Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
[Hate Speech]: how America (and the world) deals with it
Hacksaw
The "New Scum"Registered User regular
The "New Scum"Registered User regular
I'm making this thread so we can stop pooping up the LGBT thread with a tangent on it. Discuss here!
I'll make my own contribution to start things off: My senior year of college I read The Laramie Project for a Theatrical Literature course.
If you haven't read/seen it, I recommend doing so (they even made a movie out of it, so you don't have to wait to see it on stage). It's powerful stuff. Mighty depressing, and also mighty uplifting at the same time. For those of you who can't be arsed to do so, the crux of the play is thus: a young man named Matthew Shepard is murdered for the crime of being gay in Laramie, Wyoming. The whole thing, predictably, causes a stir, with some locals not approving of his "lifestyle choice" and others, while not embracing "the gay", shocked and outraged that such a nice young man and wonderful pillar of the community would be the target of a crime as heinous and awful as hate-motivated murder. Eventually national attention is drawn to the case, and hate crime legislation is passed at the national and state levels because of it. Matthew Shepard's death sparked the beginning of a new line of debate in existing hate crime legislation, the idea that sexuality ought to be a protected class. We're still having that debate today, but LGBT advocates are winning that debate, so EAT IT HATEMONGERS.
Also, Fred Phelps makes an appearance in the play, and says all the predictably nasty shit you'd imagine he would.
@Melkster @Regina Fong @Magic Pink
I'll make my own contribution to start things off: My senior year of college I read The Laramie Project for a Theatrical Literature course.
If you haven't read/seen it, I recommend doing so (they even made a movie out of it, so you don't have to wait to see it on stage). It's powerful stuff. Mighty depressing, and also mighty uplifting at the same time. For those of you who can't be arsed to do so, the crux of the play is thus: a young man named Matthew Shepard is murdered for the crime of being gay in Laramie, Wyoming. The whole thing, predictably, causes a stir, with some locals not approving of his "lifestyle choice" and others, while not embracing "the gay", shocked and outraged that such a nice young man and wonderful pillar of the community would be the target of a crime as heinous and awful as hate-motivated murder. Eventually national attention is drawn to the case, and hate crime legislation is passed at the national and state levels because of it. Matthew Shepard's death sparked the beginning of a new line of debate in existing hate crime legislation, the idea that sexuality ought to be a protected class. We're still having that debate today, but LGBT advocates are winning that debate, so EAT IT HATEMONGERS.
Also, Fred Phelps makes an appearance in the play, and says all the predictably nasty shit you'd imagine he would.
@Melkster @Regina Fong @Magic Pink
0
Posts
Though discussing it further would probably benefit from its own thread.
It doesn't matter what it's attributed to. It's one group in power saying that another group can't say something in public. It's a two way street; either some stuff can be illegal to say or nothing is.
So in the U.S. if someone shows up at your house with a can of gasoline and starts talking about "those evil abortionists" and you tell them "yes, that one down the street is really bad someone should burn it down, with gasoline. Possibly the can of gasoline you're holding there." They might run afoul. Maybe. But probably not.
Whereas in most of the rest of the first world giving a speech in which you say that abortion clinics deserve to be burned down will likely get you nailed. But not here.
We all have "freedom of speech" and enjoy it. Personally though I'm not so in love with the way we handle hate speech. I think little actual civilized freedom is lost by drawing the line just behind vaguely inciting violence and mayhem, instead of only drawing it behind actually giving the guy holding the gas can a direct order.
The slippery slope argument is pretty much garbage. European countries have had these hate crime laws (especially as it relates to Jewish people) for a long long time, and occasionally some asshat gets fined for firing off in a coffee shop about "those damn Jews" but that's about the extent of it. Those hate crimes laws have not materialized into the sort of sweeping restrictions on political speech which naysayers warn of.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
So using it as an example becomes a tautology: "If a country doesn't have free speech then speech will be restricted"
Whereas countries that absolutely do have free speech, like Canada, can have hate speech laws without erosion of free political speech. So it's very much a case where if you don't have free speech to begin with, then yeah, you're going to see all kinds of offensive strictures placed on speech.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
I agree, and I know it's not a popular opinion, but I don't really understand the hard-on for free speech. Bigotry is severely damaging to society, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having it be punishable by law. I know people are paranoid that if you start limiting free speech, the government will start to censor criticism, but we should find a way to enshrine "the government shall make no attempt to censor or suppress criticism of the government, its policies, decisions, structure, very existence, etc." while also making hate speech illegal.
It's because people in the US conflate free speech with the marketplace of ideas we want free speech to engender, as well as our hyperfocus on the negative model of liberties. The heckler's veto is a good thought experiment for pushing people out of that line of thinking.
It's cultural I think. In the U.S., if someone' speech offends you, that's your problem. We can support the mechanism that is free speech, and condem the substance, but not remove it because it offends a group or class of people.
I know it's why most muslim countries take a dim view of our country when films come out depicting Islam and Muslim's in a very negative way - they assume because we do not restrict that kind of speech, we condone it.
