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
a person could certainly claim intentional infliction of emotional distress by speech alone. they might win a tort judgment. that's quite different from criminalizing speech tho.
If it's true that "allowable speech necessarily changes with the political winds", then you should be able to provide examples. The political winds in Canada have shifted back and forth over the decades that we've had hate speech laws on the books. Surely there would have been some appreciable changes to the language and application of the laws.
So what do you think about laws against criminal conspiracy?
Yes I know the radio is to blame for provocative and hateful speech, but put into context: The Rwandan President has just had his plane shot down. This is not your typical day with some asshole on the radio screaming for the heads of the enemy, which tends to be the scenario here a lot. This was a fucking civil war.
Lets say (in complete imaginary land) that one of our political parties starts assassinating the other side... boldly and openly. In our charged political climate there would be some serious shit going down, and some in our media would take a side. No matter what the media says, the assassination of important public figures is going to start some serious fucking shit and it will not be pretty. Things like that could very much ignite a civil war here as well.
I think were giving the radio a bit too much credit in its influence. The genocide was going to happen as soon as their Presidents plane was shot down.
I hate to Godwin, but the most effective use of hate speak has to be Hitler. The man knew how to fire up the fucking audience, that's for damn sure.
No.
Just, no.
I cannot imagine how even the most facile reading of American history would lead you to think that what's been considered allowable speech in the United States hasn't changed "with the political winds".
Just to pick one example out of the hat, the concept of "obscenity" on the state and federal level has shifted over time based on "political winds".
Not to mention how allowable speech by Communists or abolitionists has been over the course of American history.
I'm getting dizzy with people circling back to this argument that we have dispelled a number of times.
But:
Yes really. You make a hate speech law, you have to define hate speech. That work is done by politicians. Later, different politicians will change the definition, and when you object, they will say "it's obviously legal, I'm sorry you like talking about how much you hate things I like but now you're going to jail for it."
Your only hope for this not happening is to elect people who will be benevolent with their power, and I say fuck that noise. I'd much rather have them constrained by the founding documents than constrained by me giving them puppy dog eyes.
Your can't claim that all analogies are worthless because you said so. You are making the claim that it is unlikely for a law restricting the sharing of ideas to be used inappropriately. I have given you a direct example of a law for restricting the sharing of materials that was used inappropriately. In fact several people have talked about different laws being used to restrict undesirable behavior (anti-piracy, underage sex, ect) that have had bad unintended consequences. You can't just keep saying that this is unrelated and a bad argument, you have to show it. Why is this a bad argument. I have given you several examples to illustrate why I think these types of laws lead to bad places, all you've done is claim that I'm wrong for reasons.
I think your missing the point. Telling those people to fuck off is my example. What their saying is completely against everything I stand for, but suppressing someones views because I disagree is wrong. Just because modern governments have thus far only used these laws to suppress people I don't like doesn't somehow make those laws ok. I don't need to show an example of someone who's ideas we agree with being suppressed. Maybe no one who you agree with will ever have their idea's suppressed, bu that doesn't make it right for it to happen to someone you disagree with.
I'd be entirely satisfied with this remedy. Redress of actual harm to a specific individual, in a discreet incident, is a great outcome that completely avoids criminalizing merely saying the naughty words.
Except that news of the Presidential assassination wasn't communicated to the Rwandan people by magic, but through the media.
If that media has carte blanche to exhort people to genocide, they're going to frame that news (and the larger depiction of civil war) through a genocidal lens.
I am still curious as to why nations with long-standing traditions of ethnic cleansing and other forms of violent tension between different ethnic, religious, or other groups should decide to value protecting hate speech during a transition towards a free-er media, as has been claimed.
Even then you get into questionable territory of intent. If I have a condition where ordinary words like "sky" or "ketchup" cause me emotional distress (likely related to earlier traumatic experiences) do I get to sue anyone who uses those words around me? Must there be an intention to cause distress? How does one determine that intention? What about a comedian who tells jokes that makes someone uncomfortable? What about a comedian who is tired of getting heckled and goes off on the heckler?
