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
Posts
I don't believe in the principle of American exceptionalism, but that doesn't mean I believe America is never exceptional. I think the way we treat speech is extremely laudable, and should certainly be an example to places where you can get arrested for criticizing the government or mocking a religion.
America fucks a lot of things up, yes (and you'll find in threads where this isn't off-topic that I am very anti-gun, against capital punishment, for closing Gitmo, etc), but we do get that one thing right, in my opinion (and even that, we have and continue to struggle with).
It becomes jingoism when you forget that what is right for you might not be right for someone else.
Presuming that American mores are more correct for Sweden than Sweden's mores are for Sweden is incomprehensibly arrogant.
Who's been doing that? I mean aside from the people telling us how much better we would be if we had hate speech laws like them?
People do it quite often and there is literally someone doing it interspersed between our very conversation which we are having right now...
Fine, so can we agree that Astaereth and the bulk of the non-Americans in this thread are arrogant geese and get on with making arguments that only our respective sides are willing to consider?
You're just being petulant now. Debating the relative merits of hate speech laws is not the same thing as saying "<european country> is better than America, try to be more like them."
Because absolutely no one has said that.
Was this at Astaereth or me? Because if it's at me, I can assure you that decades of American jurisprudence will strike down any hate speech laws we enact. If they don't, our current SCOTUS certainly will. I find no joy in that.
My heart is as cold as the ice you spurn.
I think there are two points worth making here. First, people who would prefer to see hate speech laws on the books probably don't see them as "a fundamental change to how we view free speech". Hate speech laws would not be the first and only restrictions on speech, if they existed, and speaking in terms of "fundamental change" suggests, to me at least, change of that magnitude. You might argue that no restrictions on speech that resemble hate speech laws are on the US law books, and that may be true enough, but that points less to something fundamental and more to something incidental.
Second, regarding the "what disaster do you foresee?" line of questioning, I think you misunderstand some of the "liberal" project. In some cases, lefty types like to say that bad things will happen if we don't do something (e.g. climate change). I don't think that's what's going on when it comes to free speech. Another thing that lefty types like is changing, updating, and adding to laws, as existing laws address the issues they were meant to, and new issues become more concerning. Things are certainly better now than they were in the past. And there is still room for improvement. But the laws that already exist aren't designed to make the improvements that some people are after, so they try to think of new laws that might do the job. It's not about "doom and gloom", it's about "what can we improve next?"
There's a pretty big difference between <argument: support/evidence> and <declaration of correctness>
I suppose it's possible to pull the latter one off with panache instead of just sounding arrogant, but it's really easy to just sound conceited.
There is a special level in Hell for the likes of you.
What evidence in favor of enacting hate speech laws (or not enacting them, for that matter) has been put forth that doesn't boil down to an opinion?
You're drifting far from the original issue.
No one arguing opposite you in this thread has just stood there and nakedly asserted the superiority of other countries hate speech laws.
It doesn't matter how unconvincing, lacking hard evidence, or even dumb, you think the arguments have been. They're not conceited arguments, just people who have a different opinion than you.
Just asserting that your way is best is rather arrogant though. And that's what Aestaereth was doing.
You can be wrong and humble or right and arrogant-evidence isn't the issue, it's an issue of how you present your opinion.
Just so we're clear though, I am an American and have resided in America all my life. When I argue for hate speech laws I'm not making the mistake of presuming that my countries way is so superior to your country's ways that you should just adopt mine, I am in fact questioning the way we do things in this country currently.
Which is something you should be in favor of my doing, since you ostensibly support all this right to dissent as a staunch defender of 1st amendment rights.
Astaereth. I don't see anything happening on this front in the US. The 1st amendment and just general American culture won't tolerate it.
I just find the idea that the American way is the best on this rather silly. IMO obviously.
I don't see a lack of restrictions as incidental. We have pretty clearly crafted the system to be this way. Our only real exception has nothing to do with the actual content of speech. The whole "die for your right to say it" thing is paramount for us as a whole. Our whole system is crafted around that idea. We've progressed from sexist slavers to where we are now with this. We certainly haven't arrived, but I feel it's fairly easy to demonstrate how the ability to freely share ideas in this way has brought our country forward.
