• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

arthwollipot said:
Calling for people to put people to death is violence.

Inciting a mob to kill people is violence.

Crazy that I have to explain that to you.
Click to expand...

Most hate speech does not do that, and we should be able to agree hate speech that is not incitement to deadly violence should not be illegal.
 
Also, just hold on a minute. Almost anything could be taken as an incitement to deadly violence if the listener is unhinged enough. If I stand up in front of a crowd and say "these people are monsters, they are taking your jobs, they are raping your children, they are coming here to replace us good upstanding folk with their savage ways" I am not explicitly calling for violence against them. But there's going to be someone in that crowd who interprets it as such and will want to try to protect themselves by acting violently against those people.

So I don't think you can use "incitement to violence" as the defining characteristic of hate speech. When Lord Dampnut said "stand back and stand by", was he inciting violence? A lot of people took that as the message.
 
How is calling me a "dirty jew", incitement to deadly violence?

How is calling a Hispanic person a "spick", incitement to deafly violence?
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
How is calling me a "dirty jew", incitement to deadly violence?

How is calling a Hispanic person a "spick", incitement to deafly violence?
Click to expand...
On their own, taken in isolation, they aren't. But they rarely exist on their own and in isolation.

Also, what is the difference between the two terms you just happily typed in clear text and the n-word which is so hateful that even you won't use it?
 
arthwollipot said:
On their own, taken in isolation, they aren't. But they rarely exist on their own and in isolation.

Also, what is the difference between the two terms you just happily typed in clear text and the n-word which is so hateful that even you won't use it?
Click to expand...
None.

However, calling a black person the "N" word is not in itself incitement to deadly violence.

Its a horrible word, people should get fired for using it, or kicked out of school, but government should not be prosecuting people for using it.
 
On its own, taken in isolation, it isn't. But there are a lot of people who view its use as incitement to violence. Use it in front of certain people and a punch in the mouth is the least of what you'll get.
 
Just for funsies, I looked up what "hate speech" means to the UN.


In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.

To provide a unified framework for the United Nations to address the issue globally, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
Click to expand...

There's more, including a discussion on hate speech vs free speech, and another on the real harm caused by hate speech.

“Over the past 75 years, hate speech has been a precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide, from Rwanda to Bosnia to Cambodia.”
Click to expand...
— United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, June 2019
 
arthwollipot said:
On its own, taken in isolation, it isn't. But there are a lot of people who view its use as incitement to violence. Use it in front of certain people and a punch in the mouth is the least of what you'll get.
Click to expand...
Yes, its such an evil word that it does cause some people to responsy with violence.

That does not mean that use of the word should be criminalized.
 
arthwollipot said:
Just for funsies, I looked up what "hate speech" means to the UN.




There's more, including a discussion on hate speech vs free speech, and another on the real harm caused by hate speech.


— United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, June 2019
Click to expand...
Yes, hate speech is terrible.

Doesn't mean we should make it a crime.

In fact I think criminalizing hate speech is counterproductive. Turns the haters into martyrs.
 
If your speech advocates violence against, or taking rights away from, a group that had commited no crime, it's probably hate speech. Which is different than name calling or slurs.

You know who's invested in making hate speech acceptable? Hateful.people who want to do violence against others or take their rights away.
 
Hercules56 said:
LOL, its not like Weimar Germany was a healthy freedom-loving democratic society that got slowly ruined by evil men who simply abused said freedom in order to eventually destroy it. The reality is much more complicated than that, but folks who want to crack down on freedom in order to preserve it love to falsely cite the Nazis to defend their wish to crackdown on speech they don't like.

Ironic huh?
Click to expand...
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
 
arthwollipot said:
Calling for people to put people to death is violence.

Inciting a mob to kill people is violence.
Click to expand...
And that is EXACTLY the type of speech that ought to be restricted... "incitement" is the key!

IYO... should any of the following be hate speech, AND be restricted AND lead to the arrest of the person speaking or displaying the words or images?

- A performer chanting "Death, death to the IDF" at a rock concert?"
- Carrying a placard that tells people to punch members of a particular group?
- Carrying an image that places a specific, named individual in a noose on a hangman's gallows?
- Misgendering anyone
- Driving a car with a sign on the back that says "The only good lawyer is a dead lawyer"
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
If your speech advocates violence against, or taking rights away from, a group that had commited no crime, it's probably hate speech. Which is different than name calling or slurs.