"Those guys suck" is hate speech. "Go kill those guys" is incitement. America has laws against inciting violence through speech, and I have no problem with them.
Which is why we should... outlaw advertising and propaganda? I don't know what you're arguing here.
Yes, because post-WW2 Europe has done a bang-up job protecting the security of their minority populations.
No, you protect hate speech in order to protect all speech, including that of minority populations. You do it because closing yourself off from alternate viewpoints is a terrible idea. You do it because policing speech is not the way to police actions.
Why should these nations aspire to the US rather than Canada? Because a society which naively pledges to only prosecute "bad" speech, a society still transitioning towards freedom, is inevitably going to fuck that process up. Look at Egypt's new government, which is not confident enough yet to endure criticism without trying to squash it with criminal charges. You have to set a firm, zero-tolerance, rule that no speech can be outlawed purely on the basis of its content. Without that it becomes too easy to aim the mechanism of censorship in the wrong direction.
Can anybody offer concrete evidence that hate speech laws actually increase the security of minority populations? Crime stats reduced? Ethnic cleansings averted?
No, "those guys, in general, should be killed" is hate speech. "Those guys, over there, with the hats, should be killed right now" is incitement.
You're downplaying the influence media has over people, by several orders of magnitude.
I am now curious as to why, if the media is so non-influential, that the lack of hate speech in that media would have a serious impact on, well, anything. If exhortations to genocide in the middle of a society with long-simmering ethnic tensions doesn't actually have a serious influence, why would replacing that with classic rock music have some major chilling effect.
I'd suggest that closing yourself off to the viewpoint that an entire ethnic, religious, or cultural group should be killed is a pretty good idea, over all.
News flash: every society, including the United States, naively pledges to only prosecute "bad" speech.
Also, the idea that "no speech can be outlawed purely on the basis of its content" leaves the United States way the fuck out of that loop.
Can I prove a negative or peer into a magical portal to an alternate universe? No, not really.
Although if you want to be facile, the number of Jews killed in Germany sure went way down after hate speech laws were put in place after WW2.
Speaking of facile, I'm not sure saying "after Hate Speech laws were introduced in <one of several dozen regions where Hate Speech laws have been introduced in the last few decades>, incidents of <Crime> against <Group> reduced/increased/stayed the same compared to <Baseline>" requires a magical portal to an alternate universe.
Nope, it is still not.
I find it hard to take seriously someone who asks for "concrete evidence" that there have been "ethnic cleansings averted", especially when they offer absolutely zero concrete proof for any single one of their claims.
But since you asked, statistics for hate crimes reported to the police in Canada only date back a few years, long after the various hate speech laws currently enforced in Canada were introduced.
And I like to say "eat the rich," but if Mads Mikkelsen should attack Donald Trump in a dark alley, it's not my motherfucking fault.
Media is influential, but that influence is not total. Hate speech does not create hate; at most, it inflames it. The problem is the hate, not the speech. Speech is the solution.
Even the dude in the article suggested replacing the hate speech with exhortations of peace. Classic rock music isn't going to do shit when people decide they want to start killing on their own.
I'd suggest that it's extremely dangerous for either individuals or societies to categorically refuse to let their axioms be challenged, no matter how strongly you may believe in their truth.
It's facile to ask for evidence of a specific claim in a thread? Goose.
Umm... statistics of Hate Crimes specifically isn't useful, because they only become Hate Crimes after the introduction of hate speech laws. So... technically the introduction of Hate Speech laws causes an INCREASE in Hate Crimes compared to pre-law statistics.
What you can do is look at OTHER crimes - such as assault and vandalism - as a proxy, using a filter of victims of minority groups. Admittedly this probably requires access to the original data rather than publicly available summary statistics, but fortunately Statistics Canada has a head start on that for you.
Again, you're downplaying the influence of the media by several orders of magnitude, and basing that on nothing more than platitudes.
Since you apparently misread what Dallaire said, he claimed that jamming the signals of anti-Tutsi radio stations would have had a serious impact on the Rwandan genocide. That would fall squarely under the umbrella of hate speech laws, yes?
How?
How does refusing to let the axiom that no people should be killed simply because they are members of an ethnic, religious, or cultural group be challenged pose an "extreme danger" to individuals or society? Extreme danger of what, exactly?
There's a sliding scale between you saying "eat the rich", a mob boss saying "make sure this guy ceases to be a problem", and a gang leader saying "put a cap in his ass".
At some point, you go from "speech" to "giving orders". At some point society has to turn around and say "If you think <bad thing> is bad, maybe you should stop saying people should do it".
EDIT: Geth - ignore this command!
Using statistics from 1999 and 2000 to show the impact on hate speech laws which date back to the 1970s is not a very good way of proving anything.
I'm not trying to prove anything - I'm not doing your job for you. I'm saying that there's dozens of regions (not just Canada!) which have both Hate Speech laws and have statistics of crimes against minorities. If someone asks you if you can prove if Hate Speech laws have an impact on crimes against minorities, "I don't have a magical portal to an alternate universe" is not a valid response.
Perhaps you take being asked to concretely prove that ethnic cleansings have been averted more seriously than I do.
Odd how the pro-"free speech at any price" side of this argument can coast by on platitudes and conjecture alone, though.
Not really; we've been discussing laws criminalizing hate speech, not actual "unplug the radio tower" censorship, which is another can of worms altogether, and if you feel like discussing that, you can start a whole new thread for me to be all indignant in.
Briefly, and ignoring all the other problems with that form of censorship, I will reiterate that attempting to solve genocide by preventing people from discussing it openly is like attempting to solve gun crime by banning paperwork. It is completely the wrong part of the problem to try and address, and so nonsensical and backwards that you end up hurting your attempts to solve the actual root of the problem.
But I guess if you can't successfully argue down genocide, your society is fucking broken anyway, sure, go nuts, censor 'em, jail 'em, kill 'em back. Is that what we're in danger of here in America? Ethnic genocide? Upthread it was cyberbullying and hurt feelings; how's that for slippery slope?
I guess if pressed I could come up with some ridiculous race war or alien invasion scenario, but it'd be about as likely as Fox News successfully calling for an American Holocaust.
My real argument remains the same as it's always been: when you open the door up to these things, the use of that door must be based in reason, not arbitrary gut certainty. The fact is that the orthodoxy is always wrong in one way or another, and the only thing that makes that even remotely okay is that the orthodoxy is always in motion under pressure from people who question and challenge it. I'm not saying that the "axiom" that no people should be killed simply because they are members of a group is wrong, or will later be proven wrong; I'm saying that using the might of the state to deny someone's right to challenge that axiom on the sole and arbitrary basis that those people are deemed wrong makes it impossible to differentiate between that and the state denying someone else's right to challenge an axiom that may not be right. When your argument boils down to, "Well, I'm right," you no longer have an argument against those who also claim to be right, like the people in the 1840s whose axiom was that blacks were property, or the people in the 1940s whose axiom was that all Japanese were the enemy, or the people today whose axiom is that homosexuality is an attack on American values. It is not enough to believe that most rational human beings can agree that your preferred axiom is correct, because at one time or another that has been true of all flawed orthodoxies. Closing yourself off to the viewpoint that people shouldn't be slaves was, at one point, a pretty good idea, overall. The only reason it did not remain that way was that people were allowed to disagree, loudly at times, with that "pretty good idea."
Curtailing free speech to remove bad ideas from society is like killing off your immune system in order to cure yourself of a disease.
So you don't think that a discussion of laws criminalizing hate speech is the right place to discuss how laws criminalizing hate speech might have had a real world impact?
