Print

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

[Phmcw]

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...

http://www.rtdh.eu/pdf/2001321.pdf here's ours. I hope you can read French.

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.

You distrust your political system even more than me.
I think you can have a sane government, but maybe you're right that, in the US, you should achieve that first.
Also true for Nadaka

[Siquo]

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

It's not about power dynamics, it's about (lack of) context and subtle meanings. I'm really bad at getting sarcasm, double meanings, yes-that-means-no-or-vice-versa etc. Perhaps I'm falsely attributing that to autism, but as it's a spectrum (dis)ability, and I notice the same in my diagnosed Asperger brother, I presumed that they are symptoms or properties of the autistic spectrum.

And in context of what Darvi/Nadaka just said: How are you going to separate "power rhetorics" from normal speech?

[Phmcw]

Basically, If your society is so damaged that those law are used against legitimate claim (such as claims backed with strong evidence), then those laws won't make it worse. You'll already be in such trouble that hate law would be passed and in a good road toward a dark age.

[Vector]

Yes.  The US is currently facing so many problems that I wouldn't trust a single new restriction on speech.  They have plenty of other things that would help the country more, and maybe after all those things, we'd be okay with a new law like that.  But in a country with a disappearing middle class, I sure as hell don't trust it.

It's not about power dynamics, it's about (lack of) context and subtle meanings. I'm really bad at getting sarcasm, double meanings, yes-that-means-no-or-vice-versa etc. Perhaps I'm falsely attributing that to autism, but as it's a spectrum (dis)ability, and I notice the same in my diagnosed Asperger brother, I presumed that they are symptoms or properties of the autistic spectrum.

And in context of what Darvi/Nadaka just said: How are you going to separate "power rhetorics" from normal speech?

I don't see lack of context and subtle meanings here.  The difference between a friend calling you an asshole and a random person on the street holding a gun calling you an asshole is very different.

The lack of context might better be called "unconfronted privilege," but that isn't really an autistic-exclusive issue, either.  It's kind of standard for people who have power over others without understanding precisely how.  It's a context many, many people have trouble grasping, and not considered a sign of disability at all.  Perhaps it should be, but it is considered a complex behavior far beyond the low functioning of the autism spectrum.  Of course, this is why I know about it--"normal" people write essays on it for each other.

When a privileged group insults a member of an unprivileged group for no reason but their belonging to the group, that is the power dynamic at work.

[Phmcw]

@Vector : Fair enough. But I'm interested in your opinion of our implementation of those law. Do you speak French?

[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...

http://www.rtdh.eu/pdf/2001321.pdf here's ours. I hope you can read French.

I cannot, but with so little content in the law (even though it's over 20 pages!) I imagine there is a great portion of it is left up to a interpretation by a judge or judges.  That's where these laws lose reason with me.  I would interpret a saying differently than you would.  We would likely vote differently on what is determined to be hate speech.  For one, calling you something like a whore or a bigot I would not consider hateful speech.  It's an opinion.  If said person was beating you with a stick or spitting on you at the time, I may judge otherwise.  That's where I draw my distinction toward hate speech.  If it involves physical action and harm, I consider it hateful.  Otherwise, it's strictly opinionated garbage.

[Vector]

@Vector : Fair enough. But I'm interested in your opinion of our implementation of those law. Do you speak French?

Yeah, I do.  I'll try to take a look at some point.

[Phmcw]

It's not the law per say, but an explanation of it by one of the advisor of our "cour de cassation", the ultimate authority in the interpretation of the law in Belgium. The law in itself is incomprehensible for untrained persons.

[Nadaka]

Phmcw: Wait? You trust your political system? I don't think that is healthy. There is no perfect government because it will always be implemented by imperfect people. A better government is one more open and more impervious to corruption and abuse. The US government has failed in that regard, but so has Europe.

Siquo: Maybe I am out of the loop, but what are "power rhetorics"? I suspect that they fall under protected free expression that should be challenged and fought not with punishment but by deconstruction, refutation and education (edit: plus the occasional bit of mockery).

Pseudo Edit: I think vector answered that question, and my answer still stands.

[Phmcw]

I don't trust my political system, but I think it's able to handle basic ethical problems. And I trust the fact that Belgian society will react, if it abuse it (actually, European opinion is reacting to these abuses).
I think openness is very important, but I'm convinced that racism and hate-speech are more likely to spread via instrumentation by a political cause (such as the UMP use of xenophobia to cover their glaring economical failures and lousy policies) than via personal conviction.
A lot of those laws are purposely targeting instrumentation of xenophobia. 

[Andir]

I don't trust my political system, but I think it's able to handle basic ethical problems.

But I consider restricting free thought as an ethical blunder.  Whenever you have to tell someone to shut-up, you've already failed to educate them.

[Leafsnail]

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!

Do you not understand the idea of self deprecation?  At all?  You're free to be self deprecating, perhaps making references to your own race to the same extent as black people are (except you're implying that only nonwhite people can be made fun of).

[Truean]

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.

?

You can't merely sue because something is considered "offensive" or because you disagree with it, or because you feel hurt by it. That would be completely unmanageable and you know or should know that.

That is ... so far from the definition and enforcement of the law of defamation I don't even know where to begin....

Tell you what, here's some basic, generalized reading on this stuff. This isn't definitive by any means and you could never use this source in a courtroom but it's a start....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

[Nadaka]

Truean? Nothing I said disagrees with you there.

[Truean]

"In the US? Knowingly false and demonstrably harmful falls under libel and slander and is civilly but not criminally actionable."
Depends on the individual speech or action and if the prosecutor is inclined and able to prosecute under criminal menacing or other statutes. This is highly fact specific. Burning a cross in someone's front yard can lead to a criminal charge, especially if this person is black. Threats of violence can also be criminal. Insulting speech alone is rarely if ever criminal. If you commit a crime while saying that, you're risking a hate crime classification though and an enhanced sentence.
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/12/01/news/mj1961207.txt

"It is almost impossible to pursue if you don't have a really expensive lawyer."
If you have a decent case, you can often get legal aid to do it or there are lots of lawyers who were nerds as kids with a grudge against bullies who do this pro bono. Even without that, it isn't THAT expensive if you have a good case. Also, I know how to make legal, tax preparation and book keeping services unbelievably affordable for every single person in the US, but I won't do it because people are bastards and would screw me over for doing it. Private industry could do it for $25/month. Public taxes could do it for $2.73/year. (Per person of course)

"In the case of most hate speech, because the person saying it actually believes it, it doesn't count."
No.... "Actually believing it" has never been a defense. If it is actually true, then truth is a defense, but then you have to actually prove the truth of the matter. Good luck. If for the sake of argument only, I really truly believe you have an STD and go around saying so, that will not stop you from winning a suit against me for slander. You bear the risk of your statements being false.

"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."
Granted, damages (money) is the hardest thing to show. Piss off the jury enough and you might be able to get there. It is a question of fact though.

Also here's an outline I whipped up on the fly: This is just common law and shouldn't be used because it varies state to state....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A.   Defamation: if it tends to harm the reputation of the plaintiff so as to lower her in the esteem of the community or to deter third persons from associating with her.
a.   Elements: 1) defamatory statement 2) about the plaintiff 3) publication to a third person and 4) damage to plaintiff’s reputation.
b.   Libel v Slander:  libel is written and damages are presumed and slander is spoken
i.   Slander per se: 1) criminal offense 2) loathsome disease 3) business 4) female lack of chastity.
ii.   Innuendo: meaning behind the statement Inducement: facts that make the statement defamatory; colloquium: the existence of facts that id plaintiff as the object of the defamatory statement.
B.   Common Law Defenses: 1) truth 2) absolute privilege a) government proceedings b) one spouse to another c) compelled broadcasts d) consent 3) qualified privilege a) abused with excessive publication
C.   Constitutional Modification: modifies fault, falsity and damages
a.   Public Official: P has to prove actual malice, truth and damages.
b.   Private Person-Public Concern: negligence, truth and prove that reputation has been harmed
D.   Privacy
a.   Intrusion upon seclusion: 1) intent to intrude upon seclusion 2) intrusion upon seclusion 3) intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person
b.   Appropriation of Name or Likeness: d is liable to p if he or she appropriates plaintiff’s name or likeness for use in commercial advertisement for a product or service
E.   Public Disclosure of private facts: 1) public disclosure 2) of private facts 3) highly offensive to a reasonable person and 4) not of legitimate public concern
F.   False Light Privacy:  1) Public disclosure 2) that puts the plaintiff in a false light and 3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
G.   Intentional Misrepresentation:  1) misrepresentation of a material fact 2) scienter 3) intent to induce reliance 4) justifiable reliance 5) damages
H.   Negligent Misrepresentation : Same as above except 1) reduced to negligence 2) duty only owed by commercial suppliers of information 3) duty owed only to defendant actually knew would rely on the representation.
I.   Disparagement : 1) statement derogatory to the title or quality of p’s property 2) falsity 3) malice 4) publication 5) causation and 6) damages
J.   Interference with Economic Relationships: 1) a valid contract between p and third party 2) knowledge of contract by d 3) intent to interfere with contract or expectancy 4) interference caused by the defendant and 5) damage
K.   Malicious Prosecution: 1) institution of criminal proceedings 2) proceeding terminates in favor of p 3) absence of probable cause and 4) malice or improper purpose

And covering all bases: God I love this comic....
http://xkcd.com/246/