Discussion: Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech

[wynn]

Define "feel threatened".

Should one person or group of people be able to literally threaten another? No.

Should people be able to express their views on social issues and policies? Yep. If that makes others feel uncomfortable, that's their problem.

That sounds fine in principle, but reality is different: there is only so much ill will that humans are able to accomodate for before they break down and resort to some form of aggression or dysfunctional behavior (physical violence, drugs, ...).
The whole society then suffers from that.

 

[Cowboy]

That sounds fine in principle, but reality is different: there is only so much ill will that humans are able to accomodate for before they break down and resort to some form of aggression or dysfunctional behavior (physical violence, drugs, ...).
The whole society then suffers from that.

The reality is that these butt-hurt masses need to put on their big-boy pants and suck it up. One person's freedom shouldn't be violated because someone else can't handle a contradictory opinion.

 

[wynn]

The reality is that these butt-hurt masses need to put on their big-boy pants and suck it up. One person's freedom shouldn't be violated because someone else can't handle a contradictory opinion.

Those butt-hurt masses don't care what some people think they need.

 

[phlogistician]

Define "feel threatened".

Should one person or group of people be able to literally threaten another? No.

Then you don't agree that hate speech should be protected.

Should people be able to express their views on social issues and policies? Yep. If that makes others feel uncomfortable, that's their problem.

Shouting racial epithets is not social comment.

Let's get this straight. It's 'HATE' speech. It is born of emotion, not science, or statistics. It conveys a negative emotion. It makes the targets of it experience negativity, and feel threatened. If you protect hate speech, you protect people that threaten others.

 

[Cowboy]

Then you don't agree that hate speech should be protected.

Hate-speech and threats are not the same thing. You can hate people without threatening them and threaten people without hating them because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.

Shouting racial epithets is not social comment.

Neither is Pokemon, but they both should be protected as free speech.

Let's get this straight. It's 'HATE' speech. It is born of emotion, not science, or statistics. It conveys a negative emotion. It makes the targets of it experience negativity, and feel threatened. If you protect hate speech, you protect people that threaten others.

So only speech that is based on science and statistics should be protected? Go to that white supremacist site that has a name based on weather formations. I'm sure they have plenty of statistics about crime, etc.

And, once again, there's a difference between an actual threat and speech that simply makes people nervous or uncomfortable.

 

[Cowboy]

Those butt-hurt masses don't care what some people think they need.

And the non-butt-hurt aren't necessarily willing to flush freedom down the toilet for the sake of people who lack self-control.

 

[phlogistician]

The reality is that these butt-hurt masses need to put on their big-boy pants and suck it up.

Astounding lack of empathy there mate. Imagine being surrounded by an angry mob shouting racial abuse at you. How long before you'd feel threatened? Pull a weapon?

One person's freedom shouldn't be violated because someone else can't handle a contradictory opinion.

Shouting 'All [Insert racial epithet] must die' is more than expressing an opinion.

 

[Cowboy]

Astounding lack of empathy there mate. Imagine being surrounded by an angry mob shouting racial abuse at you. How long before you'd feel threatened? Pull a weapon?

In that situation, it would be normal for someone to feel threatened or at least harassed. But that's not exactly the extent to what qualifies as hate-speech.

Shouting 'All [Insert racial epithet] must die' is more than expressing an opinion.

Not really. Shouting "All [insert racial epithet] must die!" while in a mob surrounding members of that racial group would be an obvious threat. Shouting that at a rally or posting it on an internet forum would not be.

 

[phlogistician]

In that situation, it would be normal for someone to feel threatened or at least harassed. But that's not exactly the extent to what qualifies as hate-speech.

Ever seen a bunch of Neo-Nazis at a rally? Placards depicting Hitler, and advocating violence towards, and the death of various groups? It's not pretty. Nobody should have to put up with threats like that.

Not really. Shouting "All [insert racial epithet] must die!" while in a mob surrounding members of that racial group would be an obvious threat.

So you agree there should be limits on what people can say and do in groups, in public? Me too.

Shouting that at a rally or posting it on an internet forum would not be.

It could be, if it names someone, or if it incites someone to go perpetrate an act of violence.

See, this isn't a clear cut freedom of speech issue. Speech isn't free, you cannot tell lies about or defame people. Hate speech is defamation. You cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre and use freedom on speech as an excuse when people get panicked and upset. Hate speech is not qualified criticism, it's HATE. Negative emotion spoken to impart more negativity. Nobody should be making others fearful.