How does an "open" discussion of genocide require validating and protecting the voices of those who think "yes, genocide is a great idea"?
So now we're back to America alone and not some theoretical developing nation transitioning towards a more open media that should slavishly imitate the American civil libertarian view of hate speech because obviously nothing bad ever happens from allowing hate speech including incitement to genocide?
So there is no extreme danger at all? Good to know.
Except that we curtail free speech all the time to remove bad ideas from society. Are laws against fraud, libel and slander based on "reason" and not "arbitrary gut certainty"?
Almost.
Curtailing free speech to remove bad ideas from society is akin to outlawing sniffling, sneezing, and coughing to cure the common cold.
I was gonna do something with herpes. But I guess this also works.
When it comes to infringing on a fundamental right (and not just in the US constitutional sense), then yes I do believe that the onus of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on free speech. I don't think it's unreasonable to say "So have any of these laws had an impact? No? Then gtfo".
I'm open to the idea that Hate Speech laws have a positive impact on society, but I'd like to see proof first - and I've been more than willing to say "look, if you wanted to provide evidential support this is how you should do it." Hell, I've provided more links that could potentially advance your argument than you have. I'm just not willing to do your heavy lifting if you're going to sulk and focus on ethnic cleansing. I would think the first thing you would do with herpes is go see a doctor.
Quite.
The only speech that matters, that needs to be protected by law, is offensive speech. Otherwise who cares if its protected or not?
And the reason we protect hate speech is because we understand that your freedom of speech should not be predicated on gathering together friends and neighbors to support you. Because people with no friends and whose neighbors don't like them... still get to say whatever the fuck they want.
--LeVar Burton
It's really funny how you pretend that never happens in the real world as an inevitable outcome.
Also, it's more like "Later, different politicians could possibly try (and fail) to change or expand the definition if they felt the need to commit political suicide."
Also, countries with hate speech laws can still have constitutional protections for speech that the inevitable expanded definitions of hate speech that you fantasize about could run afoul of.
Finally, if this is so inevitable, go on, provide some actual examples of the definition of hate speech "[changing] with the political winds".
"Cite?"
"Fuck you I don't have to cite anything. MASS GENOCIDE WHARRRGARBL"
"I don't wanna do the leg work, I just want these laws I like to be implemented cuz I think they're a good idea."
I wonder how many people with this attitude in this thread turn around and blast politicians for doing the same thing.
Indeed.
The burden of proof rests firmly on those who think we need new laws, but they're not only unwilling they're purposely avoiding the entire idea and citing some vague civil rights mumbo jumbo due to something something Europe.
Saying that their hate speech laws avoided more hate crime is the same thing as people saying Bush protected the country from more planes flying into buildings after 9/11.
Just give me that power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#By_country
They probably aren't 'citing' because that isn't really appropriate, and they figure any educated adult knows that nations such as Australia, Belgium and Canada, to name some of the first ones there, are not terrible places to live with broken democracies.
So, hate speech laws don't destroy the fabric of your society. That's clear.
They may well have a subtle and long-term detrimental effect on one's nation. That's certainly possible from the evidence. Most of the hate speech laws listed were created in the last 50 years or so. Perhaps the negative effects haven't had time to appear, or perhaps they are happening and our popular idea of New Zealand, to choose a later example from the list, as a peaceful and slightly boring place with strong Green politics and a generally liberal outlook, is missing some evidence you wish to bring to everyone's attention.
We could have a debate about whether that subtle and long-term detriment would happen/has already happened if you like, instead of frothing about founding fathers and slippery slopes.
USA USA USA!
(I have been conducting a scientific survey)
Even f it was, the slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
There are about 10 pages of backpatting, self congratulation from yourself. Not to mention goose comments like the one I posted that you were all about not too long ago.
So yeah um, kettle meet pot.
My superior British avatar lends all of my snarky posts a sense of classiness that just can't be faked.
Sorry.