Hate speech

"Hate speech" is merely speech that someone else wants to put beyond the pale by referring to it as "hate speech". We already have the concept of incitement.
 
censoring non-violent speech, because we find it offensive, is a great way to head towards fascism.

the last thing we want, is to become more and more comfortable with less and less freedoms.
 
Thunder said:
censoring non-violent speech, because we find it offensive, is a great way to head towards fascism.

the last thing we want, is to become more and more comfortable with less and less freedoms.
Click to expand...
I don't think the purpose of most laws in democracies against hate speech is to prevent speech that offends people, even though it may sometimes appear so. I believe they tend to be an effort to prevent people from rallying intolerance and hatred against others, especially minorities. Minorities are at risk of becoming victimized even in democracies (in which, after all, the majority hold the power), and these laws are an effort to protect them.

While I agree that this may by misguided, I see nothing suggesting it leads to fascism.
 
Rufo said:
I don't think the purpose of most laws in democracies against hate speech is to prevent speech that offends people, even though it may sometimes appear so. I believe they tend to be an effort to prevent people from rallying intolerance and hatred against others, especially minorities. Minorities are at risk of becoming victimized even in democracies (in which, after all, the majority hold the power), and these laws are an effort to protect them.

While I agree that this may by misguided, I see nothing suggesting it leads to fascism.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my view, I would just add one other thing: Some supporters of "unlimited freedom of speech" seem to think that speech itself is not causative, given that speech is one of the primary ways we communicate and get each other to take action that is obviously wrong. Many would argue that it is not the speech that is the problem but the actions of people, but speech is every bit as much an action as any other type of action taken by people.
 
LibraryLady said:
Naturally, hate speech ceases to be free speech when it incites others to commit illegal acts.
Click to expand...
Why "naturally"?
If law is immoral, is it not moral to break the law? Is law always right?
The very first thing I notice about hate speech is that it is tedious. Seriously, it is rare to read hate filled rhetoric that transcends the sixth grade level. It’s kind of like pornography that way, isn’t it? There only so many ways to say, “They did it” before it just becomes repetitive and silly.
Click to expand...
Ye-ees, but what if "they" did indeed do it?
The vocabulary in hate speech is usually pretty limited and the literary devices are few and far between. There is hate speech that transcends this, just as there is well written porn, but it’s unusual and usually doesn’t fulfill its purpose. The target audiences are usually not those who have an education or an appreciation of such things. They are simply looking for someone to hate.
Click to expand...
LL- I do hope you have more to offer than grammatical / syntactical ctiticism. Saying "Nazis are bastards" or "Nazis is bastards" are equally true, even though in the latter case the verb and subject do not agree in number.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard or read any hate speech that explores new ground of any kind. Anti-Semites point to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the blood libel. Racists talk about the curse of Ham or the studies by Lombroso, or variations thereof. This too makes sense. New ideas are hard to think about. The intended audience doesn’t really want to put in the effort.
Click to expand...
Originality is also not a necessary feature of truth. "one and one is two" is not original, but is generally accepted as correct.
What hate speech occasionally does well is to arouse emotion. Fear is the target of the hated and anger the target of the haters. However, even here there are failures sometimes, evoking amusement from the intended object or a united front of both the hated peoples and their sympathizers.
Click to expand...
True. And...?
But.

It is important to remember that while we might be bored, perplexed, or amused by what we hear and read, that doesn’t mean it is benign. It is not.
Click to expand...
No. But nor is it self evidently malign or false.
There are people who do believe in what the hate speech says, and specifically incited or not, will act upon their beliefs. Abortion doctors keep their addresses secret for a reason. Do not underestimate it.

Be glad if you live in a society that allows hate speech. Be grateful for the Internet and the voice it gives to the haters. Know it is out there and seeing who says these things is half the battle. It is a part of our education. It disturbs our complacency.

Therefore, also be glad that our Membership Agreement allows this. Practice using constructive tools to make your arguments against it. It’s a training ground for the real world.
Click to expand...
Yep. Was this the point you intended to make when you began? (I've been drinking . rather a lot. I'm a bit puzzled about where you were going with this- and I'm rarely puzzled by your posts. Could be the wine, but I'm not sure.)
 
Last edited:
My rule of thumb has always been:
Pretend that you can't understand that language that the speech is occuring in; you can observe the behavior of the person making the speech and those he's talking to, but you have no idea what he's actually saying. Now, under those circumstances, can you still write a law that applies to the speaker? If so, then it's much more likely that your law does not violate free speech.
(This fails once we get to symbolic actions as speech, but I find it's a good first approximation where the speech we're talking about is primarily verbal/written.)
 
Thunder said:
sure. if I say something blatantly racist, feel free to let er rip.

luckily, I am not a racist and dont make racist statements.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, when you say that Palestinians can't be held to the same standards as Israelis because they are just backwards Arabs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom