What is 'Hate Speech'?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Silvanus:
SNIP

But my point is that anyone who is accused of committing a hate crime can just say they don't agree with the power dynamic difference, therefore its not a hate crime, and ignoring their protest is oppression.
If the context is different for every individual case, then how can you ever prove a hate crime when someone can just say they don't agree with that context?

trunkage:

CM156:
A concept that doesn't really exist in my nation's laws, which is something I'm very great for. Along with the absence of criminal defamation (relegating it to a tort and only as such).

I know I may be jumping to conclusion here, but perhaps there's a correlation between this and murder rates?

Considering how murder rates vary greatly across the USA (and all states lack hate speech laws), I'm going to put a big doubt on that.

CM156:

trunkage:

CM156:
A concept that doesn't really exist in my nation's laws, which is something I'm very great for. Along with the absence of criminal defamation (relegating it to a tort and only as such).

I know I may be jumping to conclusion here, but perhaps there's a correlation between this and murder rates?

Considering how murder rates vary greatly across the USA (and all states lack hate speech laws), I'm going to put a big doubt on that.

Income inequality and respect are a good determining factor impacting Murder rates:

While on the surface, the disputes that triggered these deaths seem trivial ? each involved apparently small disagreements and a sense of being seen as inferior and unworthy of respect ? research suggests that inequality raises the stakes of fights for status among men.
The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status ? like a good job and the ability to support a family ? matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates "better than any other variable", says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

This includes factors like rates of gun ownership (which also rise when inequality does) and cultural traits like placing more emphasis on "honor" (this, too, turns out to be linked with inequality). "About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates," says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust.

According to the FBI, just over half of murders in which the precipitating circumstances were known were set off by what is called the "other argument" ? not a robbery, a love triangle, drugs, domestic violence or money, but simply the sense that someone had been dissed.

When someone bumps into someone on the dance floor, looks too long at someone else's girlfriend or makes an insulting remark, it doesn't threaten the self-respect of people who have other types of status the way it can when you feel this is your only source of value.

"If your social reputation in that milieu is all you've got, you've got to defend it," says Daly. "Inequality makes these confrontations more fraught because there?s much more at stake when there are winners and losers and you can see that you are on track to be one of the losers."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Inequality is a primary driving force as well as respect, and yes, " hate speech" can be included in regards to the respect factor. Someone who is already experiencing inequality then encounters something as disrespectful as hate speech against them, the situation can become explosive very quickly. These things actually do often go hand in hand as the same groups are frequently recipients of the combination of both inequality and hate speech directed at them simultaneously.

Lil devils x:

CM156:

trunkage:
I know I may be jumping to conclusion here, but perhaps there's a correlation between this and murder rates?

Considering how murder rates vary greatly across the USA (and all states lack hate speech laws), I'm going to put a big doubt on that.

Income inequality and respect are a good determining factor impacting Murder rates:

While on the surface, the disputes that triggered these deaths seem trivial ? each involved apparently small disagreements and a sense of being seen as inferior and unworthy of respect ? research suggests that inequality raises the stakes of fights for status among men.
The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status ? like a good job and the ability to support a family ? matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates "better than any other variable", says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

This includes factors like rates of gun ownership (which also rise when inequality does) and cultural traits like placing more emphasis on "honor" (this, too, turns out to be linked with inequality). "About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates," says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust.

According to the FBI, just over half of murders in which the precipitating circumstances were known were set off by what is called the "other argument" ? not a robbery, a love triangle, drugs, domestic violence or money, but simply the sense that someone had been dissed.

When someone bumps into someone on the dance floor, looks too long at someone else's girlfriend or makes an insulting remark, it doesn't threaten the self-respect of people who have other types of status the way it can when you feel this is your only source of value.

"If your social reputation in that milieu is all you've got, you've got to defend it," says Daly. "Inequality makes these confrontations more fraught because there?s much more at stake when there are winners and losers and you can see that you are on track to be one of the losers."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Inequality is a primary driving force as well as respect, and yes, " hate speech" can be included in regards to the respect factor. Someone who is already experiencing inequality then encounters something as disrespectful as hate speech against them, the situation can become explosive very quickly. These things actually do often go hand in hand as the same groups are frequently recipients of the combination of both inequality and hate speech directed at them simultaneously.

Your link between inequality/poverty is one backed by science.
The link between hate speech and murder is pure speculation, based on a jump from "respect" (which can mean a large number of things) to "hate speech". Need I list examples of countries with hate speech laws (like Brazil, which has it in the constitution) that have much higher rates of murder or other violent crime? Russia is another example. Oh, and South Africa too.

And yes, there have been acts of violence in response to words. Though I would argue that if someone is willing to kill me for mere speech, any contemptuous thing I say about them is proven correct. I'm currently reading through The Tyranny of Silence right now. Excellent book.

EDIT: I'll further add that violent crime (including murder) is on the decline in the USA. If hate speech and crime are positively correlated, we would expect to see an increase, considering that hateful media is easier to publish and disseminate, now more than ever, due to the internet. Before, if you wanted to radicalize someone, you lend them your copy of The Turner Diaries. Now, you have so many more options.

CM156:

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Considering how murder rates vary greatly across the USA (and all states lack hate speech laws), I'm going to put a big doubt on that.

Income inequality and respect are a good determining factor impacting Murder rates:

While on the surface, the disputes that triggered these deaths seem trivial ? each involved apparently small disagreements and a sense of being seen as inferior and unworthy of respect ? research suggests that inequality raises the stakes of fights for status among men.
The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status ? like a good job and the ability to support a family ? matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates "better than any other variable", says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

This includes factors like rates of gun ownership (which also rise when inequality does) and cultural traits like placing more emphasis on "honor" (this, too, turns out to be linked with inequality). "About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates," says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust.