You know who's invested in making hate speech acceptable? Hateful.people who want to do violence against others or take their rights away.
Click to expand...
If democracy, freedom, liberty, tolerance mutual respect, all the ideals I hold dear cannot win the battle for hearts and minds against Fascism, Communism, Islamism, and must instead rely on censorship and metaphorical book burning in order to win the game, then my ideals have already lost the war. :(


If you can't win through exchanging ideas and debate and argue, and must rely on censorship, what does that say?
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
If democracy, freedom, liberty, tolerance mutual respect, all the ideals I hold dear cannot win the battle for hearts and minds against Fascism, Communism, Islamism, and must instead rely on censorship and metaphorical book burning in order to win the game, then my ideals have already lost the war. :(


If you can't win through exchanging ideas and debate and argue, and must rely on censorship, what does that say?
Click to expand...
I don't recall saying anything about relying on censorship or trying to win a debate?
 
smartcooky said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
One of the most frequently misunderstood quotes of all time. Benny was lobbying for the State to have the liberty to levy taxes to provide for public defense, and the 'purchasing of a little temporary safety' was the Penn family literally paying off the governor so that their properties wouldn't be taxed.
 
smartcooky said:
And that is EXACTLY the type of speech that ought to be restricted... "incitement" is the key!
Click to expand...
Not according to the UN, which does not use the word "incitement" except in a description of how hate speech goes beyond it.

While the above is not a legal definition and is broader than “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” – which is prohibited under international human rights law -- it has three important attributes...
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
IYO... should any of the following be hate speech, AND be restricted AND lead to the arrest of the person speaking or displaying the words or images?

- A performer chanting "Death, death to the IDF" at a rock concert?"
- Carrying a placard that tells people to punch members of a particular group?
- Carrying an image that places a specific, named individual in a noose on a hangman's gallows?
- Misgendering anyone
- Driving a car with a sign on the back that says "The only good lawyer is a dead lawyer"
Click to expand...
Any one of them, in context, could be interpreted as a call for action against the targeted person and/or people. Which is why incitement cannot and must not be the sole defining feature of hate speech.

See, this is what you are missing. Context. Calling someone a slur once, in isolation, probably cannot be considered hate speech. But if you make an entire career out of belittling entire groups of people based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, skin colour, gender identity or sexuality, then you might be engaging in hate speech when you use those slurs. When you are repeatedly posting images on social media that, say, place specific named individuals in nooses on a hangman's gallows, to take just one of your examples, then you might be engaging in hate speech. When you are making speeches and posting tweets every day, all with the purpose of demeaning certain groups of people, then you might be engaging in hate speech.

You're looking at the world in black and white. Either something is always a thing, or it is never a thing. A slur is always hate speech or it isn't. The world does not work that way. Context matters. Nuance matters. Details matter.
 
smartcooky said:
Correct... It was not absolute free speech that led to the Nazi genocide being perpetrated on the Jews, it was the abrogation of Free Speech that led to it. People who spoke against the Nazi order had a habit of being disappeared...
There was a direct line between suppression of free speech and the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
Yes, once they were in power the Nazi's did fully suppress free speech. But in Weimar they were defenders of free speech so they could claim all Jews sought to assault innocent blonde German girls. So they could run daily stories about how all Jews were secretly using baby blood from German children in hidden ceremonies. How all Jews were the cause of any societal ill at that time. And at the same time running stories about how in the old days Jews who did such things were violently expelled from cities and everything became milk and honey afterwards again.
But because they never directly called for violence against Jews or named specific people it was protected free speech.
And to use your words, the Jewish community at that time 'had a thick skin'. They accepted that it were 'just words and words did not hurt anyone'.
But in the meantime that relentless barrage of hate slowly poisoned the well, so that when the actual Holocaust started enough people went 'Well, I've read about it so often, there must be some truth to it' and looked away.

A nice current example is Twitter. Musk was THE critic of the company because it suppressed his (followers) right to spew hate speech. Once he was in power he suppressed everyone critical of him or the hate speech.
The Anti-vaxx movement is similar, decades of open and unopposed lies and people are welcoming back diseases as if it is a good thing.

I do understand your philosophy, but personally I feel it is as untenable. You assume some mythical Free Speech right that everyone shares.
In reality your philosophy is very open to abuse by the 'Free speech for me, but not for thee' crowd. Sure, both left and right have those with that idea, but it's the right in control of most media and who are in control of the US and seeking so in the UK. And their tactic is disturbingly similar to the Nazi one. The right wing press invents/exaggerates problems, repeats that on a daily basis and blames it on scapegoats. All free speech of course. But once they are in power free speech vanishes to a far greater degree than imposed by the laws you and Hercules56 so oppose.

So yeah, I do believe that hate speech laws by the government, tested by an independent judicial apparatus, will allow far freer speech than your model, which will lead to free speech as seen in Hungary, Russia and increasingly the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom