Hate Speech

[Pure]

note to angela,

that's a passionate and clearly written piece. thanks!

with all due respect, let's consider this proposal from angela:

2. If someone advocates registering all Hispanic people so that they can round up the illegal aliens (and they figure that most of them are Hispanics) I want that person to say it on TV and in the newspaper and in the Blogs.

(Please note that I, myself, am Hispanic on my father's side. My maiden name was about as Hispanic as it gets and my skin is brown enough for me to be recognized as one of "them brown people"). I have skin in this game (so to speak).

If somebody wants to have all us Spics rounded up and deported (or even just boycotted or spit on), I want to know about it before it happens. I want the racists talking about it in the open so I know who they are.

The haters' freedom of speech is my greatest protection against their hatred. [pure's bolding]
===

P: I wonder if the gypsies and jews in Germany and Poland, 1940, found repeating your last sentence very effective? Is it too much to say they found it to be false, at least in some cases, e.g. theirs?

[where "my" is understood to refer to an individual in a despised and hated group]

I wonder is the Black citizens of Rosewood FL, Jan 1923 found the wording to be effective?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_Massacre

Note that one of the earliest incidents in the Rosewood events was the following:

wiki On January 1, 1923, the Ku Klux Klan held a parade and rally of over 100 hooded Klansmen in nearby Gainesville, Florida under a burning cross and a banner reading, “First and Always Protect Womanhood."

I suppose this is ‘free speech,’ as rox defines it?

 

[angela146]

I forgot to explain why I included that stipulation about free speech laws "in the U.S."

It's a matter of self-determination.

If the Brits and Canadians want a more civil society where people won't be offended by hatred, I have no problem with that, as long as people have the right to live where they choose.

For the same reason, if Saudi Arabia wants Islam as its national religion, that's fine too - again, as long as people get to choose whether or not to live there.

There are enough countries in the world that (given freedom of travel and immigration) we can each find a place to live that fits our own set of values. Unfortunately, free travel and immigration is not universal, so we need to get to work on that.

Sure, there need to be some basic rights to free speech and press in all places in order for people to have self-determination in the first place, but I am willing to accept the right of local countries to restrict hate speech if that trips the collective trigger of their population.

Just keep your anti-free-speech laws out of my country, thank you very much. They're too fucking dangerous for my taste.

 

[angela146]

P: I wonder if the gypsies and Jews in Germany and Poland, 1940, found repeating your last sentence very effective? Is it too much to say they found it to be false, at least in some cases, e.g. theirs?

[where "my" is understood to refer to an individual in a despised and hated group]

Free speech has to be free speech.

Two of the problems with Nazi Germany were the lack of free speech/press *and* the right of free emigration (which I addressed in second post a few minutes ago).

Remember, it was the German government itself that was doing much (if not most) of the hate speaking, *and* the government persecuted people who spoke out against the hatred.

They worked really hard at preventing people from speaking in favor of Jews and Gypsies (and others).

If the people of Germany had had true freedom to speak out (and act out) against the hatred, the results might have been different.

The Holocaust might not have been completely prevented by free speech, but it probably would have been more difficult to pull it off if people were free to publish and speak out without themselves being hauled off to the death camps.

Hate is more effective in an environment or restricted speech.

 

[Pure]

since you want to be uncivil, angela, i'd venture to say that your alleged 'pro free speech' legal situation in the US is found by a number of gays, blacks, and jews, to be rather dangerous. at least 6 blacks were killed in the Rosewood massacre and the town burned to the ground.

---
angela said, Just keep your anti-free-speech laws out of my country, thank you very much. They're too fucking dangerous for my taste.

---

PS. It's my country, too.

===

Angela, as to your speculation:

Two of the problems with Nazi Germany were the lack of free speech/press *and* the right of free emigration (which I addressed in second post a few minutes ago).

Remember, it was the German government itself that was doing much (if not most) of the hate speaking, *and* the government persecuted people who spoke out against the hatred.

They worked really hard at preventing people from speaking in favor of Jews and Gypsies (and others).

If the people of Germany had had true freedom to speak out (and act out) against the hatred, the results might have been different.

