Proposal: Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech #2

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by kororoti, May 6, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    It seems the original hate speech thread drew interest but not debate. Maybe the reason is because it wasn't clearly defined.

    So if we want to debate the position, let us use this definition for Hate Speech:

    1)- No threats of violence are made
    2)- No "stalking" activity is committed.
    3)- The individual making the speech has never been known to act out violently at any point in their entire life, and appears unlikely to do so in the immediate future. (At the very least, they have no prior assault convictions.)

    It's really disingenuous to try and convolute a debate by adding conditions that would be illegal for other reasons, even without hate speech laws. So, let us assume that nothing is happening that would be illegal if two people of the same ethnicity, religion, and biological make up were doing them to each other.

    Examples of what would remain might be:

    - The KKK calling for a boycott of Jewish/Black/Hispanic businesses.
    - A Neo-Nazi pseudo-scientist writing books attempting to establish the genetic superiority of the German people.
    - A genuine scholar writing a book that seriously criticizes and/or points out the shortcomings of African culture.
    - A comedy sketch artist who makes a sketch that seriously mocks the idiosyncrasies, quirks, and customs of another ethnic group.
    - Genetic biologists who attempt to publish IQ scores by ethnicity, or other statistical observations.

    Is there a danger in all this? Sure. Guess what? Freedom is dangerous. If you're afraid of the consequences, then move to a dictatorship where you'll feel safe. Let all the brave people stay and enjoy their freedom.

    This is what I want to debate. If there are no serious takers, then I'll stop trying.
  2. phlogistician Banned Banned

    How does the recipient of the Hate Speech know #3 is the case?

    Is the perpetrator arrested until this is verified?
  3. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    My view on the topic:

    Hate speech as you defined must be protected. Freedom of expression is a neccasity in a free community.
  4. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I repeat the question, how does the recipient of the hate speech know #3 is the case, and the hate speech will not escalate into violence?

    See, it usually goes like this, raised voices, swearing, -> violence. You ever been in a fight? Did you just get attacked out of the blue, or was there some argument, or exchange of words first?

    Anyway, I'm glad this came up again, because I didn't see this;,17372/

    before the other thread got closed.
  5. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    I like a saying one of my funny teachers said,
    "Making assumptions makes an ass out of you and me."
    Yes, Ive been in many. The most recent one he walked up and told me to hit him, so I did. I've been in plenty of situations where raised voices and swearing has been included with no need or escualtion to violence of any sort
  6. phlogistician Banned Banned

    That wasn't very clever, was it?

    And therefore some occasions where raised voices and swearing did lead to violence, and my point it, until it escalates, or not, you don't know. By swearing at someone you can make them fearful they are going to be attacked.

    So supporting hate speech is basically saying it's OK to make some people live in fear.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Could everybody in this thread please read the rules of the Formal Debates forum and stop debating the topic. This subforum is for formal debates. If you want an informal discussion, take it to a different forum.
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Well, I was trying to get clarification on #3, as that frames the debate. The idea behind #3 seems rather naive to me.
  9. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    I'm going to start the actual formal debate soon then. Just hoping for one more person to argue against so it's not 2 on 1.

    I don't know that the victim is the one who needs to know the speaker's prior convictions. Law enforcement authorities are the ones who need to know that.

    Any potential victim who suspects the speaker might be a violent felon is free to report them to the police, of course. The police just won't take action unless they are one.

    This is an example of pushing the limit of what isn't allowed on this debate. Raised voices and swearing could easily occur on a non-hate speech situation, and are therefore entirely different acts.

    When the formal debate starts, it will be against the rules to introduce other bad acts or crimes which are not required to be part of hate speech. I call that "stacking". What you're really doing is combining two or three bad acts together into one, and then demanding that your opponent either uphold all 2-3 of them, or denounce all 2-3 of them. I could just as easily argue that homosexuality should be illegal by asking you what you would do if a homosexual pointed a gun at your head while making out with their homosexual lover.