According to the FBI, just over half of murders in which the precipitating circumstances were known were set off by what is called the "other argument" ? not a robbery, a love triangle, drugs, domestic violence or money, but simply the sense that someone had been dissed.

When someone bumps into someone on the dance floor, looks too long at someone else's girlfriend or makes an insulting remark, it doesn't threaten the self-respect of people who have other types of status the way it can when you feel this is your only source of value.

"If your social reputation in that milieu is all you've got, you've got to defend it," says Daly. "Inequality makes these confrontations more fraught because there?s much more at stake when there are winners and losers and you can see that you are on track to be one of the losers."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Inequality is a primary driving force as well as respect, and yes, " hate speech" can be included in regards to the respect factor. Someone who is already experiencing inequality then encounters something as disrespectful as hate speech against them, the situation can become explosive very quickly. These things actually do often go hand in hand as the same groups are frequently recipients of the combination of both inequality and hate speech directed at them simultaneously.

Your link between inequality/poverty is one backed by science.
The link between hate speech and murder is pure speculation, based on a jump from "respect" (which can mean a large number of things) to "hate speech". Need I list examples of countries with hate speech laws (like Brazil, which has it in the constitution) that have much higher rates of murder or other violent crime? Russia is another example. Oh, and South Africa too.

And yes, there have been acts of violence in response to words. Though I would argue that if someone is willing to kill me for mere speech, any contemptuous thing I say about them is proven correct. I'm currently reading through The Tyranny of Silence right now. Excellent book.

Hate speech is an obvious disrespect, of course it is not the ONLY form of disrespect, but it is obviously disrespectful. It would fall under " respect" in general as it should be included, rather than excluded. It is the combination of inequality and disrespect, as the anger builds from the inequality, and the disrespect at that point is just the match that sets off the inferno.

Lil devils x:
Hate speech is an obvious disrespect, of course it is not the ONLY form of disrespect, but it is obviously disrespectful. It would fall under " respect" in general as it should be included, rather than excluded. It is the combination of inequality and disrespect, as the anger builds from the inequality, and the disrespect at that point is just the match that sets off the inferno.

The problem with this reasoning is that if you argue for hate speech laws under this frame is that it then brings up the idea that other disrespectful speech should be restrained. Which is of course totally outside the powers of the government.

Unless you can show me numbers that show that hate speech, specifically, has some causal effect on the murder rate in a statistically significant way, then I'm simply not convinced.

You can have my hate when you pry it from my cold dead lips.

CM156:

Lil devils x:
Hate speech is an obvious disrespect, of course it is not the ONLY form of disrespect, but it is obviously disrespectful. It would fall under " respect" in general as it should be included, rather than excluded. It is the combination of inequality and disrespect, as the anger builds from the inequality, and the disrespect at that point is just the match that sets off the inferno.

The problem with this reasoning is that if you argue for hate speech laws under this frame is that it then brings up the idea that other disrespectful speech should be restrained. Which is of course totally outside the powers of the government.

Unless you can show me numbers that show that hate speech, specifically, has some causal effect on the murder rate in a statistically significant way, then I'm simply not convinced.

You can have my hate when you pry it from my cold dead lips.

I never took you for someone who goes around actually using hate speech to be able to pry it out of your cold dead lips. :p
Stats on hate crimes can be found here:
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

Of course in reality though there is no way to know if hate speech was used for sure however, unless you have actual witnesses to the murder.

Though in these circumstances, it is usually the person who is using hate speech that harmed or killed someone not the person defending themselves.

Lil devils x:
I never took you for someone who goes around actually using hate speech to be able to pry it out of your cold dead lips. :p

Not frequently. But I still defend it on, if nothing else, principle.

Of course in reality though there is no way to know if hate speech was used for sure however, unless you have actual witnesses to the murder.

So in other words, no, there's no provable causal link between hate speech legality and crime.

CM156:

Lil devils x:
Hate speech is an obvious disrespect, of course it is not the ONLY form of disrespect, but it is obviously disrespectful. It would fall under " respect" in general as it should be included, rather than excluded. It is the combination of inequality and disrespect, as the anger builds from the inequality, and the disrespect at that point is just the match that sets off the inferno.

The problem with this reasoning is that if you argue for hate speech laws under this frame is that it then brings up the idea that other disrespectful speech should be restrained. Which is of course totally outside the powers of the government.

Unless you can show me numbers that show that hate speech, specifically, has some causal effect on the murder rate in a statistically significant way, then I'm simply not convinced.

You can have my hate when you pry it from my cold dead lips.

Firstly, I made the comment jokingly. But sort of not. I see hate speech leading to the victims being devalued and having less chance of getting a job. You already pointed out that inequality leads to violence (which I kind of dispute, as I don't think that happens in every country.) There isn't real evidence leading people not getting jobs from hate speech, but there is plenty on a boss perception leading to non-diversity hires, less pay and reduced chances for promotion.

I'd also submit that all this Political Correctness is society self policing hate speech. I would submit that this helps reduce the murder rate but I have no evidence. But if you look at the Political Correctness of the 50s (Lavender Scare stuff - anti-communist, anti-woman, anti-colour, anti-LGBT etc.) and how that did lead to violence, at least today's PC leads to less.

Silentpony:

But my point is that anyone who is accused of committing a hate crime can just say they don't agree with the power dynamic difference, therefore its not a hate crime, and ignoring their protest is oppression.

Yes, and anybody in any trial can say they don't agree with the ruling. So what?