The Holocaust might not have been completely prevented by free speech, but it probably would have been more difficult to pull it off if people were free to publish and speak out without themselves being hauled off to the death camps.

I have no problem with the latter part of what you say: Nazis certainly suppressed free speech, and had it been honored--as well as personal protection against arrest!-- things MIGHT have been better.

HOWEVER, I want to focus on the Nazi's rise. Certainly up to the Reichstag fire, there was free speech in Germany, more or less, AND it helped the Nazis rise:

http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/timeline/nazifica.htm

//On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames. Nazis immediately claimed that this was the beginning of a Communist revolution. This fact leads many historians to believe that Nazis actually set, or help set the fire. Others believe that a deranged Dutch Communist set the fire. The issue has never been resolved. This incident prompted Hitler to convince Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency. This laid the foundation for a police state. //

Further, i'd point out that the popular vote giving Hitler unlimited power was Aug 19, 1933.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-becomes.htm

//On August 19, about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million votes of approval (90 percent of the vote). Thus Adolf Hitler could claim he was Führer of the German nation by direct will of the people. Hitler now wielded absolute power in Germany, beyond that of any previous traditional head of state. He had become, in effect, the law unto himself.
The next day, August 20, mandatory loyalty oaths were introduced throughout the Reich...//


So the kernel of the argument is that if Germany, prior to 1933 had a strong gov't, [ADDED: a functioning democracy honoring individual rights], and laws in place against 'hate speech,' the Nazi rise would have been prevented, or greatly impeded. [ADDED: And in any case, the present German laws, and similar laws in France, Holland, etc. are helping to WEAKEN the neo nazi {or re vivified nazi} movement--i.e. through suppressing its propaganda and jailing its spokespersons.]

 

[angela146]

On January 1, 1923, the Ku Klux Klan held a parade and rally of over 100 hooded Klansmen in nearby Gainesville, Florida under a burning cross and a banner reading, “First and Always Protect Womanhood."

I suppose this is ‘free speech,’ as rox defines it?

I know this was directed to Rox, but I'll take a stab at it:

Burning a cross isn't speech. The fire itself is dangerous and was often accompanied by people lighting their torches and burning down the houses of the people they hated. Replace the fire with neon lights and you have something that comes back into the area that I would protect.

Of course, I would stipulate that the cross can't be erected on the property of of the person being hated, you have to do it on your own land.

If there were a hundred hooded Klansmen on parade in my neighborhood, I might be tempted to organize a dozen topless women as a counter-protest.

I wonder who would get the attention of the local TV crew?

(Not today, though. It's supposed to be 0 degrees out with a -20 wind chill).

 

[Pure]

as to your example

ang Burning a cross isn't speech. The fire itself is dangerous and was often accompanied by people lighting their torches and burning down the houses of the people they hated. Replace the fire with neon lights and you have something that comes back into the area that I would protect.

Of course, I would stipulate that the cross can't be erected on the property of of the person being hated, you have to do it on your own land.

P: Can you understand that a black person, walking along the main street, Jefferson Davis Boulevard, and seeing the Klansman's neon-simulation of a burning cross, set up on his own property, bearing the words, "The Christian White Nation will Rise! Eliminate the Mud People --n*****s and Jews!" might feel a wee bit threatened?

Do you really think he will buy your argument that he should feel safer because this is out in the open, and townspeople are walking by, saying "Nice Cross." and "Ditto."

 

[angela146]

I have no problem with the latter part of what you say: Nazi's certainly suppressed free speech, and had it been honored--as well as personal protection against arrest!-- things MIGHT have been better.

HOWEVER, I want to focus on the Nazi's rise. Certainly up to the Reichstag fire, there was free speech in Germany, more or less, AND it helped the Nazis rise:

[snip]

Further, i'd point out that the popular vote giving Hitler unlimited power was Aug 19, 1933.

Germany in the 1920's did not have a tradition of free speech or democratic government. They had had a democratic government for less than 10 years. Before that, Germany had been monarchist.

That made it much easier for the government to impose a totalitarian regime in the 1930's than it would have been in America in the 1930's.

