Hate Speech should be legalized - Hate Speech is Free Speech

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: xslugx on February 25, 2016, 09:35:09 AM

It's impossible to define precisely such a complex notion :/

That's why the "law" aspect is extremely complicated!!!

Indeed, and that's why anybody can use it for silencing opposition, or suppressing discussions about taboo topics.

xslugx

sr. member

Activity: 293

Merit: 250

Quote from: Snail2 on February 25, 2016, 09:30:32 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 08:39:30 AM

Quote from: Snail2 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:37 AM

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Let's see what Wikipedia said about hate speech:

"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics."

Is this something clearly defined? Well, I think according to the above definition with a little creativeness I can try to sue almost anybody for almost anything. If it would be defined as "incitement to murder" that's a clear thing, that's fine. I have no issue with the first part of this "definition". Problems starting here: "or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group".

It's impossible to define precisely such a complex notion :/

That's why the "law" aspect is extremely complicated!!!

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 08:39:30 AM

Quote from: Snail2 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:37 AM

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Let's see what Wikipedia said about hate speech:

"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics."

Is this something clearly defined? Well, I think according to the above definition with a little creativeness I can try to sue almost anybody for almost anything. If it would be defined as "incitement to murder" that's a clear thing, that's fine. I have no issue with the first part of this "definition". Problems starting here: "or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group".

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: craked5 on February 25, 2016, 08:42:58 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 08:39:30 AM

Quote from: Snail2 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:37 AM

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Of course there is always a problem!
Again, what can be said under humourous speeches?
I mena even myself sometimes I say things like "yeah we should kill all the blacks it would make more work". It's a joke nothing else. I don't mean it, it's just that in the conversation it was rather funny to say it. Should I go to jail?

Sorry, maybe I'm missing the context but I'm just not seeing the humour there.

Edit: plus as I mentioned earlier I'm not really concerned about the "legal" part, more about the "hate speech is free speech".

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 08:39:30 AM

Quote from: Snail2 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:37 AM

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Of course there is always a problem!
Again, what can be said under humourous speeches?
I mena even myself sometimes I say things like "yeah we should kill all the blacks it would make more work". It's a joke nothing else. I don't mean it, it's just that in the conversation it was rather funny to say it. Should I go to jail?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: Snail2 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:37 AM

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 08:30:01 AM

Quote from: craked5 on February 25, 2016, 08:20:22 AM

Not so vast. We had some problem with a humorist who was clearly on the grey area here...
If I say "gays should be killed" it's easy to classify.
But if I'm a humorist, and I take a character who says "but gays should be killed, after all it's like a disease, and the horrible thing is that the more they are, the more they spread the disease" then what do you do?
It can be considered as humour yeah... But if the said humorist has some relationships with far right religious movements... And you know he's against gays... What do you do?

I'm not sure how that's humorous. It still sounds like it's someone trying to get someone else to kill members of another group.

Change "gays" to "americans". You still ok with that? Should ISIS be allowed to peddle their propaganda in your streets?

Edit: TBH I don't care about the legality of the thing, more the morality.

Well maybe I'm not so funny :p

Ok if you talk about morality it's easy, because you can consider each case as specific.
But it's really hard to make a law about that! Because it's impossible to define a clear border between what's ok and what is not Wink

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: craked5 on February 25, 2016, 08:20:22 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 07:52:41 AM

Quote from: HappyTurtle on February 25, 2016, 07:37:55 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 07:20:47 AM

Quote from: HappyTurtle on February 25, 2016, 07:16:16 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 06:39:05 AM

Quote from: HappyTurtle on February 25, 2016, 06:29:31 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 10:47:40 PM

Quote from: HappyTurtle on February 24, 2016, 07:36:46 AM

I don't like it when someone calls me something mean but I believe in their right to do so. I believe it is their free speech. I am not going to boycott his business or anything of that sort.

Of course, it is wrong, when someone makes racist statements, but what they are, are just words.

If you ask me, if anything should be banned, it is the thuggery of businesses interfering in domestic issues. There should be a separation of business and state.

Even pornography and video games are protected as free-speech.

Hate is one of the emotions of human beings like love.

Repressing it through legislative actions are just trying to repress one of the basic human emotions.

Words don't physically hurt people.

I tend to believe that hate speech is a part of free speech.

Now, the definition of hate speech is very broad, after a few years, it might be offensive to even say "He' or "She"

Pooping is one of the basic human rights. It doesn't mean I want to see people pooping in the street.

Keep your hate speech -- and your pooping -- to yourself.

Two entirely different things. There are places were people can poop that they don't have to in the street unless they have diarrhea or something.

Then people should only be speak hate in toilets then? ~~If they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.~~ Actually, the thought of someone in a public toilet telling me that all INSERT MINORITY NAME HERE should die is a bit creepy.

So let me rephrase: I'm fine with people being bigots and racists as long as they only involve the same audience that they have for their poops.

If that is true, then you are just a self-conceited little fascist who is pretending for be for human rights and defending the minorities but your objective is to classify everything you disagree with as hate speech and shut down the conversation, basically a control freak.

Maybe there should be more 'safe-spaces' in public.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/01/college-president-tells-students-to-grow-up-because-campus-not-meant-to-be-safe-space/

No, I only classify "hate speech" as the sort of speech that is designed to incite violence against minorities. If you think that's ok -- if that's the sort of conversation you have -- then calling me a fascist is the pot calling the kettle black.

Question arises, who is the arbiter of what is hate speech and what is not. If it is the government via legislative actions, they will eventually widen the term and add a lot of things as hate speech.

People are entitled to their opinions even if it something which is disagreeable. Throughout history, from Galileo, it was a hate speech to say something that contradicted the views of those times and shook the majority of views.

What if it was flipped around and it was your opinions that was hate speech and not the other way around?

Hate speech is just orwellian code name to control opposite views.

I can never be the pot or the kettle, I believe in your free speech.

The difference between "opinion" and "inciting people to murder" is vast. If you like I'll only refer to "hate speech" as "murder speech".