Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Hmmm, the problem here is that hateful speech and distribution of someone else opinion, or opinion that may be considered hateful under some condition is not the same thing.
But before I goes on, I'd like to know one thing. In the US, or in the country where you live, is it forbidden to insult someone or to spread false and harmful information about him?

In the US? Knowingly false and demonstrably harmful falls under libel and slander and is civilly but not criminally actionable. It is almost impossible to pursue if you don't have a really expensive lawyer. In the case of most hate speech, because the person saying it actually believes it, it doesn't count. It is also difficult to show harm in the case of hate speech because it is almost entirely social and emotional harm rather than physical or financial harm.

[Phmcw]

You mean that I can actually rent a billboard and call someone a whore or things like that? Or would it also fall under the libel and slander law?

If it's the case, I don't see how libeling black peoples inferior is different. I don't see how to call for the murder of all Israeli is different of calling for the murder of a particular citizen (which would be illegal, no?)
What I aim for is not to erase hate speech, it's to call the government's responsibility to protect the citizen and to judge the conflicts upon these cases.
Peoples should be liable for what they say, an should be able to support it with evidence.

If someone call me a rapist or a wife beater, I can call upon justice and restore my honor. If someone say he'll murder me, I can call upon the state for protection. But, in the US, I could not call upon the protection of state if someone called for the murder of atheist? I couldn't protect my honor if he called all atheist, and therefore me, inferior living and scourge of society?
I don't think it's acceptable.

[Andir]

There are very obvious double standards in the US concerning various groups as to what constitutes slander.  (eg: the word "nigger")  So it's hard to prove if you meant something as slanderous because of your skin color.  You could also catch various comedians utilizing speech that could be considered hateful if used by anyone else but the particular subgroup they belong to (see: Carlos Mencia, Dave Chappelle, Jeff Foxworthy/crew)

Edit: Telling someone you "will murder them" also has various levels of acceptance.  For someone to say: "Whoever created that intersection should be shot." is "innocent" mockery.  You don't actually intend that the person be shot, but you don't agree to the logic they used to design said intersection.  The person has to feel endangered and prove in court that you actually meant that.

Edit2:  Also, sayings like "I'll murder the next person that uses my coffee cup as an ashtray."

[Siquo]

Chapelle has this wonderful sketch about a blind, black KKK member. The shit that comes out of his mouth is magically transformed into comedy gold because of his skin colour. That's the kind of inequality I can't understand. If I can't say it, why can he? Because of skin colour? Discrimination!
Or I'm just being autistic again, but I still think it's unfair.

[Vector]

Because they're not employing a division of power to attack the weaker party in a way they can't defend against.

Once again I'll ask you to stop appropriating the word "autistic."

[Glowcat]

Because the humor is how he's unaware of his own skin-color, which allows him to be an extreme KKK member despite being dark skinned? If you said it there wouldn't be any joke and you'd just be an asshole.

Kinda like that Neo Nazi who discovered he was Jewish, but on a comedy show.

[Andir]

That's why libel and slander are so hard to fight in court.  It's overall better to just let offensive words die rather than banning them and making a big deal about it.  I'm sure "nigger" wouldn't have the weight it does today if it was just left to rot in the slave trade.  It's been continuously renewed over the years to mean something different because of the double standards and people drawing attention to it.

Let's put it this way.  When to outright ban speech, hateful and/or derogatory, you only force that person to hide those emotions or take them "underground."  I'm going to go out on a limb and state that the KKK would likely not exist or have existed for very long if they were allowed to openly state their feelings.  If you hold in all the things you want to say all you are doing is letting them fester.  You don't get counter arguments from the other side (whether you listen or not) and people cannot judge you properly for your actions/ideas if you hold in your thoughts.  This is why some well known public figures are still regarded highly even though they hold deep rooted hatred toward a certain class or race of people.  Instead of being able to tell everyone about their hatred toward a certain aspect of society they are forced to bottle it up and work around their issues in other means (legislation, support for discriminatory groups...)

[Vector]

I'll say that I don't think hateful words should be banned in any way by law, but that citizens have a duty to attack it when they see it.

The KKK has plenty of ability to say whatever they want.  Public figures can tell everyone about their hatred of certain groups.  You have looked at Bachmann's letter that she wants signed right?

[Phmcw]

There is a matter of intend, and the man you're accusing of hate speech or death threat is innocent until proven guilty.
You have to prove that they actively encourage discrimination, and seriously slender you.
The aim of those law are to tackle the most obvious and public speech, and to affirm that the citizens, in their majority, openly consider those things wrong and reprehensible, not to erase those opinions.

Humor have a pass, as long as the intend is humor.

I'll say that I don't think hateful words should be banned in any way by law, but that citizens have a duty to attack it when they see it.

But why? Protection and justice are a duty of the government.

[Vector]

Because I like my freedom of speech without major loopholes that slimy politicians can sneak through.  I don't think the law would do anything to attack the low, general level, and anyone with enough money could get through or use it greatly to their advantage.

[Andir]

I can't imagine the codified law that defines hate speech.  It would be upwards of 1000+ pages single spaced front and back.  You'd have to define intent, structure of sentences...

[Siquo]

Once again I'll ask you to stop appropriating the word "autistic."

No. I don't get it. Why can an autistic person use the word and I can't to describe something that is attributed to the generalisation that is "autism"? It's just another form of discrimination.
We've been over this: Everyone is equal, and I dislike bigots just as much as minorities who hold double standards, because I fail to see the difference.

I know, it's about context, but if I have no control over the context, it should not be considered part of the message. So the colour of my skin should not matter as context if I say the N word (note: I'm not), because that'd be racist. As racist as any KKK member, putting the accuser on the same level as those bigots.

Politics-wise I'd like a freedom from speech. Every person suddenly thinks his opinion matters.

Ninja'd:

I can't imagine the codified law that defines hate speech.  It would be upwards of 1000+ pages single spaced front and back.  You'd have to define intent, structure of sentences...

Exactly, context is so... subtle and subjective. Screw context.

[Vector]

Because not understanding rhetoric and the power dynamics thereof is not part of the generalisation that is autism?

[Nadaka]

Phmcw: Once you enshrine the right to restrict free expression simply to protect a specific class of people from being offended, you open the doors for all free expression to be restricted because someone somewhere is going to find everything offensive. It is exactly the same as banning pornography, or don't ask don't tell.

You have to draw a clear and unambiguous line. Threats are unacceptable, incitement to commit violence is unacceptable, expression that interferes with others is unacceptable, lies that cause harm are unacceptable.

England has libel/slander laws that make truth that causes harm a crime (provided that the "harmed" individual is sufficiently wealthy and powerful), they can also make this a secret injunction so that the public is completely unaware of this abuse of power.

In the US, libel and slander may be a little too weak to provide an adequate defense against the abuse of minorities, but it is also to weak for the powerful to use effectively to suppress truth that they don't like.

[Darvi]

Phmcw: Once you enshrine the right to restrict free expression simply to protect a specific class of people from being offended, you open the doors for all free expression to be restricted because someone somewhere is going to find everything offensive.

Relevant.