So the kernel of the argument is that if Germany, prior to 1933 had a strong gov't and laws in place against 'hate speech,' the Nazi rise would have been prevented, or greatly impeded.

No, as soon as you end free speech, you greatly reduce the ability of a population to fight tyranny.

The kernel of the argument is that an embedded tradition/heritage of free speech (and individual liberty) in Germany, prior to 1933 would have impeded the Nazi's from their goals.

Liberty needs a couple of generations to soak into the collective soul of the population and become part of the cultural heritage. Once it becomes entrenched, it's much harder to dislodge it.

 

[angela146]

P: Can you understand that a black person, walking along the main street, Jefferson Davis Boulevard, and seeing the Klansman's neon-simulation of a burning cross, set up on his own property, bearing the words, "The Christian White Nation will Rise! Eliminate the Mud People --n*****s and Jews!" might feel a wee bit threatened?

Do you really think he will buy your argument that he should feel safer because this is out in the open, and townspeople are walking by, saying "Nice Cross." and "Ditto."

In today's world, there would be national TV coverage followed by busloads of people arriving to march down the street in protest.

Jessie Jackson, Hillary Clinton and a whole bunch of other people would be standing in front of the cross competing for face time on CNN to denounce the Klan.

Choruses of "We Shall Overcome" would be so loud that the local Klansmen wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Al Sharpton would be the most popular guest on the TV talk shows as he reminded people that places like Jefferson Davis Boulevard still exist in America.

The Bill Gates foundation would provide a hundred million dollars to build a black history cultural center and library on the site where the cross once stood.

Yup, I think the black person might be glad that some idiot Klansmen erected a cross on his street corner.

In 1912, not so much...

...but today, I would love to see a Klan cross go up across the street from my house, or (even better) across from my brother's house in Virginia. I (or my brother) would be charging Keith Olberman rent so he could set up his news van and cameras for live 24 hour coverage.

We'd be out there pouring free lemonade for the Obama campaign and whoever else showed up. If I had time, I'd print up a thousand T-shirts that said, "I'm a Mud Person and Proud of It!" so I could sell them for $25 each.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RA

I've said on numerous occasions that I agree with F.A. Hayek's view about speech: You never know where the next great idea will come from, and when you suppress speech you delay its arrival.

I also posted the thread featuring the cop and 75 year old woman who was jailed for calling him a 'brat' and a few other things. But what he did was arrest her for speech he didnt like. The mayor called her and apologized.

But the way to nip it all in the bud is to allow every utterance and idea.

 

[rgraham666]

Well there you go. Canada's political and governmental elites favor homosexuals as a class and despise Christian conservatives, so we have a prosecution against the one, but no prosecutions against those who issue all manner of screeds against Christian conservatives - examples of which are occassionally seen right here, in fact. Not that I don't think some of those screeds have some merit (most are just ignorant bile), but that's irrelevent. If you wouldn't want the government censoring the one, then you should not favor it censoring the other.

You know, Roxanne, you are on my ignore list. But occasionally I read your work because others quote you.

The statement bolded above reminds me why I ignore you.

You really are a clueless twit. You know nothing about the country I've lived in all my life, love dearly and would cheerfully lay down my life to protect.

As to the free speech conundrum; well, words are actions. They communicate ideas and emotions. This is generally a good thing.

But those ideas can be evil ones and the emotions bad ones. Also a group can use its freedom of speech to remove that freedom from others, by shouting them down. The Nazis and Communists were very fond of this.

So if words are actions, they are best used with restraint and care. And people must be responsible for their actions.

But, let's face it, many people don't like restraint or care. And loathe responsibility.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Makes a lot of sense to me, Rob.

If you dont like someone's speech, shout them down or create an ordinance to mute them. Canada chooses to mute expression. It seems nicer than Nazi Germany but the result is the same.

In the free marketplace of ideas you fill your stall with your wares and people select what they want. In Canada the stalls are filled with what the bureaucrats want.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You're not. There's a disconnect as to what constitutes protectable speech, and the cost/benefit analysis of casting an overbroad protective (or restrictive) net.

