Hate Speech

[oggbashan]

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).

---

...is my impression correct?

I wish that there wasn't a need for laws against inciting hatred.

Unfortunately tolerance is not universal. We have had race riots in the UK and the violence was fuelled by agitators deliberately lying to frightened people to stir them up to commit violence.

Last year, 2007, some Muslim youths were repeatedly told that a Muslim girl had been gang-raped by white youths in their neighbourhood. No such rape had happened but the lying statement was enough for an attack on people who had committed no offence at all - lynch law in action. IF the people originating and spreading the lie could have been identified they could have been prosecuted under the laws against inciting racial hatred. Local community leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim, had to calm their young people down because neither side would believe the Police's denials about the rape.

We have apparently legitimate political parties who advocate (in private) compulsory deportation of legal immigrants including their children of immigrant descent who were born here of naturalised Britons. The race-hate laws prevent those parties from expressing their views openly yet everyone knows what they intend.

Unfortunately, instead of allowing the representatives of those parties freedom to debate the issues with their opponents, there is a group of people so violently opposed to their views that they will not allow open refutation nor the opportunity for mainstream parties to show in debate just how evil are the policies the minority parties propose. That group stop meetings by violent demonstrations - thus destroying free speech. Both sides are intolerant and their ultimate argument is violence.

There are also minority groups of religious fanatics who consider anyone not of their mind as damned non-persons with no rights. That sort of belief is not exclusive to Muslim fanatics. There are so-called Christian fanatics and sects that are just as blinkered in their belief systems.

But that's the way people are. Tolerance of your opponents is a rare beast.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

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 is 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.