And yeah, I guess that's what I know and hate about liberals. Which is not to say I hate liberals. I just hate that tendency to immediately solve any given problem with more laws. I don't really understand it and I find it often goes against my inclinations. At any rate, that is a more reasonable way of looking at it: That it's merely an attempt to improve circumstances as opposed to fixing a present or future tragedy of some kind.
The problem with this is that if you assume that the only real goal is to "make things better", than you're simply measuring that desire against the system that has brought us so far. This isn't a little thing. As others on your side of the argument have mentioned, this is likely not a thing that will ever happen here. Mostly because it runs utterly contrary to how we think, how we do things. The adage "if it's broke, don't fix it" come to mind. If we have made and are continuing to make great progress as a society on the back of the principle, what possible gain is there from turning the whole thing on its head? I don't think it makes sense to do this out of some sense that we aren't progressing fast enough. It's not a fucking race.
Anyways. I actually like that this topic is here. It shows we can do this. We can challenge the basic principles of our society that allow us to challenge the basic principles of our society. That's an awesome thing. I have no desire to fuck with such a thing. I have no desire to set precedent in this way for what is debatably not even any gain.
And finally, the problem you are trying to fix is not even a problem. We already have the ability to discourage hate speech. This is not a new problem. Our system allows for us to speak up and overpower that which we dislike. The only reason this is ever insufficient is because not enough people are speaking up. Which is not a reason to can the whole system.
On this, I feel, we agree. Especially given America's shameful history of racism.
As compared to.... Europe's? I think I'll take our history of racism over Europe's collective history any day. Which isn't exactly fair, because it's a bullshit comparison. But hey, that's what we're talking about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/05/david-mitchell-racism-insults-wales
While it's not directly related to what we're talking about, it mentions "hate speech", how the UK deals with it, and his own thoughts on the matter.
This is an amazing post and perfectly sums up my opinions on the matter.
But it's alright for people to say "Americas way is shit" and then proceed to backpat each other on how incredibly correct they are?
Astaereth has an opinion that the way the USA does shit is the best way, just like you have an opinion that it is not and think hate speech should be limited. The hypocrisy is starting to stink in this thread, and trying to align people with nationalistic nonsense just to disprove a point is a fairly shitty way to go about things, not to mention a bit dishonest. Was his post a bit bombastic and all? Yeah, a bit. Should the sins of the American government be used to wash away whatever good it has done to its people? Sure, if you're a goose.
The freedom of speech we have is a double-edged sword, for fucking sure. But judging from our political and social climates of the past (and the variable makeup of our populace) it's probably the single best thing we've got going for us. Just because you outlaw or legislate or whatever you want to do to nasty hate speech, it will not change the underlying feelings and quite frankly if someone is truly abusive or intimidating others in the verbal sense then there's probably not a law in the books that's going to solve this problem. Just as physical abuse hardly gets reported until the shit comes to an incredibly bad place that can't help but be noticed, verbal abusing on a personal level (which seems to be most of what's happening here) will continue to sail under the nose of those who are supposed to enforce it.
So we've done practically nothing but bury the true feelings of the nation under yet another goddamned layer of political doublespeak. Only this time it's not being used just to keep from offending: Now it's the fucking law.
But I'm sure you only want to limit it to groups who truly deserve the limiting. Of course, who is deserving of limitation changes based on who you are talking to. There are people (influential ones, I may add) that think Jon Stewart is a hate monger for saying something crossways about Jesus, sorta. In todays political climate, Jon would be thrown the fuck off TV for hate mongering against Christianity.
So, aside from the Beltway Insider mentality that "I TOTALLY KNOW WHAT TO DO EXCEPT FOR HOW TO MAKE IT WORK", I'm just curious on how exactly would hate be defined.
If you have a completely amazing solution with absolutely no possible way of getting there, then you don't have a fucking thing.
This is a terrible law.
First of all it's plainly unclear what "willful promotion of hatred" means and how it would be applied.
Second, the punishment here seems completely insane. Two years in prison and all it takes is for me to say, "I hate gays and you should too"?
Third, it's unclear what exactly this is trying to solve. Why are we worried about hate groups in the United States? Has the Westboro Baptist Church exploded in popularity recently? Is there some measurable effect that we're looking for? Is there any way for us to tell if this law is accomplishing whatever goal it has?