We can start with the basics (and bore everyone to tears, which I seem prone to do): Would say that my offering $200 to cantog to slash Pure's tires is protected speech?

As I said in one of my first posts (and the OMG! thread Ezra Levant makes the case superbly in during the kangaroo court he was subjected to a week ago in Alberta, clips here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related

In one of those clips he clearly lays out rather comprehensively the types of speech that are not protected under any reasonable and principled interpretation of free speech, which include things like incitement to riot or committ a crime (slash tires), fraud, copyright violation, etc. Shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's not really complicated.

The type of speech that's entitled to the most hands-off treatment is political speech, because it's the really the point of having the principle and law. Other types of speech like smut get to ride along primarily for reasons Rumple alluded to when he aked "who gets to define 'hateful'?" - Who gets to define "political?"

I'll add this: Who will watch the watchers once you give them the power to silence political speech?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rox There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

rox's contribution to the debate is to say that she favors 'free speech' and pure and the Germans, Canadians etc don't favor it, or even favor its suppression. nice pose! perhaps less than worthy as a debate tactic, but hey, if you've got nothing else. BUT WAIT

elsewhere we have rox talking about 'no absolute rights' and--reminisnicent of Rand-- equating that absolutism with 'nihilism.'

and elsewhere saying that context is all important.

and elsewhere endorsing mr levant's list of proper restrictions on free speech including incitement to riot, conspiracy [discussing and planning crime, moving towards its execution], revelation of 'official secrets', libel and defamation laws [speech or writing that brings an individual into public contempt, harms him through ruining his reputation].

oh, i know the explanation: consistency is the hobgloblin of small minds.

Political speech. Political speech. Political speech. Political speech. Political speech. Political speech.

Get that into your head. Protecting it is the purpose and origin and principle of the institution of free speech. I know you love to make legalistic arguments that are disconnected from any underlying principles - Berman in a discussion of Kelo, Boisson in this one. Those are just as hostile to and destructive of the core principle and institution as were Plessy and Dred Scott - and probably whatever precedents were cited by the prosecution in Zenger, too.

The principle exists for a good reason that's based on precedent of a much more substantive nature: The fullness of history. We don't trust fucking governments to tell us what we can and can't say! Especially about anything that has any political message no matter how it's conveyed - op-ed, tract, Mohammed cartoon, smut story, bullhorn, etc. etc. etc.

Why? Often trite is true: Free speech is the strongest bullwark against tyrranny. It's the first thiing to go when fascists move in, whether they be of the left or the right. Indeed, one could say restrictions of free speech is the leading hallmark of fascism. (Dishonesty and hypocracy are two more - I love that line in the Canadian thought crime law, "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.")

~~~~~~~~

There's a fairly bright line between that kind of speech and speech subject to the "proper restrictions" you list in the quoted post. Where the line become dim then strict scrutiny is warranted for any restrictions.

 

[Liar]

As I said in one of my first posts (and the OMG! thread Ezra Levant makes the case superbly in during the kangaroo court he was subjected to a week ago in Alberta, clips here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related

In one of those clips he clearly lays out rather comprehensively the types of speech that are not protected under any reasonable and principled interpretation of free speech, which include things like incitement to riot or committ a crime (slash tires), fraud, copyright violation, etc. Shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's not really complicated.

I beg to differ. This is that part that IS complicated. Because what kind of speech is incitement and what kind is not? A private request to commit a specific crime? ("Rox, I want to you slash Pure's tires.") A public request to commit a non-specific crime? ("I say to ye all, slash the tires of social democratic AH denizens. It's your duty as Americans to do so.") Or speech and behaviour that is likely to cause crimes against the ones the speech is targeting? It's defined in one legislaion in one way and elsewhere in another way. How it's defined in Canada, I don't know. But fromthe Levant case, it seems the bar is ridiculously low.

But however it is defined, you'll end up with is a line and a plethora of cases where it is unclear if the line was or was not crossed. Real Life is never as digital as anyone's principles.

And to quote myself:

Wherever you draw the line, you will have a grey zone of both people who complain that they are being hurt, harassed, and discrimiated against because of it, and people who complain that their free speech rights are being shat upon.

There's no magic formula.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There is a certain kind of person whose own views are so meticulously alligned with the status quo "socially acceptable" climate of opinion of the milieu they inhabit that they're unaware of being strident adherents to a very rigid dogma. Instead they view their dogma as some sort of content-free vacuum or "natural state." Like fish in water, they don't realize that they are wet.

They can be dangerous in this, because they react to dissenters with the same bitter hatred and outrage as religious zealots, and don't consider themselves bound by the institution of civility. They presume that a dissenter's views are not only incorrect, they are illegitimate. In the present era that can produce a form of sly intolerance practiced by those who most loudly and passionately declaim the supremacy of "tolerance" - or else!