Silentpony:

If the context is different for every individual case, then how can you ever prove a hate crime when someone can just say they don't agree with that context?

The Defence disagrees with the Prosecution; it's the job of the judiciary system to make a decision. That's not some unique element which delegitimises hate crime; it's actually expected, and occurs in every trial for every crime, as a normal part of the process.

The context is going to be different, but those differences are not going to be immensely and radically different in every trial. As with all law, the judiciary will set a precedent with earlier cases, and refer back to that in future cases which have similarities. If there are major differentiating factors, those will be discussed, and it'll then be discussed whether or not they constitute grounds for a different ruling.

This really is just regular process. I have no idea why somebody disagreeing would present some major obstacle in this case.

CM156:

The problem with this reasoning is that if you argue for hate speech laws under this frame is that it then brings up the idea that other disrespectful speech should be restrained. Which is of course totally outside the powers of the government.

The Slippery Slope, then.

"If we argue for laws against assault, it then brings up the idea that all other physical contact should be restrained. Which is of course totally outside the powers of the government".

Throughout history, people and powers have banded together for the sole purposes of working towards ridding the planet of other people who had the sheer gall to be born different to "the norm." Groups form on that basis alone and attack other humans on that basis alone. It is organised crime pushed and initiated by specifically the speech they utilise that wallows in lies, misinformation and veiled truthes that serve only the single purpose of harming other humans. It is the duty of any political power to protect their local humans from the other local humans looking to harm each other. And to do that efficiently, the source of the ignorance has to be focused on and made an example of that it is not only completely wrong, but fundamentally proven to be mortally dangerous to others throughout all of fucking history with zero upsides whatsoever. To protect hate speech is willfully ignoring all of human history and nature in oppression and annihilation of those deemed abnormal especially within political power structures in times not even that long ago.

There is absolutely no positive reason hate speech has to exist freely unless there are sympathies with those who dabble in it. What purpose does it serve otherwise? It has none. Anybody got any plans for promoting further deaths of minorities in the future to groups that want it so bad? Maybe I'm just an outlier too drunk on prog-socialist Kool-aid to think anybody other than me hasn't.

The definition seems relatively simple: speech that it is aimed at inciting hatred. The problem lies in defining that. Saying we should "kill all X" seems obvious (and would also fall under inciting violence). But is criticizing a group also inciting hatred? Is refusing to use a particular pronoun? Because unfortunately that has been labeled as "hate speech" by some radicals. And that is why "hate speech" shouldn't ever be policed (by law). Inciting violence can at least be defined narrowly as containing demands or commands of committing violence against people.

generals3:
The definition seems relatively simple: speech that it is aimed at inciting hatred. The problem lies in defining that. Saying we should "kill all X" seems obvious (and would also fall under inciting violence). But is criticizing a group also inciting hatred?

What's the criticism?

generals3:

Is refusing to use a particular pronoun? Because unfortunately that has been labeled as "hate speech" by some radicals.

What's the context? Refusal on its own is not hate speech, but refusal coupled with personally-directed tirades about identity politics could be. I've seen the latter.

generals3:

And that is why "hate speech" shouldn't ever be policed (by law). Inciting violence can at least be defined narrowly as containing demands or commands of committing violence against people.

If the reason is the lack of a narrowly-defined standard, then that doesn't sense. Law simply does not contain that requirement. The role of the judiciary is to establish precedent and interpret.

Silvanus:

What's the criticism?

It can be all kinds of criticism, their general very conservative social norms, their unreasonable religious lobbying, prevalence of terrorism, crime, unemployment. The criticism and reasons to criticize matter little, you'll always have some radicals calling it hate speech or comparing it to Nazi-like propaganda.

I could bring up a very specific example of an investigative report made by our lefty public tv channel about integration issues among muslims and how a socialist politician compared that to Goebbels' propaganda (despite the fact the report was very tame and not as one sided as you'd expect from something being compared to nazi propaganda).

What's the context? Refusal on its own is not hate speech, but refusal coupled with personally-directed tirades about identity politics could be. I've seen the latter.

Why could it be? is being against identity politics hate speech? If anything the tirade about identity politics proves it's not about hatred towards the particular group of people which feels "hated" by his/her stance on pronoun usage. I'd say your response is making my case.

If the reason is the lack of a narrowly-defined standard, then that doesn't sense. Law simply does not contain that requirement. The role of the judiciary is to establish precedent and interpret.

Actually the law does. Speeding limits aren't defined as "driving too fast", there are specific rules, the same goes for murder, theft, divorce laws, labor laws, drug use, immigration laws, environmental laws, etc. Some civil laws use vague concepts which are open to interpretations but luckily they don't have any links to political agenda's.

This doesn't mean judges don't have any leeway, they do, but most of it lies with judging the person and the circumstances, not so much in the decision whether or not a specific action is against the law.

So yeah, when policing my speech I'd hope we only enact laws which aren't wide open to interpretation. That's just opening the gateways to full censorship.

generals3:

It can be all kinds of criticism, their general very conservative social norms, their unreasonable religious lobbying, prevalence of terrorism, crime, unemployment. The criticism and reasons to criticize matter little, you'll always have some radicals calling it hate speech or comparing it to Nazi-like propaganda.

I could bring up a very specific example of an investigative report made by our lefty public tv channel about integration issues among muslims and how a socialist politician compared that to Goebbels' propaganda (despite the fact the report was very tame and not as one sided as you'd expect from something being compared to nazi propaganda).

