Hate Speech

[Pure]

content free rox:

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."

asserted, yes. given reasons or evidence, no. rox has a theory of what goes on in others' minds. however it's more of the nature of a speculation and attempted insult.

it's irrelevant to the argument of course.

it's a bit like beginning a discussion of the German law with the assertion that the German government hates nazis. utterly irrelevant.

of course the US [and Canadian] far right complaint, from falwell, amicus, and now roxanne, that gays are privileged and xian conservatives persecuted is pure fantasy. genuinely dangerous, in that the truly persecuted folks continue to be so, and the persecutors use these big lies to cloak their work, Goebbels-style.

huckleberry in on a roll. he and his ilk, unfortunately, are thriving. they are not the least 'endangered,' even in Canada.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's awkward to specify every person that my recent screed does not apply to, but so be it.

Pure and I have been "throwing elbows" at each other in this and related threads for the last week. We are passionate and we play rough, but in these threads neither of us have violated the rules of civility. A stripped down version of those rules is don't characterize your opponent as sick, evil or stupid.


~~~~

Edited to add: But if he keeps throwing out "goebbelses" and "huckleberries" I may have to throw in a few "Pol Pots" and "Stalins."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . .of course the US [and Canadian] far right complaint, from falwell, amicus, and now roxanne, that gays are privileged and xian conservatives persecuted is pure fantasy.

Ah ah ah! That's not what I asserted. I simply described what in my view is a set of attitudes characteristic of a particular political class and government class. I'm sure you don't reject the notion that a particular class can have a characteristic attitude.

 

[Pure]

Hate Crimes,

one argument for criminalizing or otherwise sanctioning 'hate speech' is that it's connected to 'hate crimes.' these have specific definitions, in each country. the FBI compiles data on US hate crimes, from which some of the data below are compiled.

one might note the the spectre raised by rox, of evangelical xian persecution, if that means hate crimes against them, seems to be very minor. those against blacks are common. this, of course does not deter the white far right from focusing on the former and ignoring the latter.

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

[verbatim excerpts]
Hate crime laws

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories: (1) laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes; (2) criminal penalty-enhancement laws; (3) laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and (4) laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[6] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.[6]




North America

Canada
Since 1966 the Canadian Criminal Code has included a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."[20] The Code also "punishes anyone who “advocates or promotes genocide,” with genocide defined to require that acts be committed “with the intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group.”

“Identifiable group,” in turn, is defined to mean “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Section 319, adopting the same definition of “identifiable group,” punishes the incitement or expression of hatred against such a group."[6] Civil remedies are also available in Canada for discriminatory acts.[6]

United States
Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States
As defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct."[21]

In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October 2007, Congress is considering the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics[22]


===

Hate crime victims

In the United States, anti-Black bias was the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. (African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group; Hispanics are the largest).[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, almost 3,000 of them were motivated by bias against African Americans.[5] Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, and anti-Hispanic.[5]

[[see document below]]

United States

Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States

As defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct."[21]

In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October 2007, Congress is considering the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics[22]

According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46 percent were classified as intimidation and 31.9 percent as simple assaults. 81 percent of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction. 58.6 percent of the 7,330 known offenders were white and 20.6 black. More than half, 52 percent, of the 9,652 victims identified were targeted because of race.[23]

[end verbatim wiki excerpts]

====
[[http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/pdf/everyday-fears-080805.pdf

Everyday Fears: A Survey of Violent Hate Crimes
in Europe and North America
by Michael McClintock



[US Data]

In 2002, 67.5 percent of the 8,825 identified
offenses from single-bias incidents were crimes
against persons and 32 percent were crimes
against property (just 0.2 percent were crimes
against society). Of these, the most common
offenses reported were intimidation (35.2 percent
of the cases); destruction/damage/vandalism
(26.6 percent); simple assault (20.3 percent); and
aggravated assault (11.7 percent). There were
eleven homicides and eight rapes (.Three forcible
rapes resulted for a sexual-orientation bias . . .
one from a disability bias..).582

In its analysis of the motivation for the offenses
examined, the survey found that 48.8 percent
concerned racial bias. Other categories of bias,
and the percentage of incidents, were:

• Religious bias: 19.1 percent;

• Sexual-orientation bias: 16.7 percent;
• Ethnicity or national origin bias: 14.8
percent;
• Physical or mental disability bias: 0.6
percent.

