Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Tony Stark]

I do know that. That's why it's quite reassuring to me that most people are not going to agree to strip the rights we all cherish so much.

We don't all cherish the right to make hate speech.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It is worth recalling that a governmental action in Virginia had resulted in the decision to remove that statue, and the people who were protesting were (under the Constitution) within their rights to stage a peaceful demonstration and a public assembly. That's all in the Constitution. (Even people I don't agree with get to speak freely, and I have to deal with it). They even took the trouble to get a permit, which allows local authorities to prep for possible issues. Go and read my post about the Alibi tavern from a few years ago. We were involved in a peaceful counterprotest against a bunch of jerks (Phred's WBC) and the cops were around. We were not on the national news, but local news covered it.

By the way, Robert E Lee wept. One of Lee's biographers has an interesting commentary at the link.

 

[xjx388]

We don't all cherish the right to make hate speech.

I'll just quote the ACLU here:

FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

 

[Tony Stark]

I'll just quote the ACLU here:

Not all unpopular speech is hate speech.

Somehow other counties have laws against hate speech without becoming dystopian nightmares.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not all unpopular speech is hate speech.

Sure, only really unpopular speech is hate speech.

Somehow other counties have laws against hate speech without becoming dystopian nightmares.

It doesn't have to be a dystopian nightmare for there to be problems with such bans.

 

[Tony Stark]

Sure, only really unpopular speech is hate speech.

But not all really unpopular speech is hate speech.

It doesn't have to be a dystopian nightmare for there to be problems with such bans.

They're only problems for disgusting scum who want to give hate speech. **** them.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'll just quote the ACLU here:

I've been questioning the slippery slope that this view is organized around.

For one thing, it sort of stops at "unpopular" in describing the quality of a kind of speech that some might suggest should not be protected.

These views are more than unpopular, and unpopularity isn't the justification people give for not wanting it protected.

Many kinds of speech have been unprotected at various points in US and world history some still are right now. The interpretation of the first amendment has wobbled quite a bit in what could be described as either direction.

This is all to say that the view of the first amendment as a dam against a flood of abuses doesn't seem to fit history. There are just continuing battles, discussions and compromise about where the protections lie. The floodgates don't seem to have been opened. At some points things were suppressed that we now think shouldn't be. At some points things were allowed that we now suppress. It isn't a binary and never has been.

At this point in history, lying about someone in a way that costs them money is not protected. That's a pretty unpopular speech act. Sending a minor a digital image of your genitals is also not protected. Another unpopular speech act.

I'm fine with those being unprotected.

What's more, we can look to parts of Europe which have adopted the same kinds of policies we're talking about. Germany has had such laws since the end of WWII France has had similar laws since 1881. If 130 years is not long enough to open the floodgates, I start to doubt the real risk of a flood.

I'm open to the argument that drawing the line exactly where we draw it is important, but I need more than the general form of argument that I've seen the ACLU make. Which seems to be "The ability to censor speech is a tool which a bad government can abuse".

My personal feeling is that a government that really wants to oppress minorities and has the power to do so, doesn't really need a precedent to do it. And anything COULD be abused. A pencil can be used to stab people with. There are very few campaigns to ban pencils, even in schools where our children are!

I'm not against a slippery slope argument. I think it only becomes fallacious when the specific slides down the hill are not themselves justified logically. And I'm starting towards a view that in this case they are not.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes. Seems to work out fine in Europe.

I certainly don't see it as working fine.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Why would that difference affect whether or not the government should enforce a moral viewpoint?

Because most people understand that discrimination against a person for things that are not under their control, but because they were born like it, is not a god thing, and the Government is willing to step in and protect the rights of those people from the few that don't get that.

 

[Ziggurat]

But not all really unpopular speech is hate speech.

Sure. It has to be really unpopular speech that you don't like. Because you think you'll be one of the people deciding what counts as hate speech.

They're only problems for disgusting scum who want to give hate speech. **** them.

Again, you think it's not a problem because you imagine that you'll get to decide. But in point of fact, Trump is more likely to decide than you. Do you really think that if Trump gets to decide, it won't be a problem?

Your naivety has lost its charm.

 

[Tony Stark]

Sure. It has to be really unpopular speech that you don't like. Because you think you'll be one of the people deciding what counts as hate speech.

There are pretty objective definitions of hate speech that work well in other countries without them becoming dystonia crap-holes.

Again, you think it's not a problem because you imagine that you'll get to decide. But in point of fact, Trump is more likely to decide than you. Do you really think that if Trump gets to decide, it won't be a problem?

Your naivety has lost its charm.

I think we are equally likely to decide (0% each).

 

[Ziggurat]

These views are more than unpopular, and unpopularity isn't the justification people give for not wanting it protected.

There is no objective criteria for what counts as hate speech other than unpopularity.

Many kinds of speech have been unprotected at various points in US and world history some still are right now.

And none of it on the basis of being "hate speech". The categories of speech which can be restricted are much narrower and better defined than "hate speech", and that is an important component of not turning those restrictions into a slippery slope.

Are you guaranteed to slide down every slippery slope? No. But even if you haven't, that doesn't mean you can't.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are pretty objective definitions of hate speech that work well in other countries without them becoming dystonia crap-holes.

No, they don't work well. People merely manage to muddle along with them anyways.

I think we are equally likely to decide (0% each).

Because in the US, nobody gets to decide. But you want to change that. And if you managed to, well, the results may not be what you hoped for.

 

[xjx388]

It also occurs to me that many want to control what private corporations do with content all the time. The whole Net Neutrality debate comes to mind. Their servers, their rules,no? Let's say an ISP wants to block content on the web. No problem?

 

[Tony Stark]

No, they don't work well. People merely manage to muddle along with them anyways.

Don't work well for nazi scum. So what.

Because in the US, nobody gets to decide. But you want to change that. And if you managed to, well, the results may not be what you hoped for.

I don't think I will be able to change it. But I also don't think that a society where nazi scum are not allowed to spread hate speech is a bad one.

 

[Cavemonster]

There is no objective criteria for what counts as hate speech other than unpopularity.

I don't believe unpopularity is even a criteria for hate speech at all. Perhaps a necessity to get laws passed on the subject, but that's true for any law about anything.

And none of it on the basis of being "hate speech". The categories of speech which can be restricted are much narrower and better defined than "hate speech", and that is an important component of not turning those restrictions into a slippery slope.

Obscenity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

Are you guaranteed to slide down every slippery slope? No. But even if you haven't, that doesn't mean you can't.

Sure, but that comes down to risk management. Almost anything COULD happen. If possibility is our metric, then almost any decision COULD start a causal chain with terrible results.

But we really don't legislate based on what is technically possible because then we'd have to just lock people in bubbles. Rather we have to make a case for the level of risk as opposed to the benefits. A valid slippery slope has to show more than possibility, it has to show that the level of the risk is enough to outweigh the benefits.

 

[xjx388]

I've been questioning the slippery slope that this view is organized around.

For one thing, it sort of stops at "unpopular" in describing the quality of a kind of speech that some might suggest should not be protected.

These views are more than unpopular, and unpopularity isn't the justification people give for not wanting it protected.

They are pretty specific in that "hate speech" and any speech that is offensive and repulsive is in the "unpopular" category. The problem with banning things that are "offensive and repulsive," is that ultimately it can be used to ban all kinds of speech. Right here on this forum, people have said some pretty hateful and repulsive things about people in the political parties they don't like. I've heard that Republicans are mass-murderers because they want to reform health-care. Should the Government ban such hateful and offensive speech?

Many kinds of speech have been unprotected at various points in US and world history some still are right now. The interpretation of the first amendment has wobbled quite a bit in what could be described as either direction.

I don't see it that way. There are only three kinds of unprotected speech: Obsenity, Child Pornography and "fighting words." And even those are very narrowly defined. "Virtual" Child Pornography was supported by SCOTUS. You can call someone every name in the book as long as you aren't picking a fight with them.

This is all to say that the view of the first amendment as a dam against a flood of abuses doesn't seem to fit history. There are just continuing battles, discussions and compromise about where the protections lie. The floodgates don't seem to have been opened. At some points things were suppressed that we now think shouldn't be. At some points things were allowed that we now suppress. It isn't a binary and never has been.

But what exactly are those "things [that] were suppressed that we now think shouldn't be?" In the US, it's always been pretty binary -outside of the categories of proscribed speech, everything else has been held to be an exercise of free speech.