Right. Well, in which case, if the criticism attempts to link those issues inherently to specific innate characteristics, and is coupled with obviously degrading and insulting language, then it's not got a single foot in reality or rationality, and can be deemed hate speech.

generals3:

Why could it be? is being against identity politics hate speech? If anything the tirade about identity politics proves it's not about hatred towards a particular group of people. I'd say your response is making my case.

You've taken that particular phrase from my response without engaging with the response in its entirety, and ignored the spirit of the response.

Again: "personally-directed tirades about identity politics". Quite obviously, that does not mean merely "being against identity politics".

generals3:

Actually the law does. Speeding limits aren't defined as "driving too fast", there are specific rules, the same goes for murder, theft, divorce laws, labor laws, drug use, immigration laws, environmental laws, etc. Some civil laws use vague concepts which are open to interpretations but luckily they don't have any links to political agenda's.

This doesn't mean judges don't have any leeway, they do, but most of it lies with judging the person and the circumstances, not so much in the decision whether or not a specific action is against the law.

So yeah, when policing my speech I'd hope we only enact laws which aren't wide open to interpretation. That's just opening the gateways to full censorship.

Speeding? Yes, obviously, a number is required. In almost every other case, interpretation is required. This is the most basic and fundamental role of the judiciary.

A single, objective, inarguable standard does not exist for theft, assault, labour law, divorce, drug use, environmental law-- pretty much everything else you've brought up. Precedence and interpretation is relied upon in almost every case. Pretty rare are the instances in which judicial interpretation is rendered entirely irrelevant by a single numerical (or otherwise objective) standard, applicable across all instances.

Silvanus:

Right. Well, in which case, if the criticism attempts to link those issues inherently to specific innate characteristics, then it's not got a single foot in reality or rationality, and can be deemed hate speech.

Which it almost never does. Not even the modern far right dares to venture there publicly nowadays. Yet you still have plenty of non radical lefties who get accused of all kinds of bullshit.

You've taken that particular phrase from my response without engaging with the response in its entirety, and ignored the spirit of the response.

Again: "personally-directed tirades about identity politics". Quite obviously, that does not mean merely "being against identity politics".

How can you make a "personal" tirade about identity politics? Or just explain what you mean with that.

Speeding? Yes, obviously, a number is required. In almost every other case, interpretation is required. This is the most basic and fundamental role of the judiciary.

A single, objective, inarguable standard does not exist for theft, assault, labour law, divorce, drug use, environmental law-- pretty much everything else you've brought up. Precedence and interpretation is relied upon in almost every case. Pretty rare are the instances in which judicial interpretation is rendered entirely irrelevant by a single numerical (or otherwise objective) standard, applicable across all instances.

I'm going to say it bluntly: that's just plain wrong. Have you ever see someone getting charged for murder when no one even died, call me. Has anyone gotten convicted for theft without having property that has been proven to belong to someone else and gotten without authorization? And not because the evidence was wacky or someone made a false accusation. But because a judge actually decided to redefine those very narrowly defined crimes. The same goes for pretty much any other laws. Can you actually give a couple of examples of laws which is very broadly defined and very open to interpretation?

Silvanus:
"If we argue for laws against assault, it then brings up the idea that all other physical contact should be restrained. Which is of course totally outside the powers of the government".

Interesting argument, but an apples to oranges comparison. Assault is a malum in se while hate speech is very much not so.

That, and at least in my country, you would functionally be giving a seat at the table to republicans to draft up what things cannot be said without risk of legal sanction. Issues of judicial review don't come into play quite yet when you realize that this would require a constitutional amendment (or SCOTUS overturning its decades old 9-0 precedents) and the language of that would be controlling, not the first amendment. We've done just fine without hate speech laws, thank you.

I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind (by discussing your own ideas, not really being an asshole back to them) and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

I saw a cartoon that encapuslates this idea rather recently

And for good measure, here's another from the same artist in a similar theme:

The simplest answer is that "hate speech" is just another term for blasphemy laws.

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

I think Hate Speech is separate from Freedom of Speech. Thus people holding office would have to be exempt.

People keep thinking that being an asshole will make you lose. Citations please. Because, there are so many instances where that is not true. Starting from Trump. If you are the asshole, you are likely to win the argument. I presume, because people keep thinking that winning the argument has something to do with facts? And that's patently false.

Edited

trunkage:

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

I think Freedom of Speech is separate from Freedom of Speech. Thus people holding office would have to be exempt.

People keep thinking that being an asshole will make you lose. Citations please. Because, there are so many instances where that is not true. Starting from Trump. If you are the asshole, you are likely to win the argument. I presume, because people keep thinking that winning the argument has something to do with facts? And that's patently false.

I think I need to clarify (And edit ) my post. When I say "respond in kind," I mean to say, explain your own ideas, not neccessarily be an asshole in return.

CM156:

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

I saw a cartoon that encapuslates this idea rather recently

And for good measure, here's another from the same artist in a similar theme:

That's the risks of having an free speech society I'm afraid.

God, this thread got a bit dumb..

CM156:
The problem with this reasoning is that if you argue for hate speech laws under this frame is that it then brings up the idea that other disrespectful speech should be restrained.

Not really.

Like, you could maybe say that it brings up a public discussion about the limits of protected speech, but the legal framework of hatespeech is already pretty limiting and more than adequately defines it as something more than just "disrespectful" speech. When hatespeech legislation has been used questionably here in the UK it overwhelmingly relates to the "ironic" use of hateful language, not to mere disrespect.

CM156:
Assault is a malum in se while hate speech is very much not so.

So what you're saying is you think BDSM should be illegal.

Goddamn kinkshaming everywhere these days..

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No, it couldn't.