The breakdown of racist violence found that of
4,394 offenses, 67.5 percent resulted from .an
anti-black. bias, and 6.1 percent resulted from
bias against Asians or Pacific Islanders. Other
groups of varying races were the object of 4.6
percent of offenses, while 1.5 percent .targeted
American Indians or Alaskan Natives..583

A statistical distinction between .racial bias. and
bias based on .ethnicity or national origin. is also
drawn in the survey, with 1,345 classified under
the latter category. The report notes .that
investigators determined . . . that 44.7 percent
were associated with anti-Hispanic prejudice.. The
remaining 55.3 percent were classified as .antiother
ethnicity/national origin bias.. There is no
express reference to bias against Arab-Americans
or people of Middle East or South Asian origin,
although hate crimes against Muslims were
classified as .anti-Islamic bias..584

Antisemitism is addressed under .anti-religious.
bias. The breakdown of 1,576 total offenses
classified as based on religious bias found 65.9
percent based on .anti-Jewish bias.. Anti-Islamic
bias accounted for 10.8 percent of these offenses,
and bias against .other, unspecified religious
groups. made up 13.8 percent. Anti-Catholic (3.7
percent) and anti-Protestant (2.0 percent)
offenses also figured in the data.585

Figures on bias based on sexual orientation
covered 1,464 offenses: .Of these, male
homosexuals were the targets of 65.4 percent of
the attacks. Law enforcement attributed the
remaining offenses to anti-homosexual bias, 17.7
percent; anti-female homosexual bias, 14.1
percent; anti-heterosexual bias, 1.8 percent; and
anti-bisexual bias, 1.0 percent..586 ]]

 

[Pure]

hey, have a listen!

christians are being hauled away in handcuffs!

the xian right in action.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=THOUGHT_CRIMES&f=PG07C04

does mr perkins, in his message, remind you of any persons here at AH?

 

[Oblimo]

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.

Actually, it is, as evinced by the necessity to use the phrase "includes things like" when people engage in this discussion. We know what unprotected free speech looks like, but we just have examples provided from history -- we don't have a logical category that fits well.

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

Remember, I'm the one advocating against using Germany's laws as a model in countries that have not fallen under fascist, expansionist, genocidal political regimes in the 20th Century.

 

[Pure]

question:

do 'hate speech' laws improperly or unwarrantedly infringe upon freedom of religion?

a number of religious texts can be 'preached' re destroying or eliminating or severely punishing various groups, e.g. gays., women, nonbelievers.

at the same time, even the US has limited 'freedom of religion' when it's directly connected with criminal acts, either doing them or directly inciting commitment of them.

 

[cantdog]

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.

Really, Rox. This is a very carefully detailed straw man. You get a prize for the realistic paint job.

Already a couple swings have been taken at it.

 

[cantdog]

do 'hate speech' laws improperly or unwarrantedly infringe upon freedom of religion?

a number of religious texts can be 'preached' re destroying or eliminating or severely punishing various groups, e.g. gays., women, nonbelievers.

at the same time, even the US has limited 'freedom of religion' when it's directly connected with criminal acts, either doing them or directly inciting commitment of them.

I wish they would. Dogma is mostly hate speech and ridiculous prescriptions for barbaric values to be applied to a modern society. If they were at all limited by hate speech laws, I would likely applaud the outcome. I deny that it would be at all unwarranted.

But alas, in this country, it would be agnostic fundamentalists who would get the fines and jail terms.

There are laws about preaching how to vote from the pulpit, too. But no one follows those laws except the liberal churches, who are the only ones who see the utility of the 'wall of separation.'