    If you want to argue in favor of a law against raising your voice to someone, or swearing at them (even two people of the same race/religion/ethnicity... etc), then argue for a law against raising your voice to someone or swearing at them, not an unrelated law against criticizing their origins.
  10. phlogistician Banned Banned

    How do we ascertain th eidentity of the perpetrator unless they are arrested? Do we all have to wear name badges, so we can report peole to the Police afterwards? If the person abuses someone, and leaves th escene, how do we discver their identity so the Polie can check up their record? Seems to me you haven't thought #3 through very well, and it's an atempt to remove potential violence from the situation, when you know damned well part of hate speech is makes others fearful.

    No, I'm trying to find out what people think allowable 'hate speech' is, and what crosses the line. I think shouting "You f*cking n*gger c*nt!" repeatedly at someone is indefensible under free speech laws. You know it is too, so are trying to ringfence the debate.

    You've lost this one before you've begun.

    By coming up with such a stupid example, you've shown how indefensible your proposition is.
  11. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

  12. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    It doesn't matter what makes people fearful. As long as no direct threats are being made, you never have the right to inflict your fear on someone else. Only justified fear has any place motivating a police action.

    Police can freely arrest a person who seems dangerous to them. If it turns out they have no record, they would be released afterward, however.

    Your "fleeing the scene" argument is silly, because it would be applicable even if hate speech were fully illegal. A criminal can always flee the scene, and their identity can always be difficult to determine.

    How is shouting "You f*cking n*gger c*nt!" any different from shouting "You f*cking ugly c*nt!" ????

    In both cases you are attempting to provoke them, but clearly the second example would not be hate speech. Do you see yet what I mean by trying to group multiple crimes into one crime? Bringing up any example of a situation where you can remove the "hate speech" aspect, and still have a crime will be against the rules when we start this debate.

    Actually I only did so in order to make the aspect of the problem I mean to point to stand out. Any time you lump two crimes together that are clearly separate crimes, you are attempting to create a fallacy. I think it's called the "false dichotomy" fallacy.
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Yes it does. Knowing there are an organised hateful bunch of people out there wishing to do you harm is bad enough, without letting them wave banners and make hateful speeches. It exactly DOES matter what makes people fearful. In a modern, civilised society, nobody should have to live in fear.

    Bullying and intimidation do not have to be direct threats. You ever been bullied? Seen it happen? Done it? It can be prolonged and subtle. The effects are no different however.

    Being fearful that some day the prolonged hatred someone has suffered may escalate isn't 'justified'? You really do lack empathy, and probably historical knowledge.

    So you agree that 'hate speech' is an arrestable offence?

    DOH! 'Scene' means 'scene of crime', if hate speech were legal, there'd be no crime, ....
    Maybe it isn't, maybe the latter should not be tolerated either.
  14. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    In the first place, freedom can only exist among a society of brave people. If the fact you feel a feeling is my problem, then you're putting a level of responsibility on me that no mature adult would ever put on another person. I can't be responsible for someone else's feelings, only their physical well being.

    However, racism doesn't necessarily mean you want to hurt anyone. Not all racists are violent, or even capable of violence. Do you wish to outlaw the entire group in order to curtail a small minority of that group?

    That is true. However, racketeering (threatening people for money) is a known crime, with known criteria. The same criteria could be used to determine whether a person is merely expressing their feelings and/or racist views or attempting to instill fear.

    I don't believe that empathy ought to be legislated. It's a praiseworthy trait. Some people have it. Some people don't. However, the fact you have empathy doesn't give you the right to force others to have empathy.

    But.... maybe you think it does. It sounds to me, though, like what you really want is the right to force everyone else to be exactly like you.

    I think people with violent criminal histories don't have the same rights as people who have not yet been convicted of a violent felony. I wouldn't allow a violent felon to own a gun either.

    There would be a crime scene if the speaker were a former violent felon, and a law existed that exclusively prohibited former violent felons from engaging in hate speech.
  15. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    It seems to me like we've got enough difference of opinion for a debate then.

    It will be myself, and Pyscho Bound against phlogistician. Do you mind having two debaters against you, phlogistician?

    If you say yes, then I will go ahead and start it.
  16. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Yeah, game on. I've seen a enough holes in your last post to tear your argument into tatters. Bring it on.
  17. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    When are we starting this debate? I look forward to it
    Btw, lets keep hard feelings from forming. Lets keep our tempers and debate this responsibly and fairly.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The Debate thread is now open:

    [thread=101754]Debate thread[/thread]
    [thread=101762]Discussion thread[/thread]
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page