For as much as I hate the Westboro Baptist Church (Did I just commit a crime in Canada?) I don't want to see them in prison. They haven't caused the kind of the harm that deserves it. The only thing they've done is offend me.
"Americas way is shit" being a statement that no one has made in this thread. I'm wondering why the people who hold the 1st in such high esteem take criticism of it so personally.
In theory, you should delight that we are so free that we can even bitch about our freedom.
I think I did that a few posts ago, actually. Though seriously, Hacksaw is pretty much pulling a "lol 'Merica" here.
In response to a USA USA USA so it was justified.
Are you saying I shouldn't have made a thread at all?
Stunning rebuttal. I'd like to return one of my own, but I'd rather this thread stay open. Maybe with less "lol 'Merica" and "USA USA USA"?
Well I don't think he was saying that at all. I think what he's trying to say is that a law cannot be written that would prevent the exact sort of crime you're looking to prevent. Though honestly I'm not even sure what exact crime you'd like to prevent, exactly. We have the Canadian law as an example, and it strikes me as being a very poor law.
Now I'm sure you can point to specific examples and say something like, "OK, the Westboro Baptist Church members should all be thrown in prison." But it's hard to see where a very specific, narrow law comes out of that.
I'm fairly certain you have no idea where I stand on this issue if you think I'm pulling a "lol 'merica"
Really? Do we have any Canadians here who can testify on behalf of its terriblosity?
It's possible I don't. It's also possible that you haven't been terribly clear. It's a goddamn mystery.
I'm really not sure why you believe that "I think Canada has the right kind of speech laws" and "I think America has the right kind of free speech laws" are opinions with different levels of "arrogance" to them.
I would also like to point out in general that, while I think America has the right idea on this issue, I'm not really advocating that Canada or Sweden or whatever follow suit. Countries that have "mostly free" speech are not nearly in the same situation as countries like Egypt or Iran. If the former want to be slightly (but meaningfully) more oppressive, they can do that--I think they're wrong, but I'm not weeping over the human rights abuses. The latter group, the troubled countries who struggle with "But if he insults the President, that's treason, right?", bother me much more.
So my argument is more that:
-America's super-free speech is good for our society.
-America's super-free speech is a good example to countries who truly struggle with freedom of expression (and that our example is a more effective one than Europe's for being freer in a small but meaningful way).
-Hate speech legislation will pave the road to Hell in slippery slopes, ie., this is a law that will inevitably be abused, and to the detriment of our society far beyond its gains. I shudder to think what a GOP majority would do with that kind of power.
-Suppressing hate speech, rather than winning free and open debates against it, is a great way to turn a fringe point of view into a self-righteous, repressed minority. In other words, when people can't express themselves through public words, they'll eventually turn to violence--everybody wants their grievances heard, and if the government forces them to keep their anger bottled up, they will inevitably explode at some point.
I know a couple of these points I haven't really elaborated on, but I'll be happy to if anyone wishes to argue them.
Dude, you made a comment about racial/ethnic history in America being horrible, and how Europes was better.
You deserve five lashes for the potential Godwinning.
I suspect that the meaning of "wilful promotion of hatred" is unclear to you because, like many of your fellow citizens, you aren't used to thinking about speech outside of some very basic categories like nice/mean, offensive/inoffensive, popular/unpopular, controversial/uncontroversial, that sort of thing. So when you start trying to talk about hate speech, you apply the categories you're familiar with and come out with something like mean-offensive-controversial speech, which is not a particularly close approximation. If you were able to nail down what hate speech actually entails, you wouldn't ask questions that seem ridiculous to me, like "is South Park hate speech?" and "Can I go to jail for saying I hate the WBC?" Because, I mean, the answer to both is clearly "no".
Also, for what it's worth, a two-year term of incarceration is the absolute maximum penalty available, and only the most extreme circumstances would warrant the prosecution seeking it.
That's the problem.
If you take "hate speech" to mean something like "mean-offensive-controversial" speech, then you're probably right about that. My point is that hate speech is not simply mean-offensive-controversial speech, and it is not any more "in the eye of the beholder" than, say, conspiratorial speech.
It depends on the country and the specific law in question.
What is simply not true however is the assertion that it's impossible to write narrow hate speech laws, that it is inevitable that harmless or merely somewhat-controversial speech will get caught up in it, ie: the slippery slope.