 

[GeoffP]

The additional problem of protected hate speech is that it generates long-term biases in the population or proportion receiving it.

 

[wynn]

And the non-butt-hurt aren't necessarily willing to flush freedom down the toilet for the sake of people who lack self-control.

Oh, they will be forced to, when the streets are overwhelmed with angry protesters, or homeless junkies.

 

[wynn]

The additional problem of protected hate speech is that it generates long-term biases in the population or proportion receiving it.

And that it is leaving people to protect themselves from hate speech with nothing but hate speech.

 

[spidergoat]

You can tell lies about public people in the USA.

 

[quadraphonics]

Hate-speech and threats are not the same thing.

That's true, as such, but I do not know of any legal definition of hate speech that does not include some qualifier about "incitement to violence" or "intimidation." I.e., in those places that do prosecute hate speech, such is defined as including some kind of threat or incitement to violence. Mere expressions of animus do not count.

Of course, that's a slippery slope and naturally politicized, but the point is that whatever distinction exists between "hate speech" in the colloquial sense and "threats," does not exist in the legal definitions of such. The basis for laws on such is the protection of people and groups from violence and intimidation, so the question of protections for hate speech doesn't apply to these cases of non-violent speech.

 

[wellwisher]

Does hate speech require that the speaker have hate in their heart when they speak? Or is it just the noises/words exhalted, regardless of intent? Say I have hate in my heart and use only nice PC terms, is this hate speech. Or does it come down to subjectivity of words and not the objectivity of intent?

If I am happy and feeling love in my heart and I start to rattle off all the PC hate speech words, is this hate speech, since I have no hate? Or is the term hate speech sort of a deception with the objectivity of intent not important to the illusion?

 

[Cowboy]

Ever seen a bunch of Neo-Nazis at a rally? Placards depicting Hitler, and advocating violence towards, and the death of various groups? It's not pretty. Nobody should have to put up with threats like that.

They have every right to believe that violence is appropriate and to express those beliefs. But there's a difference between spouting that crap at a rally or on an internet forum and assembling a mob, surrounding your target, and threatening them with death.

So you agree there should be limits on what people can say and do in groups, in public? Me too.

I've never said otherwise. But if a bunch of people confront whatever group they dislike in a threatening way, the crime is not hate-speech but the obvious intent to threaten.

It could be, if it names someone, or if it incites someone to go perpetrate an act of violence.

So Ice Cube should be prosecuted for his rap song where he talks about killing Daryl Gates?

See, this isn't a clear cut freedom of speech issue. Speech isn't free, you cannot tell lies about or defame people. Hate speech is defamation. You cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre and use freedom on speech as an excuse when people get panicked and upset. Hate speech is not qualified criticism, it's HATE. Negative emotion spoken to impart more negativity. Nobody should be making others fearful.

Hate-speech is not inherently defamatory. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not the same thing as saying, "I think that [insert group here] sucks because [insert reason here]." And, despite what you'd like to believe, we don't have some God-given right to be adored and appreciated by the rest of society.

Hate-speech is a clear cut issue of freedom of speech. Obvious threats with the ability to make good on those threats at that time are a different matter.

 

[Cowboy]

Oh, they will be forced to, when the streets are overwhelmed with angry protesters, or homeless junkies.

So, essentially, your argument is that we need to ban freedom to keep people from taking to the streets and demanding that freedom be banned?

 

[Cowboy]

The additional problem of protected hate speech is that it generates long-term biases in the population or proportion receiving it.

That might be a problem if 90% of the population was directing their hatred towards the other 10%. But when it's small, statistically insignificant groups, people need to get over it.

I know how Nation Of Islam-types feel about people like me, for example, but I don't "return the favor" by feeling that way about black people.

 

[wynn]

So, essentially, your argument is that we need to ban freedom to keep people from taking to the streets and demanding that freedom be banned?

I think your view is too extreme or too extremely formulated to come across as actionable.

I agree that people are often too weak and often demand too much of a nanny state; acting on this leads to absurd consequences (such as PC) which are, in the long run, negative.
On the other hand, telling people to "toughen up" or rejecting and neglecting them doesn't solve anything either, as the weak people don't just disappear, but become a problem burdening the whole society.

Without a moral code that everyone agrees upon, and a viable economy, there can be no harmonious co-existence.

 

[wynn]

That might be a problem if 90% of the population was directing their hatred towards the other 10%. But when it's small, statistically insignificant groups, people need to get over it.

"Shoulding" - saying that such and such should do this or that - is generally an extremely ineffective way to produce lasting change, both on the individual as well as on the social level.