Sure, but this viewpoint assumes that the worst consequence of hate speech is that someone gets offended.
1) An appeal to extra-judicial mob violence: i.e., "We're better off not having the laws, letting the racist screed happen, and then the public can go ostracize the offending party,"
2) Claims that THE GOVERNMENT will leverage hate speech laws to create a police state, where nothing can be discussed or critiqued. Some people even refer to hate speech laws as the equivalent to Newspeek in 1984.
I'll note that argument 1) doesn't actually address the merit of protecting hate speech - it just says that the public would prefer mob violence to police action in this specific arena, because ????
Argument 2) contains the Alex Jones sentiment of, "Obviously the end goal of governments is to have everyone locked-up and turned into Soylent Green," and completely unsupported assumptions about states being unable to control some kinds of speech while allowing others.
I want you to watch this:
And then explain to me why Rush Limbaugh, not Sandra Fluke, is the person who deserves state protection / justice in this situation?
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
This statement of yours has three very wrong parts.
Part the First: We don't decide if a thing should be allowed based on whether it provides a 'tangible benefit to civilization'. The very idea of it immediately falls afoul of the "who decides?" issue, and we allow dozens, hundreds of things that provide no tangible benefit to civilization. This nation doesn't go down the list of allowed things, make a value judgment about the public benefit, and ban all things that don't measure up, and it should not start doing so.
Part the Second: When you say "ought not be tolerated" what you are really saying is "the State ought to be empowered to silence by force the speech we believe is bad". You're saying that you believe hate speech, whatever that means to you, is so injurious and dangerous to the public that the State must step in and reduce the Constitutional rights of the individual in order to save the public. I don't think it's at all clear that hate speech, as awful as it can be, is a danger to the public that warrants the curtailment of the individual right to be protected from government restriction on speech. Rights being what they are in this nation, the burden of proof is squarely on you with regards to this!
Part the Third: To look at the last problem let's think back 60 years. Not all that long in terms of US judicial history or sociopolitical history. 60 years ago, advocating for gay rights would be, under your definition, hate speech we should expect the government silence by force! I mention this to illustrate that you haven't thought about the political implications of your idea. Having given this right up, we may never be able to gain it back, and trying to implement this idea is a mess right now in other nations. It falls afoul of interest groups and identity politics constantly, with fringes (like fundamentalist Islam) using the laws to silence critics or even justify murder, it lends itself to uneven enforcement that reduces the confidence of the people in their government and balkanizes society, and it unfairly punishes the religious because of the demands of the secular (or other-religions) majority.
Europe's hate speech laws are no model for the US - they're a shitshow from both directions, the very definition of a well-intentioned concept that has been used to inflict harm on the public it's supposed to protect.
The best way to combat hateful speech is with more speech. If you don't think it should be tolerated, then don't tolerate it. Be the change you hoped for, and other progressive slogans.
Where is the harm? It's on you to show harm, to the public. You can't just point at a meany and go "I think the police should get THIS guy and SHUT HIM UP".
I mean... I've got a pretty long list of media geese I think should be served up for Christmas dinner instead of allowed to publish their words on the internet.
Edit: To further clarify: Those of us who like the status quo don't have any burden to explain why Americans deserve to be protected from government interference into their speech. It's on you, Ender, to explain why Rush should not be protected when he says that shit. In this, he's no different than Larry Flynt or Gloria Steinem or Malcom X or Rick Santorum or Harvey Milk.
Or Harry Knowles. Because fuck that guy, his reviews are clearly hate speech. Have you ever looked at his site? The design alone ought to be enough for him to be tried for war crimes.
This discussion wasn't just about "hate speech" laws. It was about the country of Albania, which passed this law:
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/albania-passes-landmark-gay-hate-crime-laws050513
Does anyone here seriously not have a problem with that sort of law?
This is ridiculous. It is not at all difficult to define "hate speech" in a way which doesn't include things like small groups of people asking for civil rights or consideration.
It's also the third argument that people raise in defense of the necessity of "total" free speech:
"We cannot trust our lawmakers to be smarter than an inanimate object when it comes to writing laws."
And if that's true, nothing in the BoR is going to save you from your country going to hell.
Here's a question for you, Spool - do you see free speech as an end unto itself?
Because being issued a fine is exactly the same as being cannibalized & served-up for dinner, right?
At any rate, yes, sexual harassment causes harm to the victim, and in many ways, and this isn't exactly a new field of study.
Not really, no.
I guess it really depends on how broadly they interpret "racist, homophobic, xenophobic".
I suspect it will only encompass the vile shit and not anything approaching reasoned opinions.
And that's really my issue with hate speech. I don't especially like people like Michael Medved or Orson Scott Card's opinions on gays, but it doesn't bother me when they publicly state them.
I don't see why the law shouldn't protect them while at the same time throwing Fred Phelps in prison.
I guess I am a bad American, or something.
I see the protection from government restriction on speech as a fundamental concept that underpins a free society. We couldn't have gotten to where we are today without the right to be free from State control on our speech, and we won't get much further if we curtail it now because some people are super offended by that speech.