The fascists in this century aren't going to appear in uniform, they will come dressed as churches and Islamic congregations, and so on. There's already quite a few examples. This kind of law is a wedge law for that sort of person.

 

[Pure]

lonely

it's my impression that, with the possible exception of cantdog, i'm the only American in AH [among those who've posted] favoring some sanctions* against hate speech. i'm in company--it's my impression--, internationally, of rg, liar** and ogg.

it's a tiny group. lonely, but distinguished. (brag).

---

*i am not specifying what i think is the best set of laws [haven't had time for a survey], though i think the Canadian ones are pretty good, and have served adequately.

---

is my impression correct?

**
ADDED: I have read a later posting by liar, and as i understand him, he will consider the theoretical possibility of certain curbs on free speech, where direct incitement is involved. he believes, as i do, that the line between the agreed [by the most absolute proponents] exceptions to 'free speech,' and the ones under 'hate speech laws is not always clear.

Further addition, Jan 21, 2008. Cantdog and rg have recently stated that they oppose 'hate speech' legislation. I guess that just leaves me and ogg--- and a few million europeans who don't post here.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure, reciting chapter-and-verse of bad statutes based on flawed premises, logic and readings of history doesn't do anything the challenge the principle of not yielding up to government the power to infringe political speech. Since you accuse me of jingoistic parochialism I might as well use a particular quote to explain the basis for that principle:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Freedom-lovers all around the world recognize that one of the most important "fire screens" extant for keeping that servant in its place is unbridled freedom of speech.

 

[SavannahMann]

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech means just what it says.

The text of the first amendment is pretty plain.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not Congress shall make no law abridging speech too much. Not Congress shall not abridge speech the majority likes. Congress shall not abridge speech. Period. Obviously there are public safety exceptions, the old example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. Now, if you wish to go after those who you think are espousing violence against a group, on the argument that they are violating public safety, no sweat. Banning the speech is wrong.

Now, what do I think about those people who shout vile racial epitaphs as they commit a violent crime? I think they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the violent crime. Why not bring the racial or gender angle in? Simple. It is the motivation behind the action, use it that way.

Much of this started with the dragging death of a black man named Byrd. It was a horrible barbaric death, and we citizens began to chant about laws to hate crimes. Then Matthew Sheppard was killed. Again the chant was picked up. Wyoming found all three participants in the deaths of Matthew Sheppard guilty. Sentenced one to death, and two to life in prison without parole. Now, what additional punishment should they get? The one whom was sentenced to death, do we take him almost to death, right to deaths door, and then bring him back? Double death as it were? Perhaps we should make them listen to Political Speeches day and night until they go stark raving insane? Death of the mind as it were?

Those with life without parole, do we leave their corpses in the prison for another twenty years until the bones are rotted? What additional punishment should they receive?

Congress shall make no law. I'm an American, I once played soldier, went off and put on the uniform and all. Today I see stories of people protesting soldiers. Some lawyer in Chicago ran his keys down the side of a Marines' car, destroying the paint, and calling him vile names. Would that qualify as hate speech? NO. It's not racially motivated nor is it gender based, so... Oh well. Yet, even in that example, where I deplore the actions and comments of the lawyer. I would object to a law prohibiting his words.

Freedom of Speech means you are free to say and think what you want, no matter how wrong it is, or how stupid it makes you look. It means that we take issue with your actions. You can say you hate me, and I'll shrug and ignore you. If you lay a hand on me, or mine, then we have a problem.

 

[Weird Harold]

it's my impression that, with the possible exception of cantdog, i'm the only American in AH [among those who've posted] favoring some sanctions* against hate speech.

You may well be alone in your desire to pass NEW laws that establish a precedent for limiting Free Speech and a Free Press. IMHO, there are no NEW laws required to deal with the public dessemination of unpalatable opinions. What is needed is better education in critical thinking so that the inconsistent and illogical claims of hate-mongers aren't so acceptable to large numbers.