~~~~~~~~

While the defense of free speech infringements may come from thoughtful individuals acting in goodwill to mitigate some potentially unfortunate side-effects of the free speech institution - misguidedly in my view but that's why we're having a civil debate - for the type of person I describe above the speech infringements are a more vital matter. They are the iron fist of enforced tolerance.

 

[Liar]

Gonna assume you didn't type that in 2 minutes, and thus it wasn't a direct reply to my post.

Although it might be about me. In which case I wouldn't know. Fish, water and all that jazz.

 

[Handprints]

Well there you go. Canada's political and governmental elites favor homosexuals as a class and despise Christian conservatives, so we have a prosecution against the one, but no prosecutions against those who issue all manner of screeds against Christian conservatives - examples of which are occassionally seen right here, in fact. Not that I don't think some of those screeds have some merit (most are just ignorant bile), but that's irrelevent. If you wouldn't want the government censoring the one, then you should not favor it censoring the other.

Half my family emigrated to Canada after the war and, since they're from my side of the family, an absurdly high percentage of them are in politics (and, since they're from my side of the family, four kids in one family usually means four different parties have highly-committed lawyers/candidates/officeholders.) Christian conservatism is better tolerated in Canada than in any western European nation I can think of (maybe the Swiss are a little more accepting of it) and nowhere more so than in Alberta, which is Canada's version of Texas, awl bidness an' all... Homosexual couples are "favoured" by allowing them the same tax/inheritance/pension status as heterosexual ones, although I can make a case that Gay Pride organisers also get really nice days for their parades.

I asked one of my cousins the background to the Alberta legislation. The salient points were: the provincial government at the time needed a sop to the left and a means of containing some of its more quotable members. They allowed the crafting of legislation unlikely to survive any reasonably-funded challenge (the quid from the right) which created a commission very high on publicity-gaining challenges/investigation (the quo to the left) but extremely limited powers to fine/stop publication/otherwise interfere with the pursuits of oil, money and Stanley Cups. They also appointed the left's loudest (and most likely to burn a bridge) mouth to head it. Everyone involved walked away equally disappointed/nauseous, which is the Holy Grail of Canadian politics.

The freewheeling right wants the thing shut down and/or discredited. The dirigiste left wants a commission observer placed in every Sunday School. The more-or-less center (ok, slightly right of, by rest-of-Canada standards) thinks it's a relatively inexpensive boondoggle, a good source of entertainment and a highly-sensible means of ensuring that low-level crap doesn't reach the floor of the provincial parliament.

How's that for context?
H

 

[Pure]

zero substance

roxThere is a certain kind of person whose own views are so meticulously alligned with the status quo "socially acceptable" climate of opinion of the milieu they inhabit that they're unaware of being strident adherents to a very rigid dogma. Instead they view their dogma as some sort of content-free vacuum or "natural state." Like fish in water, they don't realize that they are wet.

They can be dangerous in this, because they react to dissenters with the same bitter hatred and outrage as religious zealots, and don't consider themselves bound by the institution of civility. They presume that a dissenter's views are not only incorrect, they are illegitimate. In the present era that can produce a form of sly intolerance practiced by those who most loudly and passionately declaim the supremacy of "tolerance" - or else!

P: 130 words. This is the apostle of reason. On the topic, all she can say, besides "I follow the ideas of mr levant." is "My opponents in Canada, Germany, France, Holland... are dangerous dogmatists."

