Lets talk about Hate Speech

[williamcardno]

IN THIS VIDEO I DESCRIBE HATE SPEECH:


I think Hate Speech should be limited to inciting illegal actions against a targeted group.

How do you feel about Hate Speech laws?

 

[Rosenrot]

I agree with King Heathen. People should've rebutted it and let it go.
Hate speech laws are silly. If someone wants to say something offensive, he should be permitted to do so, as are people permitted to make their counterpoints and prove the other person wrong.
Hate speech laws are just an excuse by politicians (so they can say they did something) when someone asks them to make a difference and to educate people against hating different people.

 

[williamcardno]

Hate speech laws are just an excuse by politicians (so they can say they did something) when someone asks them to make a difference and to educate people against hating different people.

Hate speech laws are preventative measures, which is why I would confine it to inciting illegal actions against groups of people. It is effectively meant to stifle people like the klan and to avoid the emergence of another Hitler type. In that sense I think they should be in place. But as for words like "fag" or "nigger", i wouldn't consider that hate speech. It's not until you are inciting actual legit hatred against the targeted group in question that you are violating that law.

As for the add - yes, people should rebut it. But acknowledging the intentions behind it is just as important as countering the arguments. The add exists for no other purpose than to incite xenophobia and hatred against the LGBT community and therefore is subject to hate speech laws - esp on YouTube where international laws come into effect.

 

[Rosenrot]

Well, I somewhat agree. But the actions of an anonymous population can achieve more than corporate jackoffs like the people who made the ad in the first place.
If the people who made the ad ridicule, guess what what's coming their way?
And as for organized Hate Speech (Klan etc.), I think they're wrong not 'cause they're calling people niggers, but because they burned crosses on people's yards and killed people = Those are destruction of property and murder.
Hate SPEECH only includes words, and I doubt you can outlaw speech regardless of what kind. If someone is too stupid to disagree with lies, maybe they're unfit for a society that does and the society will ridicule them.

 

[williamcardno]

And as for organized Hate Speech (Klan etc.), I think they're wrong not 'cause they're calling people niggers, but because they burned crosses on people's yards and killed people = Those are destruction of property and murder.
Hate SPEECH only includes words, and I doubt you can outlaw speech regardless of what kind. If someone is too stupid to disagree with lies, maybe they're unfit for a society that does and the society will ridicule them.

Hate Speech is actually just inciting people to do those things. not using words devoid of context, but using words for the sole expressed purpose of inciting those kinds of acts.

 

[Rosenrot]

Telling people to commit a criminal activity is called conspiracy not hate speech. And appropriate laws are present for such activities, but then again, I'm not sure if that's in international law?

 

[williamcardno]

Telling people to commit a criminal activity is called conspiracy not hate speech. And appropriate laws are present for such activities, but then again, I'm not sure if that's in international law?

Inciting criminal activity is not the same as telling people to commit it. If i convince you the jews are evil, and you perpetuate violence against jewish people, we are both complicit because I had used hate speech.

 

[Rosenrot]

Simply telling me that Jews are evil isn't a crime, and I doubt someone can draw the conclusion that Jews need to be killed because of what you said, otherwise half the world would've been dead.
Again, I'd say that if someone does a criminal activity because of what someone says it's their fault, not the person who said something.
I guess your theory could be applied if I called you a jack off, and you'd kill me for it, but I realize that's a bit ... quacky.

 

[williamcardno]

Simply telling me that Jews are evil isn't a crime, and I doubt someone can draw the conclusion that Jews need to be killed because of what you said, otherwise half the world would've been dead.
Again, I'd say that if someone does a criminal activity because of what someone says it's their fault, not the person who said something.
I guess your theory could be applied if I called you a jack off, and you'd kill me for it, but I realize that's a bit ... quacky.

I think you miss the point. Inciting illegal action against a group makes you an accessory to the crime. Hate speech punishes the accessories for the actions of the criminal. It's about dehumanizing people and creating violent division - and i emphasize violent. The example I gave is lackluster, yes... but a better example would be if someone sees that add and goes out beating up people at gay bars because "homosexuals are taking away our rights".
That's where my concern is - and that's where hate speech is important to recognize.
It's not enough to prove arguments wrong - we also have to ensure that slandering a group of people for the sole express purpose of inciting illegal action against them, dehumanizing them through language, is stopped at every turn with the full force of the law. It's a way of putting our foot down and saying "your opinion is yours and yours alone - but you are not allowed to be a viable threat to these people by convincing others to harass and perpetuate acts of violence against that group."

 

[Rosenrot]

Well, You got me there, I failed to note that they were saying that they're losing rights because of us.
In that case I agree with You completely, but I think there should be a new term in place to describe that kind of behaviour. I think it's still in the border between Hatespeech and Conspiracy.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think part of the problem is that some people, not only well-meaning folks but also including the racists and enablers of racism, have stretched the meaning of "hate speech" to the point that it seems ridiculous. Do-gooders may have stretched it to the point where anything mean qualifies as "hate speech"... which of course plays right into the hands of the racists, who then start crying about "political correctness", the phrase they automatically use to describe anything that doesn't endorse their personality defects.

It has gotten to the point that the phrase has become so politically loaded, and so demonized by the racists and their sympathizers, that we might as well bag it and start over.

 

[williamcardno]

I think part of the problem is that some people, not only well-meaning folks but also including the racists and enablers of racism, have stretched the meaning of "hate speech" to the point that it seems ridiculous. Do-gooders may have stretched it to the point where anything mean qualifies as "hate speech"... which of course plays right into the hands of the racists, who then start crying about "political correctness", the phrase they automatically use to describe anything that doesn't endorse their personality defects.

It has gotten to the point that the phrase has become so politically loaded, and so demonized by the racists and their sympathizers, that we might as well bag it and start over.

I agree - which is why i think it should strictly be regimented to inciting illegal action or hatred towards a targeted group and not just calling people "fag" or "nigger" on the street.
By the original definition, hate speech cannot be intended for the minority it seeks to oppress because it needs to be used to incite hatred against, not directly project it on the individual minority.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Inciting criminal activity is not the same as telling people to commit it. If i convince you the jews are evil, and you perpetuate violence against jewish people, we are both complicit because I had used hate speech.

So would you stick by this conviction if some wack-job anti-theist burned down a crowded church because he saw Dawkin's "Root of all Evil" movie and came to the conclusion that the best remedy is death to religious folks?

 

[Aught3]

I'm not sure about hate speech it seems a very tricky point of law. Part of the problem might be the name of it. I'm perfectly ok with people hating other people and expressing that hated, I want to hear what people have to say so I know what they're thinking and whether or not I can right off their opinions and ignore them in future.

Maybe, as ImprobableJoe said, we need to scrap the current hate speech laws (which don't seem to be working anyway) and build up a new set. We already have incitement to riot and conspiracy laws, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to enact an 'incitement to violence' law which I think would cover most of what you are talking about.