Gee, Pure the usefulness should be obvious: Any candidate who made such statements would lose, and any demagogue who did so would be marginalized into a very dark and deep hole. You should know the really scary people never use such blatantly transparent appeals, but clever sly ones that would slip past the censors, and if the censorship net were sufficiently fine to capture them, it would rope in all kinds of very legitimate speech.

~~~

There is a legitimate issue raised here, and I only have time to mention it: How does a free society deal with "inauthentic identities," as one group of scholars labeled them - groups that we not should seek to satisfy in our desire to make our system responsive to "all viewpoints," because doing so would make the system less democratic rather than more so. I'm quite convinced that infringements on free speech is not the means to address this, however, and the lessons of history plus 250 years of liberal tradition back me up on that.

 

[Pure]

[on pure's examples]

rox, Gee, Pure the usefulness [to political discourse] should be obvious: Any candidate who made such statements would lose, and any demagogue who did so would be marginalized into a very dark and deep hole.

whether you're talking US or Europe-- and you mention no context-- such a claim is transparently false. it appears you deal with questions of fact by referencing an ideal world of minds like JS Mill, and yourself, only in second place by a hair.

actually, i know you've seen, at least on film or tv, a nazi or KKK rally, and seen hundreds or thousands of people 'buying' such stuff (although my examples specified written communication--also produced by the above entities).

===
pure's examples (written communication)

//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 if 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."//

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

[on pure's examples]

rox, Gee, Pure the usefulness [to political discourse] should be obvious: Any candidate who made such statements would lose, and any demagogue who did so would be marginalized into a very dark and deep hole.

whether you're talking US or Europe-- and you mention no context-- such a claim is transparently false.

I'm talking the US, Canada and Europe right now, and my assertion is self-evidently true. The societies you're so eager to impose thought crime laws on are the last places on earth that need them.

 

[Oblimo]

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?

One day, making tracks
In the prairie of Prax,
Came a North-Going Zax
And a South-Going Zax.

And it happened that both of them came to a place
Where they bumped. There they stood.
Foot to foot. Face to face.

"Look here, now!" the North-Going Zax said, "I say!
You are blocking my path. You are right in my way.
I'm a North-Going Zax and I always go north.
Get out of my way, now, and let me go forth!"

"Who's in whose way?" snapped the South-Going Zax.
"I always go south, making south-going tracks.
So you're in MY way! And I ask you to move
And let me go south in my south-going groove."

Then the North-Going Zax puffed his chest up with pride.
"I never," he said, "take a step to one side.
And I'll prove to you that I won't change my ways
If I have to keep standing here fifty-nine days!"

"And I'll prove to YOU," yelled the South-Going Zax,
"That I can stand here in the prairie of Prax
For fifty-nine years! For I live by a rule
That I learned as a boy back in South-Going School.
Never budge! That's my rule. Never budge in the least!
Not an inch to the west! Not an inch to the east!
I'll stay here, not budging! I can and I will
If it makes you and me and the whole world stand still!"

Well...

Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.
In a couple of years, the new highway came through
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax
And left them there:
Standing,
Un-budged,
in their tracks.

 

[WRJames]

Of course, it would be nice to live in a cuddly world where everyone gave everyone else nice hugs and there was no hint of hateful discourse -- or would it? As I said in a description of my novels once, my characters could live lives of peace and virtue, but what fun would that be?

The same applies, perhaps to a lesser extent, to the "real" world. Even though there are no hate speech laws in the US, political correctness is so rampant that there might as well be. Just dare to use the "n" word. or call someone a "nappy ho", or put a noose on the cover of your golf magazine.

Not that any of these are actions that I in any way approve of -- but the excessive reaction to them is almost more appalling.

We are living in a society where both the left and right want to make us behave. The religious conservatives truly believe that God will punish all of us for allowing sin to flourish - as in Sodom and Gomorrah -- hence the late Jerry Falwell's infamous remarks the we had brought 9/11 on ourselves by being so decadent. And the left wants to protect us from anything that might be harmful, including our own stupidity -- so in New York State you aren't allowed to do anything that might be dangerous, even if it is only a danger to yourself.

The result has been an erosion of personal freedom -- both from the right and left. There was a brief, exuberant burst of freedom in the late sixties and early seventies, but it has been fading fast lately.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Of course, it would be nice to live in a cuddly world where everyone gave everyone else nice hugs and there was no hint of hateful discourse -- or would it? As I said in a description of my novels once, my characters could live lives of peace and virtue, but what fun would that be?

The same applies, perhaps to a lesser extent, to the "real" world. Even though there are no hate speech laws in the US, political correctness is so rampant that there might as well be. Just dare to use the "n" word. or call someone a "nappy ho", or put a noose on the cover of your golf magazine.

Not that any of these are actions that I in any way approve of -- but the excessive reaction to them is almost more appalling.

We are living in a society where both the left and right want to make us behave. The religious conservatives truly believe that God will punish all of us for allowing sin to flourish - as in Sodom and Gomorrah -- hence the late Jerry Falwell's infamous remarks the we had brought 9/11 on ourselves by being so decadent. And the left wants to protect us from anything that might be harmful, including our own stupidity -- so in New York State you aren't allowed to do anything that might be dangerous, even if it is only a danger to yourself.

The result has been an erosion of personal freedom -- both from the right and left. There was a brief, exuberant burst of freedom in the late sixties and early seventies, but it has been fading fast lately.

Here here!

 

[cantdog]

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?"

"Tending to incite a riot" with NO result has imprisoned many a Socialist and Anarchist in this country. Give them a statute like this and they use it as a sedition law, every damn time.

 

[cantdog]

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.

That was the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose lawsuits bankrupted KKK group after KKK group.