At this point in history, lying about someone in a way that costs them money is not protected. That's a pretty unpopular speech act. Sending a minor a digital image of your genitals is also not protected. Another unpopular speech act.

Defamation is not prohibited speech, per se; it's a tort with specific, narrowly defined requirements. Lying about someone and causing them a loss does them real harm. But you can tell the truth about someone even if it harms them.

Sending a genital pic to a minor is also a crime because of the harm it does to children. Sending a genital pic to a consenting adult is not a crime. Again, not really a free speech issue but an issue of criminal harm.

"Free Speech" is not a defense to causing actual harm to someone.

I'm fine with those being unprotected.

What's more, we can look to parts of Europe which have adopted the same kinds of policies we're talking about. Germany has had such laws since the end of WWII France has had similar laws since 1881. If 130 years is not long enough to open the floodgates, I start to doubt the real risk of a flood.

You'd have to define what you mean by "opening the floodgates."

I'm open to the argument that drawing the line exactly where we draw it is important, but I need more than the general form of argument that I've seen the ACLU make. Which seems to be "The ability to censor speech is a tool which a bad government can abuse".

As I said before, ultimately the government defines what "bad speech" is. If it's OK to ban Nazis who talk about eliminating a race of people, then why wouldn't it be OK to ban speech about reforming healthcare, which (I have it on good authority ) is the same thing as advocating mass-murder of the poor?

My personal feeling is that a government that really wants to oppress minorities and has the power to do so, doesn't really need a precedent to do it.

You are correct. But, in the US, this would require cooperation from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Unless you are talking about a government that tosses the Constitution into the garbage can; in that case, Free Speech is moot.

And anything COULD be abused. A pencil can be used to stab people with. There are very few campaigns to ban pencils, even in schools where our children are!

I'm having trouble determining what the pencils are supposed to represent in your analogy.

I'm not against a slippery slope argument. I think it only becomes fallacious when the specific slides down the hill are not themselves justified logically. And I'm starting towards a view that in this case they are not.

But you are advocating another kind of slippery slope: That if we tolerate speech like Nazi speech, it will make their power grow. I think history has shown us otherwise.

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't see it that way. There are only three kinds of unprotected speech: Obsenity, Child Pornography and "fighting words." And even those are very narrowly defined. "Virtual" Child Pornography was supported by SCOTUS. You can call someone every name in the book as long as you aren't picking a fight with them.

But what exactly are those "things [that] were suppressed that we now think shouldn't be?" In the US, it's always been pretty binary -outside of the categories of proscribed speech, everything else has been held to be an exercise of free speech.

Whew, there's a lot to address there, let me start with just one point.

I don't think your view of the history or current state of speech law is accurate.

First off, you're the second person to try to argue that obscenity law is narrow and well defined. Take a look at the Miller test:

(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Does that look objective to you, narrow? It all depends on what people think of the material. It's far more dependnt on popularity than any serious hate speech suggested laws.

Secondly, historically we've had a lot of unprotected speech besides those three categories. Just for one example, we had blasphemy laws since the founding of the country, and they persisted and were enforced into the 20th century.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

What about first amendment and hate speech?

What of the spirit of that expression which goes something like "I may not agree with what you say but I agree you have the right to say it or will defend you right to say it."

This is associated with Youtube's new program of monitoring content, as an example of censorship.

Recognizing that the first amendment may not apply in some places like a privately owned workplace.

As YouTube is a private company the first amendment wouldn't really apply. If YouTube/Google were to become regulated like a public utility there might be some issues with equal access. But YouTube shouldn't stand idly by when/if it knows it's service is being used by, for example, terrorists or drug dealers to cause other harm. Monitoring content, in the abstract is OK. The problem with YouTube's implementation of this program is that the ADL is one of the organizations that is involved with deciding what is and is not hate speech. The ADL classifies anything that is critical of Israel or represents what they consider to be a danger to Israel as "hate speech" and will attempt to shut it down.

 

[Hercules56]

A cake shop is a private business, yet they cannot refuse to serve people they find morally repugnant.

No, they do not refuse to serve Gay people.

They simply refuse to make cakes for Gay weddings.

They are perfectly happy to make cakes for Gay people to celebrate birthdays, graduations, etc.