Her basic premise, is "The US is the best country on earth, in its laws and government." No proof is offered No facts. It's her jingoist faith talking. And talking. And talking.

 

[Pure]

let me put it very simply,

hate speech [written form], already defined above, is defamation of a group.

it's illegal for the same reason that defamation of an individual is: it exposes them [the group's members] to hatred and contempt; it tends to ruin their reputation and hurt their livelihood. it may even can assaults or murder-- as when you say, "Joe Blow is a child molester." of "Joe Blow is working for al qaeda."

"political speech"-- not defined-- is not a defense against defamation, nor should it be against hate speech. there is such a thing as political discourse, and there is such a thing as overheated rhetoric, "my dastardly opponent's proposals would ruin america." there are normal insults and remarks causative of 'hurt feelings." all of these are and should be protected. they are in germany and canada.

hate speech is different, "my opponent is a homo, and we know how they violate our children; when you find one--like my opponent--, stringing him up and cutting off his balls is doing society a favor."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No Liar, it absolutely was not a reply to anything you have ever said.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

hate speech [written form], already defined above, is defamation of a group.

it's illegal for the same reason that defamation of an individual is: it exposes them to hatred and contempt; it tends to ruin their reputation and hurt their livelihood. it may even can assaults or murder-- as when you say, "Joe Blow is a child molester." of "Joe Blow is working for al qaeda."

"political speech"-- not defined-- is not a defense against defamation, nor should it be against hate speech. there is such a thing as political discourse, and there is such a thing as overheated rhetoric, "my dastardly opponent's proposals would ruin america." there are normal insults and remarks causative of 'hurt feelings." all of these are and should be protected. they are in germany and canada.

hate speech is different, "my opponent is a homo, and we know how they violate our children; when you find one--like my opponent--, stringing him up and cutting off his balls is doing society a favor."

Ah but Pure - the Canadian statute you seem to adore proscribes speech that merely might bring "contempt" down on a member of a class the government has decreed is "protected."

 

[Pure]

do your homework, rox. when you've done it, maybe you'll have something rational to post, and i'll respond. read wiki; read Boissoin; read Keegstra; read the German material. get out of your isolated "America first" cell. even dig up stuff yourself. look around at the world.
facts and arguments, rox. shibboleths and insults go nowhere, even though they are protected speech.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I have asserted that the elites in the Canadian government-class and political class favor homosexuals as a class and despise Christian conservatives. This is not so startling - the same could be said of he AH as a "class."

It doesn't mean there is necessarily passion of a dangerous sort in these sentiments, or that as a class they're necessarily out to do anything about it, per the paranoid complaints of some Christians that have been pointed to in some current thread - although they have allowed infringements on political speech to proceed.

My assertion is based on the premise that those establishments are predominantly "liberal" in the modern sense, and wear that ideology as they would a predominant fashion or style of dress. The assertion is not contradicted by the fact that many individual politicians affect a very different view when back in the district, either cynically or sincerely. I am characterizing a particular class, not every individual in it.

 

[cloudy]

There is a certain kind of person whose own views are so meticulously alligned with the status quo "socially acceptable" climate of opinion of the milieu they inhabit that they're unaware of being strident adherents to a very rigid dogma. Instead they view their dogma as some sort of content-free vacuum or "natural state." Like fish in water, they don't realize that they are wet.

gee, you think?

 

[oggbashan]

The laws in England ban speech that incites hatred of people because of race, colour, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

In practice those laws are only applied to extreme cases in public such as demonstration leaders shouting "Kill the non-Muslims", "Bash the Pakis", etc.

Jokes about the Irish, the Scots and the English are still permitted.

The law is draconian in theory but tolerant in its implementation.

There have been calls to extend the ancient blasphemy laws to cover other religions but so far those demands have been rejected. Blasphemy is not, and has not been, prosecuted for decades.

The intention of the law is to change attitudes and support tolerance. Whether a change in the law was necessary is still debated. Those most likely to offend are unlikely to be changed by knowing that their shouts are illegal.

Og