The moment a famous refugee meets a right-wing nationalist

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

All laws are blanket, by design. Because the courts' purpose is to adjust where necessary for context and circumstance.

You're arguing against the concept of law itself, at this point..

No, a court's job is to establish intent, motive, and fault before carrying out justice accordingly. Hence why the idea that your speech carries consequence rings true. It doesn't, however, necessarily mean you will be punished nor trialed for everything you say. In fact, it helps in some part to protect you from such overreach while still allowing victims to argue their case. Making literal, codified laws in which you can automatically qualify given forms of speech as criminal before a trial is even underway and therefore essentially are damned by merely speaking isn't exactly my idea of a free society.

There's a line there and one I prefer not to cross.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no "impasse". You haven't provided one whit of reasoning or justification to back your stance regarding hate speech. You've just said "I believe in free speech", which again, isn't an argument. It's a platitude that means nothing, because both of us "believe in free speech".

And that last bit? You admitted that restricting free speech is okay. You explicitly stated as much.

- - - Updated - - -



Not legally, in most jurisdictions.

If you mean in company policy regarding employees, you're legally allowed to say "you're an asshole", but if you say that to your boss or a coworker, it's unprofessional and could get you fired. Same difference.

No. I didn't. This is the problem with you. You read but you don't actually process what people are saying if it doesn't immediately align your own sensibilities.

[Acidbaron]

I don't need "muh freedom of speech" in the manner as you put it because I already try keep myself in check enough to where such laws, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, wouldn't readily apply to me. Not only that but because I demand some decency from myself and know that hateful rhetoric can make you blind to sensible reasoning.

That being said, it doesn't mean that I don't still value the freedom of speech as a core principle and philosophy thereby would willingly surrender it on behalf of others.

So regardless of what you think should be limited whether by your own moral code or that of the law I have my own. I won't shift on it, period. That's how strongly I feel about this inherit right and its importance to my people. You're not going to establish a strong enough counter argument for me to see it otherwise.

Sometimes, you simply come across an impasse.

You argument seems to make sense unless we pour it over into something similar. I don't need speed signs on the road, i always drive carefully. Therefor we should do away with all speed signs and limits because i don't see the need for it. Laws are made for the masses are made to not only punish but to also prevent actions from taking place, especially if there is a history of it.

[Zeth Hawkins]

People who have problems with banning hate speech are the ones who actively make comments involving hatred. Doesn't take a genius to realize why the most prominent opposers of such "bans" over "freedom of speech" are the far-right groups and nationalists.

Why do you believe that hate speech needs to be banned? Disbelieve it as you may, I do not practice it. And should there be any validity to the five or so tests I have taken, I am a centrist.

[Endus]

No, a court's job is to establish intent, motive, and fault before carrying out justice accordingly. Hence why the idea that your speech carries consequence rings true. It doesn't, however, necessarily mean you will be punished nor trialed for everything you say. In fact, it helps in some part to protect you from such overreach while still allowing victims to argue their case.

Right. There's the "case by case basis" you claimed didn't exist.

Making literal, codified laws in which you can automatically qualify given forms of speech as criminal before a trial is even underway and therefore essentially are damned by merely speaking isn't exactly my idea of a free society.

That's not how any law works, and not how hate speech legislation works in particular.

Feel free to provide any case where someone was prosecuted and found guilty of hate speech in a developed nation, without a court proceeding.

No. I didn't. This is the problem with you. You read but you don't actually process what people are saying if it doesn't immediately align your own sensibilities.

if you threaten someone I don't think it's bizarre that you could have a restraining order placed against you and or even investigated.

You clearly stated that if someone issued a threat, you agreed that legal consequences could result, a restraining order and potential investigation of it as a crime. Based on the threat alone, not acting upon it.

I'm reading fine. Are you not remembering the things you've written?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

You argument seems to make sense unless we pour it over into something similar. I don't need speed signs on the road, i always drive carefully. Therefor we should do away with all speed signs and limits because i don't see the need for it. Laws are made for the masses are made to not only punish but to also prevent actions from taking place, especially if there is a history of it.

True but roads could be readily argued as a privilege, not a right. There is also a much more direct and consistent correlation that one's actions on the road, affect me and everyone else. Speech on the other hand IS a right and operates within a lot more nuance. So while a court can argue that one's speech is truly threatening, inciting, and or responsible for any damages it shouldn't necessarily come down to a simple, "Well he/she said this so that's an automatic punishment," much akin to you maybe speeding on the road or making an illegal right-hand turn at an intersection.

I get your point. It's not a bad point. I just think it overlooks a couple of details.

[Endus]

it shouldn't necessarily come down to a simple, "Well he/she said this so that's an automatic punishment,"

Again, no hate speech laws on the planet that I'm aware of work in this manner. Like any other legal issue, the case goes to court, or at least can be appealed to court. Even parking tickets go to court, though most people just pay them ahead of time and admit fault.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Right. There's the "case by case basis" you claimed didn't exist.



That's not how any law works, and not how hate speech legislation works in particular.

Feel free to provide any case where someone was prosecuted and found guilty of hate speech in a developed nation, without a court proceeding.





You clearly stated that if someone issued a threat, you agreed that legal consequences could result, a restraining order and potential investigation of it as a crime. Based on the threat alone, not acting upon it.

I'm reading fine. Are you not remembering the things you've written?

COULD result. Not necessarily demanded by code or law. You can still argue your case. Argue your innocence. You're not guilty by default simply for saying whatever it is you say. It doesn't mean however that you won't suffer for it IF a court finds differently. However, manifesting law that strictly says, "This and this are forbidden and punishable," changes that dynamic. You're essentially guilty the moment you say those things. It isn't a matter of proving intent or damages resulting from those words but instead, whether or not you said them at all in the first place.

[Acidbaron]

Riddle me this then... what do you think about someone who eggs someone on? Do you think someone saying "Hit me, hit me you faggot. Hit me! Yeah I thought so fuck face" etc should also be jailed or fined?

Lacks context, you would not be jailed in either of those cases and neither of those cases refers to hate speech or hate speech laws. Or do you think using the word "faggot" suddenly makes it so?

You can get fined for throwing eggs at people if said person actually goes further with it and reports it.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Again, no hate speech laws on the planet that I'm aware of work in this manner. Like any other legal issue, the case goes to court, or at least can be appealed to court. Even parking tickets go to court, though most people just pay them ahead of time and admit fault.

Yes but establishing law that clearly outlines its legality will force the judge's hand much more distinctly rather than allowing him to judge based upon the situation presented at the time of. Basically, the state is demanding action if X or Y is said. It's not going to care about the circumstances.

[Polarthief]

Hate speech is not about freedom of speech, it is about intentionally attempting to entice people to commit acts of violence towards a group or individual.

A problem arises when it becomes purely black and white because what's hate speech vs just using words?

Would my WoW guild calling each other faggots* and niggers be breaking this law despite it just being among friends and not being used maliciously/with hostility? People classify those words as hateful words but without malice behind them, they're just fucking words.

People should be less offended by words and more offended by general hostility. Just being hateful towards another should be against the law, not the words themselves.


PS: inb4 I get my privilege checked for typing 'niggers' (twice now) on a forum when I'm just using it as an example. It's a fucking word, people, I'm not using it in a hateful way.
*PPS: Over half the guild is gay too. Is this now allowed to you people?

[arandomuser]

Yeah i mean supressing neo nazis speech just makes the problem worse, look at yugoslavia under the soviet union they werent able to express how they felt about muslims because of the anti free speech leftist soviet laws, but as soon as the soviets left the serbs were like oh i can freely express how i view muslims living in my country clearly i will not do anything violent only they do that.... thats exactly how it went right? that was sarcasm hundreds of thousands died once they got their rights back, humans are tribal humans kill people that are different its in there nature and if you arent a nihilist you know that if you think genocide is bad there has to be limitations onyour tribal nature.

[Micronetic]

Who is this "famous" refugee? Never heard of him before.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Lacks context, you would not be jailed in either of those cases and neither of those cases refers to hate speech or hate speech laws. Or do you think using the word "faggot" suddenly makes it so?

You can get fined for throwing eggs at people if said person actually goes further with it and reports it.

To be fair though that is a pretty direct form of assault. It may not warrant as much of a response as throwing rocks, striking with your fists, or worse but it's still an attack.

[Deleted]

There's no "impasse". You haven't provided one whit of reasoning or justification to back your stance regarding hate speech. You've just said "I believe in free speech", which again, isn't an argument. It's a platitude that means nothing, because both of us "believe in free speech".

And that last bit? You admitted that restricting free speech is okay. You explicitly stated as much.

If both of you agree on the platitude that free speech should be a thing, the onus is on the one restricting it to narrowly tailor it: you.

"How could you argue against something that is anchored on the principle of harm?" is a fallacious appeal to emotion.
You're pretending others should try and defend hate speech, but they should not: the default, if you support the platitude is that it is protected, and falls on you to delineate how to unprotect it.
Nobody will argue how to protect it, because there's no need to have it, other than it being necessary to other broader categories that should be protected. It, again, falls on you to draw the line and the rest of us to judge how narrowly you specify it.

The impasse is your reluctance to actually make your case for restriction, which is correctly received with dismissal.

I'm mostly ok with our hate speech laws. But it often leads to persecution of activists and protesters, so I'm skeptical of any expansion of it before the edge cases are addressed.

[Acidbaron]

A problem arises when it becomes purely black and white because what's hate speech vs just using words?

Would my WoW guild calling each other faggots* and niggers be breaking this law despite it just being among friends and not being used maliciously/with hostility? People classify those words as hateful words but without malice behind them, they're just fucking words.

People should be less offended by words and more offended by general hostility. Just being hateful towards another should be against the law, not the words themselves.


PS: inb4 I get my privilege checked for typing 'niggers' (twice now) on a forum when I'm just using it as an example. It's a fucking word, people, I'm not using it in a hateful way.
*PPS: Over half the guild is gay too. Is this now allowed to you people?

Hate speech goes beyond insulting, hate speech here seems to be confused with being politically correct. The context means a lot in hate speech laws, you would not face anything in that context.

I'll now present a case of people that assumed they were also protected by their freedoms in Europe but still faced convictions and since some have an issue when it's a white person against an immigrant, i'll now present a case that puts someone with a different background in that position.

http://www.equineteurope.org/Hate-sp...t-protected-by

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair though that is a pretty direct form of assault. It may not warrant as much of a response as throwing rocks, striking with your fists, or worse but it's still an attack.

I'm going by on cases i can actually remember and often people getting egged are famous people or political figures, those rarely go forward with it, let alone make it go towards a court case that is about assault.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair though that is a pretty direct form of assault. It may not warrant as much of a response as throwing rocks, striking with your fists, or worse but it's still an attack.

I'm going by on cases i can actually remember and often people getting egged are famous people or political figures, those rarely go forward with it, let alone make it go towards a court case that is about assault.

- - - Updated - - -

Egging someone on is an idiom that means "to provoke someone". I'm using the word "faggot" here as one straight person to another in this situation.

Alright here's an easier spelling out of the situation.

Person A is driving down the road.
Person B cuts off person A
Person A Slams on the horn, pulls up next to person B at the next stop light
Person A starts shouting at them, provoking them, etc.

Do you think person A should be fined or go to jail?

You know there are actual laws around what you just said. Both of them are guilty of aggression on the road. I can't come up with the actual english term.

I also do not see what this has at all to do with hate speech, you are missing the ball completely twice in a row now.

[Slant]

"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. "

I gave you a definition based on the key elements out my head that's the wiki description if you are from a western nation you can look up the exact definition in your language laws.

Hum. I've been thinking about it. I think my stance on free speech and hate speech is clear by now. Yet, from a practical point of view, I can see how these rules are not easy to implement. While they can certainly filter for any word they like and have advanced algorithms to get as close as possible, they will get entangled in a lot of court cases. And those will mostly have to deal with the question "How far can a joke go?" rather than "what is hate speech?"

And that's going to be a burden on everyone, really. I'm on the fence about hate speech laws. I think it would be nice to have a proper way of dealing with hate speech legally, but aside from the rules that we already have, I don't see how you can practically improve upon the situation.

[jibberbox85]

Vague cases can be ignored. Judges are trained well enough for that. Outright hate speech should be a crime. You are not going to claim that no hate speech can be classified as such, right?

For me, i can see good points coming from both you in regards to the term being vague, and what hate crime is. However, I'm curious about what you consider to be "Outright hate speech?"

[Freighter]

Why do you believe that hate speech needs to be banned? Disbelieve it as you may, I do not practice it. And should there be any validity to the five or so tests I have taken, I am a centrist.

Hate speech can create major resentment and division in the population, that's why it should be banned.

[Slant]

Hate speech can create major resentment and division in the population, that's why it should be banned.

I have to agree with this. Not only that it can create additional resentment, it can influence existing moral borders. If saying "kill all Muslims" is becoming acceptable by the law, it could lead deranged minds into actually becoming more violent towards Muslims. And it deflects public discussion from practical issues towards debating whether or not Muslims should all be killed. There is nothing to be gained from having an opinion part of the public discussion when the implementation of such an idea is highly criminal and cannot ever be implemented.

In other words, okay, we get it, you hate Muslims... now shut the fuck up about it.

[Slant]

Just saying "nigger" is considered "hate speech" even though it literally doesn't encourage any form of violence. Do you understand now?

Here, that wouldn't be hate speech. It would be an insult. Also already a misdemeanor, but hardly hate speech. See, this is why people don't like discussing adult stuff with Americans. They never get the words right.