I can't cite you any examples, but I am certain that the courts have ruled that radio shows or TV shows or movies are also protected under the First Amendment.

Radio, TV and Movies are protected under the First Ammendment, but they also are the source of several precendents for restrictions on what can be said/shown and where/when it can be broadcast/shown.

Some of the restrictions are "voluntary" restrictions imposed by the industry -- but imposed under threat of legislation if the restrictions weren't severe enough.

Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" is a good example of legal restrictions on "freedom of expression/speech/press" that have been upheld under the principle of "we're not saying you can't expose your nipple decorations, you just can't do it live on a nationwide broadcast."

The fines that were imposed on the broadcasters for Janet's "malfuntion" were assessed for violation of rules established to preserve "community standards" and those same "[national] community standards" should suffice to keep Hate-mongers from nation-wide forums; let them spout their hatred from a literal soapbox on a literal streetcorner or anywhere else their un-amplified voice can be heard.

I am deeply offended by the notion of the U.S. government (or any government within the U.S.) restricting or prohibiting speech or press, especially "hate" speech, unless the speech/press itself is a direct criminal action that causes harm by itself. (I'll explain that at the end of the post).

I want hateful speech to be done out in the open where I can hear it and speak out against it.

For example, I want Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs spouting their racist and National Socialist views on television so that people will see the danger and will not become complacent. ...

I can definitely see you point here, but I'd much rather that Pat and Lou didn't have direct access to 40 million couch potatoes looking for someone to blame their poverty and non-existent sex-lives on.

There are far too many people in this country who think -- and I use the term loosely -- that "Critical Thinking" and "Critical Mass" are the same thing; if they let their thoughts go critical, their head will explode.

I'd much prefer to hear that they are hate-mongering than hear them first-hand. The example of "Reverend" Phelps(?) and his bunch of loonies picketing the funerals of soldiers is the model I'd like to see for the suppression of Hate-Mongering -- they don't even rate TV coverage anymore unless the counter-protesters get violent. They don't get a live national forum for their speech and they don't get to intrude onto private property to disrupt the funerals, but they're not reduced to hiding in secret meetings to avoid the thought police -- at least not yet.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . it's a tiny group. lonely, but distinguished. (brag).

I know, it must feel odd for you. Of course I'm quite accustomed to it. Go ahead, enjoy the experience; savor the pleasant melancholy.

 

[Oblimo]

Now, if you wish to go after those who you think are espousing violence against a group, on the argument that they are violating public safety, no sweat. Banning the speech is wrong.

Well, there's an interesting question: should the crime of incitement to riot require that a riot actually be incited before the defendant can be found guilty, or could you/ought you criminalize "attempted incitement to riot?"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . How's that for context?
H

Superb!




(No, really! )

 

[secretme]

Well, there's an interesting question: should the crime of incitement to riot require that a riot actually be incited before the defendant can be found guilty, or could you/ought you criminalize "attempted incitement to riot?"

You know this particular point brings to mind something that happened around my town a couple years back. Under the banner of free speech the KKK came to town to march, because supposedly we're a hotbed of racial tension. There was a huge protest against their presence here because it was assumed that if they showed up there would be a riot. So there was discussion as to whether or not they should be allowed in town. Well they got in. Naturally. Freedom of speech and all. There was a riot. Naturally. Because things were said that started a fight. The stupid part about it was that in the end it turned out that it was someone outside of the march and the protesting that started the riot. Then thanks to the press and everything else plans were supposedly made for the KKK to come back and do another march. This one was supposed to be bigger than the last one. Again free speech. The debate continues as to whether they should be allowed back.

The thing is I always thought that freedom in general was written with a catch 22. You get to have freedom to do what you like until it impinges upon my freedom to do what I like. Then lines get to start being drawn. Problem comes in because no one really knows where to draw the lines. Do you get to do what you like and I go somewhere else or vice versa?

So what do I think about censorship. I don't like it. I think that everyone should have the common sense to know what's appropriate when. Will that ever happen? Nope.