Hatespeech is applied on the basis of protected categories (and it is applied neutrally in regard to those categories). It also requires evidence that the category itself is the primary motivation for the hateful statement, and that the statement is actually hateful rather than merely antagonistic (hate is a very strong emotion). Like, if you showed up to protest a Donald Trump rally with a sign that said "kill all crackers", that could qualify as hatespeech.

WolvDragon:
I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind (by discussing your own ideas, not really being an asshole back to them) and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas.

It doesn't work that way though, does it.

Like, it would work if literally noone was an idiot, but plenty of people are idiots.

These people will watch Jordan Peterson or Sargon of Akkad get absolutely wrecked in a debate or ramble nonsensically in an interview, and then post a video titled "Jordan Peterson destroys a leftist tranny betacuck". They're not responding to the reasonable quality of the argument, they're not capable of recognizing who actually won or lost a debate, because they fundamentally don't believe in debate as a practice, and they think only weak-ass faggots do.

To us, being willing to change your mind in response to a convincing argument is a sign of intelligence and honesty. To them, it's a sign of weakness and corruption. To us, diverse and alternative opinions are a dialectic means of testing the truth of statements. To them, it's a sign of something wrong with the culture which needs to be fixed.

Extremists will not play by your rules, because they don't believe in your rules, and you can't argue persuade them into believing your rules because they see the capacity to be persuaded of anything as a sign of moral weakness. Extremists do not care about you, or your words, or what they say. They care about getting into the position where they can use violence to enforce their opinions.

Every extremist is a danger to someone, and if you let them speak, they won't speak to you because they don't care about your approval. They will speak to the people who will believe everything they say, who will make videos about how much they DESTROYED people, who will lap up all of the power and vindication those people can give them and then, quite possibly, go and take it out on someone else through violence.

Sure, we can't completely stop extremists, but then, that's not really the point of hatespeech laws anyway. Until Sargon starts ranting about how we need to gas the Jews, or Peterson starts targetting individual gay or trans people with tirades of queerphobic abuse, none of them have or will ever come close to what would qualify as hatespeech. The point is not to limit political disagreement, but to limit the use of speech to attack people or incite violence.

CM156:

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

I saw a cartoon that encapuslates this idea rather recently

And for good measure, here's another from the same artist in a similar theme:

Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

evilthecat:
God, this thread got a bit dumb..

CM156:
The problem with this reasoning is that if you argue for hate speech laws under this frame is that it then brings up the idea that other disrespectful speech should be restrained.

Not really.

Like, you could maybe say that it brings up a public discussion about the limits of protected speech, but the legal framework of hatespeech is already pretty limiting and more than adequately defines it as something more than just "disrespectful" speech. When hatespeech legislation has been used questionably here in the UK it overwhelmingly relates to the "ironic" use of hateful language, not to mere disrespect.

CM156:
Assault is a malum in se while hate speech is very much not so.

So what you're saying is you think BDSM should be illegal.

Goddamn kinkshaming everywhere these days..

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No, it couldn't.

Hatespeech is applied on the basis of protected categories (and it is applied neutrally in regard to those categories). It also requires evidence that the category itself is the primary motivation for the hateful statement, and that the statement is actually hateful rather than merely antagonistic (hate is a very strong emotion). Like, if you showed up to protest a Donald Trump rally with a sign that said "kill all crackers", that could qualify as hatespeech.

WolvDragon:
I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind (by discussing your own ideas, not really being an asshole back to them) and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas.

It doesn't work that way though, does it.

Like, it would work if literally noone was an idiot, but plenty of people are idiots.

These people will watch Jordan Peterson or Sargon of Akkad get absolutely wrecked in a debate or ramble nonsensically in an interview, and then post a video titled "Jordan Peterson destroys a leftist tranny betacuck". They're not responding to the reasonable quality of the argument, they're not capable of recognizing who actually won or lost a debate, because they fundamentally don't believe in debate as a practice, and they think only weak-ass faggots do.

To us, being willing to change your mind in response to a convincing argument is a sign of intelligence and honesty. To them, it's a sign of weakness and corruption. To us, diverse and alternative opinions are a dialectic means of testing the truth of statements. To them, it's a sign of something wrong with the culture which needs to be fixed.

Extremists will not play by your rules, because they don't believe in your rules, and you can't argue persuade them into believing your rules because they see the capacity to be persuaded of anything as a sign of moral weakness. Extremists do not care about you, or your words, or what they say. They care about getting into the position where they can use violence to enforce their opinions.

Every extremist is a danger to someone, and if you let them speak, they won't speak to you because they don't care about your approval. They will speak to the people who will believe everything they say, who will make videos about how much they DESTROYED people, who will lap up all of the power and vindication those people can give them and then, quite possibly, go and take it out on someone else through violence.

Sure, we can't completely stop extremists, but then, that's not really the point of hatespeech laws anyway. Until Sargon starts ranting about how we need to gas the Jews, or Peterson starts targetting individual gay or trans people with tirades of queerphobic abuse, none of them have or will ever come close to what would qualify as hatespeech. The point is not to limit political disagreement, but to limit the use of speech to attack people or incite violence.

I think we can agree on that inciting violence against others should be illegal and it's not a free speech thing.

But limiting a person's right to say whatever they want, as long it's not inciting violence against a group of people or attacking someone, is a bad idea. My original point still stands.

generals3:

Which it almost never does. Not even the modern far right dares to venture there publicly nowadays. Yet you still have plenty of non radical lefties who get accused of all kinds of bullshit.

This is nonsense. It very much happens; I've had it happen to me (at length).

generals3:

How can you make a "personal" tirade about identity politics? Or just explain what you mean with that.

A personal tirade being one which blames or degrades the individual, on the basis of their demographic and group.

generals3:

I'm going to say it bluntly: that's just plain wrong. Have you ever see someone getting charged for murder when no one even died, call me. Has anyone gotten convicted for theft without having property that has been proven to belong to someone else and gotten without authorization? And not because the evidence was wacky or someone made a false accusation. But because a judge actually decided to redefine those very narrowly defined crimes. The same goes for pretty much any other laws. Can you actually give a couple of examples of laws which is very broadly defined and very open to interpretation?

Yes, murder cannot be charged without a death. But if one person kills another, it is interpretation and precedent which determine whether it's manslaughter, murder, or something else. Plenty of theft cases have proven more complicated, and the case then relies on interpretation and context (intellectual theft; joint ownership; squatting or abandoned property, etc).

This is perhaps the most basic function of the judiciary.

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Yeah, unfortunately, sometimes to change people mind, you need actual violence. Then you get into what is the right cause to go to war for. Like, not all the Germans who died were Nazi. Did they deserve to die because their leaders were fascists?

CM156:

I saw a cartoon that encapuslates this idea rather recently

And for good measure, here's another from the same artist in a similar theme:

And to your first cartoon CM, thinking that this wouldn't been seen as a victory for the side that did it, is laughable in my eyes. The guys at Charlottesville seem to be patting their backs after one of their own ran over a Lefty. Because every side can find some reason for the violence. It definitely hasn't turned people against them who weren't already against them. In fact, its just polarized the situation more.

I get it man. You love Freedom. Freedom has a bunch of costs that aren't paid by the person with the Freedom. Because for you to have that Freedom, someone else has to be restricted. Peterson is a prime example. For him to have Freedom while lecturing, everyone else has their Freedom reduced. If the students and staff want Freedom, they would have to impose restrictions of Peterson. That's how Freedom works

Saelune:
I am sure this topic has come up before, now let's try it again.

What is hate speech? I do not think I need to ask any more than that, I am curious what everyone thinks it is.

Hate speech, legally speaking, is speech that incites or encourages violence or discrimination against members of a specific group on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, nationality or any other similarly irrelevant aspect of their identity.

I am broadly okay with the existence of misdemeanour hate speech offences, but only for a narrow interpretation of what it means to incite or encourage violence. Incitement offences already exist in many national jurisdictions, and I consider hate speech offences to simply be an extension of that logic.

But it's an extremely fine distinction, unfortunately. If a person says "I personally believe that all Jewish persons should be physically destroyed," then I would not consider that as inciting a crime. If that same person said "We should destroy the Jews," that would be incitement. In the former case, he is merely stating a tremendously unpopular and cruel opinion. In the latter case, he is actively advocating the perpetration of a crime. The former should be permitted; the latter should be prohibited.

The problem with having a criminal offence that revolves around a very thin distinction is that people will misunderstand and misrepresent it, purposefully or otherwise. So people will condemn the expression of an unpopular opinion as hate speech, even if it did not constitute incitement or encouragement of violence. And people who wish to incite or encourage violence will guard their words carefully so that they can plausibly deny any liability. The only antidote for that is for every person involved to have a really clear understanding of what does and does not constitute incitement. So unless every person on the Internet gains twenty IQ points and gets a law degree, this will always be a topic of controversy.

Silvanus:

This is nonsense. It very much happens; I've had it happen to me (at length).

I can't make a case about individual vs individual situations as I won't be able to witness and judge the situation as an outsider. My point was obviously about more public instances.

A personal tirade being one which blames or degrades the individual, on the basis of their demographic and group.

Well that's not the example I had in mind. And I have never seen that be associated with the "pronouns" issue. These tirades are usually seen when the radical left demonizes whites, capitalists, men, anyone more to the right than them or the far right vs the islam, neo-commies, jews,...

I would also like to ask you, If someone blames jews for many ills of the world is that hate speech? And now if someone does that because towards bankers? Or rich people? Or white people? Or Americans?
That's another reason I'm totally against policing hate speech. The ones advocating for it are themselves guilty of that crime but extremely oblivious to it. And to make it worse, the mainstream seems oblivious to it. Somehow we have reached a point where inciting hatred towards some groups is the "right thing to do" while criticism of others is de facto hatred. And living in a country where some judges are openly proud about their affiliation to the "socialist party" I dare not trust their judgement on what constitutes hate speech.

Yes, murder cannot be charged without a death. But if one person kills another, it is interpretation and precedent which determine whether it's manslaughter, murder, or something else. Plenty of theft cases have proven more complicated, and the case then relies on interpretation and context (intellectual theft; joint ownership; squatting or abandoned property, etc).

This is perhaps the most basic function of the judiciary.

Not really, it is still very narrow. The distinctions for murder & alike are based on intent. And intent is still a very narrow concept. "Hate" is not, it is a description of certain emotions and as we all know emotions are fluid.
Intellectual theft is also defined by precise rules, joint ownership too (doesn't mean conflicts among owners can't arise), and squatting too (the conflicts there usually arise due to conflicts with other laws or owners who are angry about the laws which protect the squatters). There are always objective elements which can be used to judge these cases, the issues often arise when there is an inability to sufficiently prove or disprove these elements are present.
But how do you prove your words were or weren't filled with a particular emotion? Mainly nowadays, when people get triggered by almost anything? How do you prove you aren't the one who is breaking the law but that the other has a very thin skin or is on LSD?
In some cases it's easy due to how black & white they are, most however, aren't. And when policing speech, a fundamental right of any democracy worth being called that, you better ensure the grey areas are as small as possible. Otherwise you get a situation like Turkey where vague terrorism laws are used to lock up opposition and journalists.

generals3:

I would also like to ask you, If someone blames jews for many ills of the world is that hate speech? And now if someone does that because towards bankers? Or rich people? Or white people? Or Americans?

