with mediation. If the offence was intentional and directed at an individual, the rules already cover that. If someone persistently broadcasts racist, hate-filled propaganda with no other agenda but to spread animosity, that person should be quieted for the welfare of the forum and all its members.

[Trolldor]

Nonsense.

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

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

[mistermack]

We've all been silenced anyway, and not even by the law.

I would love to draw big pictures of mohammed and post them here and there, just because some git tells me I can't. That I wouldn't class as incitement to hatred. Just incitement to free speech. But I don't see anyone doing it anywhere.
Maybe the internet should have a "draw mohammed" day, with millions of cartoons going up simultaneously. ( but don't say it was my idea ).
.

[Trolldor]

Utter tosh. You're assuming that your silencing of someone else's speech is valid and their silencing of yours is not.

[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.

One, produce evidence that certain words are highly likely to lead to hate crimes.

Two, the speech doesn't adversely effect the rights of other people, the violence does. Arrest the criminals.

Just offensive, no, definitely not. But you can be very offensive without inciting hatred.

You use terms as if they have precise meanings when they do not. What is offensive can be a statement like "eating beef is good," and a Hindu might think that a sign like that in a Hindu neighborhood is "inciting hatred" against Hindus, who hold cows sacred. Muslims find that artwork that defaces the Koran is "inciting hatred." Is it? Christians have claimed the same about art pieces like "Piss Christ" and South Park episodes of the Virgin Mary bleeding from her asshole. Since they don't fly planes into buildings or strap bombs to the chests of their children, those art pieces are only considered "offensive" and not "inciting hatred." Cartoons of the prophet Mo were, of course, eliminated from all mainstream media outlets because they were "inciting hatred" and not merely "offensive."

I would definitely vote for banning incitement to violence,

You mean imminent violence, like, "Hey kill that guy!"?

and I'm leaning towards favouring banning incitement to hatred.

Horrid idea. That's what gets South Park episodes edited unfairly, and Dutch Parliament members prosecuted.

After all, the step between the two is tiny.

It's actually a huge gulf, of canyon proportions.

If you incite hatred, you will surely get violence.

Almost never, actually.

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.
.

What you think is offensive and what you think is "inciting hatred" is by far not universally, or even pluralistically, agreed upon. Be careful what you wish for, for you might get it.

[Coito ergo sum]

We've all been silenced anyway, and not even by the law.

I would love to draw big pictures of mohammed and post them here and there, just because some git tells me I can't. That I wouldn't class as incitement to hatred. Just incitement to free speech. But I don't see anyone doing it anywhere.
Maybe the internet should have a "draw mohammed" day, with millions of cartoons going up simultaneously. ( but don't say it was my idea ).
.

There was a draw muhammed day a month or two ago.

And just because you don't consider it incitement to hatred doesn't mean it's not incitement to hatred.