People are always super offended by some speech or other, and they always want to use the State to prevent it. The solution to the Heckler's Veto is to tell the heckler that it'd be funny if he was forcibly silenced by, like 5 policemen right now.
Anyhow, I don't possibly see how you could argue that Rush is the embodiment of the Heckler's Veto in the modern media environment. I'm not sure, in the current national discourse, that the concept is even possible.
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
So like ender said, mob violence is your preference over simply having society raise the bar ever so slightly on how you can behave in public without being arrested for disturbing the peace.
Workplace discrimination is a thing that we already can deal with. A hostile work environment is already a thing we can deal with. You're asking us to also silence people for merely saying awful things about women on the street.
Basically you didn't just move the goalposts here, you swapped fields entirely.
I'd say that people who are directly inciting / calling for violence should be smacked down, but I consider inciting violence to be a separate action that may or may not include speech. I think that people like the asshole who wanted to burn a Koran should be held responsible when his actions result in the violence he knowingly created, but not prior restraint.
I'd also say that harassment / stalking laws cover most of the individual cases, and I don't have a problem with tacking on extra penalties when that harassment is related to hate crimes targeted at a group vs. general harassment or stalking.
Otherwise...I am mostly in the same place as Spool. If you don't like it, ignore it. If Phelps shows up, better people will form a wall to block him.
Said founders also passed the Alien & Sedition Acts as well. Let's just say that on this topic, among others, consistency was not their strong suit.
Fixed that for you.
Public condemnation is far preferable to state action, yes. This bar should not have been raised to prevent Hustler, should not have been raised to stop Malcom X from speaking out against racism, and should not today be used to silence imams who advocate the destruction of the USA, or to silence assholes who insult gay people on Teamspeak.
Yes. Yes, absolutely.
There is no 'burden of proof' here because this isn't an empirical statement of fact. I'm asking you to justify your position, even if your lawmakers happen to agree with you, based on what we know about the real harm that can be caused my 'mere' speech.
Why do you feel that the bullies, racists, bigots, etc deserve the state's protection rather than their victims, spool? Surely a 'small government, keep the BAMA away from ME!' type like yourself has more to offer than, "Well, if Washington says it's okay, then it's okay," ?
Actually, it just outs him as a hypocrite, because what happened to the heckler's freedom of speech? Again the point of the heckler's veto experiment is to point out that free speech is more of a means to an end than and end unto itself.
All the lime for you, sir.
I'm on your side on this one. Fuck Rush.
But it's his right to say it. My right to contact his advertisers and say that I won't frequent them, my right to come on the board and talk about what a hypocritical pill popping misogynistic slob he is.
When he starts following me around with a loudspeaker or posting 'Zagdrob is just a fucking bumblebee' on my house, charge him with harassment / stalking, with a hate crime cherry on top. But if I'm a public figure, and he wants to do it on his show / to his audience AND isn't directly inciting violence...as much as I hate him, I'll fight for his right to do it.
Same with Phelps. Or Larry Flint. Or Rick Santorum. Or any of a million people I disagree with.
Like I said -- And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
Because last time I checked, the "church" of Scientology still harasses people and spreads rumors about them being pedophiles as it suits them, with utter legal impunity.
They have to actually kidnap someone for it to be a crime.
I do.
I think that this is a particularly extreme restriction and goes a little too far.
That depends...what is its stance on insults to Turkishness?
Because all speech is exactly equivalent, right? Talking about wealth stratification is exactly the same as telling a woman to send you sex tapes?
Even then, I think the bar should be much higher for people who have chosen a life on the public stage. It's one thing if I go on TV and say "I know this guy, Hacksaw, and he's a dirty slut" versus "I saw Sandra Fluke talking about birth control before Congress and she's a dirty slut." People who have chosen the spotlight should expect criticism; including criticism that might cut a little too personally.
Or more specifically, I reserve the right to call Alex Jones a vile, idiotic, mouthbreathing, paranoid, racist fuck. The same freedom that gives me power to call Alex Jones a vile, idiotic, mouthbreathing, paranoid, racist fuck gives Limbaugh the power to call Sandra Fluke a slut.
So do you think we should repeal laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the president, inciting a riot, distributing copyrighted works, or divulging state secrets to the Taliban?
If restricting speech is a slippery slope, we've been part-way down it for hundreds of years.
So you're Just Asking Questions, eh? And what do we know about the real harm? I don't see any harm purely from speech that warrants the State stepping in to protect the public from it.
You make a sly but completely dishonest argument here. The bullies and racists don't "deserve state protection". They aren't getting any State Protection at all! They are getting the same nothing that the victims are getting.
We are free from government restriction on our speech, unless that speech so endangers the public that the State must step in to protect it. This isn't a case of the State favoring hate speech over "victims" (I think even that is a stretch of a term), this is the case of the State not getting involved because it's not allowed to infringe upon the people's Rights. Sometimes it works out in favor of the people you believe are good, and sometimes it doesn't.
We cannot and should not expect the State to rush in and protect each citizen from bad feelings or sadness or indignity or people pointing at them on the train or crossing the street when they walk past.