Are they incitingviolence or vilification? If someone is inciting a mob to beat up Jews, that is very much bias crime.

Not really, it is still very narrow.

How?

The distinctions for murder & alike are based on intent.

Like death threats? Also punishable by law.

And intent is still a very narrow concept. "Hate" is not, it is a description of certain emotions and as we all know emotions are fluid.

Patently false, courts spend a tremendous amount of time ascertaining motives for crimes and the general susceptibility individual targets are for no fault of their own. Because people like LGBTQ members are common targets of villification and violence.

LGBTQ people are routinely targeted for public violence and vitriol. Bias crime provenly happens. And it should be treated as particularly odious. You know... like terrorism? Causing fear and injury to a group of people in a targeted attack for the sake of causing fear and injury to a specific group of people. Most nations with a basic understanding of how downright wicked this is rightly treat it as worse for a reason.

This is particularly true in cases of murders of people likethe LGBTQ community who are routinely targeted with hatred both historically and currently and suffer social hatreds to a far greater extent.

I would go so far as to say it's worse than terrorism... given terrorism can be rooted in ideas of not targeting individuals but rather an economic system. Targeting the local power plant is not the same as murdering LGBTQ people because they are 'degenerates'.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Are they incitingviolence or vilification? If someone is inciting a mob to beat up Jews, that is very much bias crime.

Inciting violence can be clearly defined as I have already said from the get go.

The question remains. I have said nothing about anyone telling anyone to go kill or beat up people but what if: "someone blames jews for many ills of the world is that hate speech? And now if someone does that towards bankers? Or rich people? Or white people? Or Americans?"

Like death threats? Also punishable by law.

I'm confused. What are you trying to comment? What's the point you're trying to make? Do you even know what point I'm trying to make? I just don't know what to make of anything you're saying.

Patently false, courts spend a tremendous amount of time ascertaining motives for crimes and the general susceptibility individual targets are for no fault of their own. Because people like LGBTQ members are common targets of villification and violence.

But that doesn't determine whether or not a murder was actually committed or does it now? At most the emotional state/motivation of someone can act as an attenuating or aggravating circumstance. If I murder you because you're gay it's murder, If I murder you because I'm jealous of you it's murder, etc.

LGBTQ people are routinely targeted for public violence and vitriol. Bias crime provenly happens. And it should be treated as particularly odious.

You know... like terrorism? Causing fear and injury to a group of people ina targeted attack for thesake of causing fear and injury to a specific group of people. Nost nations with a basic understanding of how downright wicked this is rightly treat it as worse for a reason.

Haven't terrorism laws been criticized because of how they can be abused? Hasn't Turkey done just that? Doesn't that show the necessity to ensure laws are based on concepts which are not too open to interpretation?

And what about non LGBTQ people who get targeted by bias crimes? Should that be treated as particularly odious?

PS: I can't help but notice that you and others, in all your righteousness and fight for great justice, didn't give any negative reaction to CaitSeith's discriminatory definition of hate speech. A definition I could very well interpret as hate speech by the way. After all I see someone who wants to protect particular groups from negative actions while considering others as free targets. Sounds like quite hateful towards the groups who seem to be acceptable targets.

But hey apparently you have more issues with someone who doesn't want to legislate concepts which are too vague and thus open to abuse than someone who applies a discriminatory definition.

generals3:

Inciting violence can be clearly defined as I have already said from the get go.

The question remains. I have said nothing about anyone telling anyone to go kill or beat up people but what if: "someone blames jews for many ills of the world is that hate speech? And now if someone does that towards bankers? Or rich people? Or white people? Or Americans?"

'Rich people' are not at fear or social disadvantage, nor some easily demarcated target. I live off investments in the marketplace, am I 'rich'? I live in a fairly spartan apartment, though arguably my lifestyle is not. If someone were to target the systems of my wealth generation, I can hardly call it a personal attack.

If someone were to target me for being trans, that has particularly odious dimensions.

Any person can be 'rich'. But it's not like you can choose being LGBTQ. Being rich and LGBTQ would, in a world which routinely targets the wealthy, if taken over pre-existing hatreds, more than likely merit my destruction faster than your average 'rich' person. Do you, or do you not, recognize hatreds for such minority groups is already present? Because a quick glance at history is all one needs to show as such, and social problems are multifaceted.

I'm confused. What are you trying to comment? What's the point you're trying to make? Do you even know what point I'm trying to make? I just don't know what to make of anything you're saying.

That words and actions have weight depending on the provable nature of their intent.

But that doesn't determine whether or not a murder was actually committed or does it now? At most the emotional state/motivation of someone can act as an attenuating or aggravating circumstance. If I murder you because you're gay it's murder, If I murder you because I'm jealous of you it's murder, etc.

You can't have murder without the presumption of a corpse or corpses. If a person performs a vlog espousing hatred of trans people, and they are connected to the murder of a trans person, the motivations 9f that slaying are particularly odious when compared to, say, murdering someone because they are blackmailing you.

Motives matter. The fact that you do get routine abuses towards the LGBTQ community should be proof enough of that. And assuming people believe in the weight of people's equal expectations of opportunity and basic security, nations penalize active attempts to undermine that.

It's not like I have to consider the fears of blackmailers everywhere, but I do have to consider what it says about a society willing to treat LGBTQ like garbage and less deserving of basic aspects of their security, expression, and reasonable expectations.