So what do you do about? No one knows that either. It's not fair to limit the people who don't need limiting. And if you start limiting the people that do need limiting you are going to limit the ones that don't as well just by course of action. There is no good way to do it. It's messy and you never know where you're supposed to stop.

When I was in high school we started having trouble with gangs in our classes. Kids were getting picked on over clothes. Both because people were getting beat up for things that were nice and for things that were not nice and because kids were going home in tears because not everyone had the money to buy name brands. So we got uniforms. Was that impinging on the right of free expression of the kids in the school. You betcha. But the parents went for it to protect their kids. Then what happened? The kids found new reasons and ways to pick on each other. It's just the way it works.

All the cities that are making smoking illegal in public places is another good example. You only get to smoke at home under a blanket at two in the morning with all the lights out (Leary's comedy sketch). The basis of that being legal is that smoke in my breathing space, if I don't want it there, is impinging on my right to clean air. Since you can't keep your smoke from floating into my face then you're violating my freedom. They're not saying that you can't smoke. Just that you can't smoke anywhere a non-smoker might want to be. The same could be said for speech in it's various forms in public places. You can't say something that might offend me in a public place that I might also be in. But if you can't say something mean where everyone can hear it, then do we next say that you can't say something nice where anyone might hear it? What if someone takes offense to me saying that I love you in public? Where do we go from there?

The debate will continue forever... There is no good solution.

I'm an avid fence sitter on the point. Don't blow to hard from one side or the other I might fall off. And I hate climbing back up.

 

[Pure]

rox, and note to savannah

Pure, reciting chapter-and-verse of bad statutes based on flawed premises, logic and readings of history doesn't do anything the challenge the principle of not yielding up to government the power to infringe political speech.

ah yes, the American laws are the good ones, those of England, Canada and Germany are the bad ones.

you specialize is arguing in a circle.

you've never defined 'political speech', or ventured to say whether it applies to some obvious examples (assumed to be written) given:

next to a KKK cross: "eliminate the mud people--blacks and jews."

"my opponent, Joe Blow, is gay, we know what violence gays commit against children. the world would be a better place i[f] we just string up a fellow like that."

"jews are vermin who should be exterminated."

'white christians are to rally tonight at X, and take whatever steps necessary to deal with the commie agitators in our town."

"it is time for all white Christians to utterly root out and bring to nought all those who deny God's Son, Jesus."

----
you have never presented any arguments that such statements further useful political discourse or democracy processes.

==
note to savannah:


savannah//Not Congress shall make no law abridging speech too much. Not Congress shall not abridge speech the majority likes. Congress shall not abridge speech. Period. Obviously there are public safety exceptions, the old example of shouting fire in a crowded theater//

P: you say no laws abridging 'free speech,' and then give an exception.

why?

further you do not take account of the several other exceptions most of the 'free speech' crowd agree are pretty common, e.g. inciting a riot, exposing an official secret, conspiracy, and defamation among others.

you have not even thought about the problem, it appears, since you refute your own absolute position in your own posting.
===


savannah said, in part

//Freedom of Speech means just what it says.

The text of the first amendment is pretty plain.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not Congress shall make no law abridging speech too much. Not Congress shall not abridge speech the majority likes. Congress shall not abridge speech. Period. Obviously there are public safety exceptions, the old example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. Now, if you wish to go after those who you think are espousing violence against a group, on the argument that they are violating public safety, no sweat. Banning the speech is wrong. [...]

Freedom of Speech means you are free to say and think what you want, no matter how wrong it is, or how stupid it makes you look. It means that we take issue with your actions. You can say you hate me, and I'll shrug and ignore you. If you lay a hand on me, or mine, then we have a problem. //

 

[Pure]

note to secretme

that's an interesting posting. you've given some thought to the matter.

it's in fact, as liar said earlier, to draw a line as to which 'speech' (including writing), is valid, perhaps insulting, expression of an extreme view, and when it's likely going to cause, or or contribute to causing harm to others (other than hurt feelings).

at the personal level, there is general agreement that defamation should, if not illegal, should be actionable, i.e. subject to a law suit.

one position on hate speech, KKK stuff, etc. is NOT to have criminal law applied, but civil law. i believe this was done in one KKK case. multimillion dollar suits eventually were adjudged, and the headquarters building had to be sold to pay the damages.

 

[rgraham666]

The thing is I always thought that freedom in general was written with a catch 22. You get to have freedom to do what you like until it impinges upon my freedom to do what I like. Then lines get to start being drawn. Problem comes in because no one really knows where to draw the lines. Do you get to do what you like and I go somewhere else or vice versa?

The best lines are the ones you draw inside.

The biggest problem with this is empathy, or lack of it rather. The people who misuse free speech completely lack empathy for their victims. As pure pointed out, their victims are not even regarded as people. Their victims are niggers, chinks and spics. Heretics, unbelievers, Communists and Nazis.

Not being human, and the very basis of evil in the world, there is no need to feel empathy towards or to limit any action taken against them.

It is, at its root, another way of avoiding responsibility. But a lot of people don't like responsibility.

 

[secretme]

The best lines are the ones you draw inside.

The biggest problem with this is empathy, or lack of it rather. The people who misuse free speech completely lack empathy for their victims. As pure pointed out, their victims are not even regarded as people. Their victims are niggers, chinks and spics. Heretics, unbelievers, Communists and Nazis.

Not being human, and the very basis of evil in the world, there is no need to feel empathy towards or to limit any action taken against them.

It is, at its root, another way of avoiding responsibility. But a lot of people don't like responsibility.

'kay, good point. So how do you write up the law to make people draw the inside line? *sigh*

 

[Liar]

it's my impression that, with the possible exception of cantdog, i'm the only American in AH [among those who've posted] favoring some sanctions* against hate speech. i'm in company--it's my impression--, internationally, of rg, liar and ogg.

it's a tiny group. lonely, but distinguished. (brag).

---

*i am not specifying what i think is the best set of laws [haven't had time for a survey], though i think the Canadian ones are pretty good, and have served adequately.

---

is my impression correct?

I actually haven't stated my opinion here. I just pointed out that it's not as clear cut an issue as it seems from many posts here.

Speech that is speech should always be permitted, and like someone (Angela?) said, pulled out from the shadows for public scrutiny.

But that which we blatantly label "hate speech" or "free speech" can in many cases have the same intention and effect as direct incitement to commit crime. And somewhere there is where words become actions, and the pen, superior to swords as it is, starts stabbing people. Then we're not expressing opinions, then we're yelling "fire".

Where is that "somewhere there"? Where do we draw the line? Damned if I know, but wherever we draw it, we will have people on both sides of it, whose rights are violated. We'll ALWAYS have that. Unless we start taking away peoples' rights.

 

[rgraham666]

'kay, good point. So how do you write up the law to make people draw the inside line? *sigh*

By making empathy something we exercise every day. And teaching it to our children with the same assiduousness that we teach them how to make and keep money.

 

[Liar]

The thing is I always thought that freedom in general was written with a catch 22. You get to have freedom to do what you like until it impinges upon my freedom to do what I like. Then lines get to start being drawn. Problem comes in because no one really knows where to draw the lines. Do you get to do what you like and I go somewhere else or vice versa?

...

The debate will continue forever... There is no good solution.

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[rgraham666]

By making empathy something we exercise every day. And teaching it to our children with the same assiduousness that we teach them how to make and keep money.

Another thing. This talk of drawing lines is a little silly. It's as if we could map out our intellectual world the same way we map the physical one.

That's not possible. Our intellectual world has no set geography. It's in constant flux. Any line we set is going to be in the wrong place the second we set it as the ground, so to speak, moves under it.

The best we can do is handle misuse of free speech on a case by case basis, with history and ethics as outlines on how to react to it.

We're not God. We're not even Jesus. To hope that we can create a perfect system is a false one.