Haven't terrorism laws been criticized because of how they can be abused? Hasn't Turkey done just that? Doesn't that show the necessity to ensure laws are based on concepts which are not too open to interpretation?

You do understand you have to prove bias crime occurred? See the problem comes down to the nature of people's relationships. If I blackmail someone, I carry the expectation of hostility. Me being trans, just wandering the street, and someone cracks my head open with a brick from behind in cold blood, due to them knowing I'm trans and motivates that attack... that is far worse for the public at large and that community of people who will see themselves as a potential victim in such a heinous act regardless of their actual agency.

It deserves additional weight of punishment assuming a society exists to recognize people deserve an equality of opportunity and equality of reasonable expectations to live.

And what about non LGBTQ people who get targeted by bias crimes? Should that be treated as particularly odious?

Depends on the legitimacy of the targeted group and how natural it is for people to recognize the social hatreds they face.

But hey apparently you have more issues with someone who doesn't want to legislate concepts which are too vague and thus open to abuse than someone who wants discriminatory legislation.

As opposed to someone who recognizes motive for actions are important and merit alternating reasons for involuntary detention? Someone who cannot function in a reasonable fashion due to mental health concerns merits different evaluation of their activities.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

'Rich people' are not at fear or social disadvantage, nor some easily demarcated target. I live off investments in the marketplace, am I 'rich'? I live in a fairly spartan apartment, though arguably my lifestyle is not. If someone were to target the systems of my wealth generation, I can hardly call it a personal attack.

If someone were to target me for being trans, that has particularly odious dimensions.

Any person can be 'rich'. But it's not like you can choose being LGBTQ. Being rich and LGBTQ would, in a world which routinely targets the wealthy, if taken over pre-existing hatreds, more than likely merit my destruction faster than your average 'rich' person. Do you, or do you not, recognize hatreds for such minority groups is already present? Because a quick glance at history is all one needs to show as such, and social problems are multifaceted.

Rich people are not at fear? That must be why they do not avoid certain neighborhoods or at the very least avoid showing their "richness" and that's also why rich people never have alarm systems. At best you can say rich people have the ability to throw money at their problems.

But that still leaves out "whites", "americans", etc.

And you must have forgotten your history. Rich people and societies have often been the target of hatred and crimes. Not too long ago some radical lefties decided it was ok to kill them. You know it happened right at the doorsteps of Europe and spread throughout eastern European. It was caused by an ideology symbolized by a hammer and sickle. You know that symbol radical left hatemongers like to wave on the streets and college campuses?

That words and actions have weight depending on the provable nature of their intent.

Which in no way disputes anything I have said.

You can't have murder without the presumption of a corpse or corpses. If a person performs a vlog espousing hatred of trans people, and they are connected to the murder of a trans person, the motivations 9f that slaying are particularly odious when compared to, say, murdering someone because they are blackmailing you.

Aggravating vs attenuating circumstance. Doesn't change the definition of murder...

Motives matter.

Never said they didn't.

The fact that you do get routine abuses towards the LGBTQ community should be proof enough of that. And assuming people believe in the weight of people's equal expectations of opportunity and basic security, nations penalize active attempts to undermine that.

How do you determine something is an active attempt to undermine that? How do you determine whether or not someone was inciting hatred?

You do understand you have to prove bias crime occurred?

You do understand "proving" a nebulously defined action occurred becomes extremely nebulous itself? Inciting hatred is a nebulous action which has been proven to mean all kind of things depending on who you ask. Even bigoted definitions are a-ok apparently, as proven in this topic. So how do you prove something ill defined happened? That's the issue.

Depends on the legitimacy of the targeted group and how natural it is for people to recognize the social hatreds they face.

Wait what? Now you or "the people" (whatever that may be) get to basically decide who is an acceptable target? Well what if the people decide LGBTQ people are an acceptable target?

As opposed to someone who recognizes motive for actions are important and merit alternating reasons for involuntary detention? Someone who cannot function in a reasonable fashion due to mental health concerns merits different evaluation of their activities.

Who recognizes motive? I saw a bigoted definition that only recognized minorities as potential victims, period. That has nothing to do with motive. It's plain hypocritical discrimination.

The fact you have been defending and justifying double standards and discrimination throughout this response is highly disappointing.

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Except they *weren't* stopped long term. The fact that we're debating this is somewhat proof of that. The war stopped Nazi Germany, but that no more spelled an end to fascism than the fall of Revolutionary Catalonia spelled an end to Anarchism or the fall of the USSR spelled an end to communism. You can't kill an idea, even a bad idea, through use of force.

trunkage:
I get it man. You love Freedom. Freedom has a bunch of costs that aren't paid by the person with the Freedom. Because for you to have that Freedom, someone else has to be restricted. Peterson is a prime example. For him to have Freedom while lecturing, everyone else has their Freedom reduced. If the students and staff want Freedom, they would have to impose restrictions of Peterson. That's how Freedom works

I wouldn't really call attempting to impose a heckler's veto to be freedom but whatevs. And I would certainly hold Freedom of Speech to be a more important freedom than whatever those trying to shut down a speaker might cite.

evilthecat:
God, this thread got a bit dumb..

Like, you could maybe say that it brings up a public discussion about the limits of protected speech, but the legal framework of hatespeech is already pretty limiting and more than adequately defines it as something more than just "disrespectful" speech. When hatespeech legislation has been used questionably here in the UK it overwhelmingly relates to the "ironic" use of hateful language, not to mere disrespect.

Used questionably? Bit of an understatement there.

So what you're saying is you think BDSM should be illegal.

Goddamn kinkshaming everywhere these days..

Kinkshaming and hate speech are my kinks.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here