But the suits were wrongful death and the like, for lynchings. The mother of a lynching victim ended up with the deed to the KKK headquarters building, and took possession.

 

[cantdog]

[on pure's examples]

rox, Gee, Pure the usefulness [to political discourse] should be obvious: Any candidate who made such statements would lose, and any demagogue who did so would be marginalized into a very dark and deep hole.

whether you're talking US or Europe-- and you mention no context-- such a claim is transparently false. it appears you deal with questions of fact by referencing an ideal world of minds like JS Mill, and yourself, only in second place by a hair.

actually, i know you've seen, at least on film or tv, a nazi or KKK rally, and seen hundreds or thousands of people 'buying' such stuff (although my examples specified written communication--also produced by the above entities).

===
pure's examples (written communication)

//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 if 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."//

See, I don't think those sorts of statements should be criminalized, and I'm not big on hate crime legislation, either. If someone clubs or lynches a man, there are already laws against it. Your quote of hate crimes legislation provisions refers to them as "enhancements." That's just a fancy word for piling it on. The same action, the same clubbing or lynching, is not just a clubbing or a lynching, but is enhanced by also, suddenly, violating hate crime laws.

There's so damn much potential for partisan abuse, here.

Calls to 'eliminate' one group or another are threats, and there is already a penalty for threats in civil law.

 

[rgraham666]

"Tending to incite a riot" with NO result has imprisoned many a Socialist and Anarchist in this country. Give them a statute like this and they use it as a sedition law, every damn time.

About a year ago on another forum some poster said it was time to bring the Alien and Sedition Laws back.

I'm with you, cant. I'm opposed to hate crime legislation too for the same reasons.

 

[Pure]

time to connect to the real world, rox. facts.

rox earlier, Gee, Pure the usefulness [to political discourse] should be obvious: Any candidate who made such statements would lose, and any demagogue who did so would be marginalized into a very dark and deep hole.
Pure: whether you're talking US or Europe-- and you mention no context-- such a claim is transparently false.

Rox now //I'm talking the US, Canada and Europe right now, and my assertion is self-evidently true. The societies you're so eager to impose thought crime laws on are the last places on earth that need them.//

"Hate incitement" is an observable act in the real world. The words, in many cases are published, and the intent is reasonably clear. As to the effects of this stuff, you seem to ignore hate crimes in the US; these suggest that the demagogues do have a following:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/disc...ars-080805.pdf


In 2002 [in the US], 67.5 percent of the 8,825 identified
[hate-related] 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


Pure: You seem, further, extraordinarily ignorant of European neofascism. Note in the stories below, that pro nazi and and anti muslim statements come from Le Pen, who finished SECOND to Chirac in the last presidential election.

I can only conclude that you live in a kind of parallel universe, where everyone responds to rational debate, demagogues are discredited, and no hate beatings and killings occur. Evidently this is not the case, in the real world embracing US, France, Germany, etc.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.1218095.0.le_pen_launches_presidential_bid.php
Jan 21, 2008

Le Pen launches presidential bid
Lille

THE far-right National Front party of Jean-Marie Le Pen rallied thousands around his pledges to halt immigration, pull France out of Nato and slash taxes for the French only if he becomes president.
His chances are uncertain, less than two months before the first round of France's vote begins on April 22.

In 2002, he jolted Europe by landing second place behind President Jacques Chirac in the first round.

This year, it is still unclear whether Le Pen will make it into the race. He is struggling to gain the backing of 500 elected officials needed to register formally by March 16.

At a party convention in Lille, he denounced what he called an "offensive" by his opponents to dissuade mayors from backing him.

His daughter Marine laid out a thorough campaign platform at the congress, pledging "efficient, applicable solutions" to the problems of voters, including tax cuts. She also toed the nationalist line, calling for an end to immigration.

Le Pen, 78, insists he reflects the yearnings of France's silent majority. "Don't be afraid . . . that we don't hear you," he told more than 2000 supporters. "France for the French," he said as the crowd chanted and waved the French tricolour.
Immigration was his chief target. It remains, he said, "the essential cause of general impoverishment".

Supporters dressed in Napoleonic army uniforms and period dress from the days of the monarchy took the stage. Four military officers guarded the speaker.

The crowd cheered a message of support sent by Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and a far-right politician in Italy.-AP

-------
Le Pen calls Nazis not so 'inhumane'
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/13/news/lepen.php

By Elaine Sciolino
Published: FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2005

PARIS:Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of France's far-right National Front, has built his 50-year political career on a message of barely disguised racism and anti-Semitism.

But his latest attempt to rewrite the history of World War II has provoked deep shock and loud demands for his punishment here.
He was quoted as telling a rightist weekly that the Nazi occupation of France was not "particularly inhumane," that "excesses" were inevitable and that France had to be delivered from "lies about its history." The timing of the remarks, so close to the 60th anniversary this month of the liberation of the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz in Poland, has added to the anger.

"Despicable," is how Justice Minister Dominique Perben described Le Pen's remarks in announcing a formal criminal investigation into whether the 76-year-old politician had broken the law.

"In denying the history of France, he's disqualified himself as a politician," Perben said on Europe 1 radio, adding that Le Pen "must explain what he said before a court of law."

Le Pen's remarks were made in aninterview last week in a small-circulation, far-right weekly newspaper, Rivarol. But it was only when the daily Le Monde published highlights on Wednesday that France's political class reacted.

Under a 1990 revision of the press law, Le Pen could be charged for publicly denying the existence of "crimes against humanity" committed by the Nazis in World War II or making an "apology for war crimes."

If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a fine equal to $60,000.

In an interview with RTL radio Thursday, Le Pen said that his freedom of speech was under assault, that he was being attacked because of his opposition to the new European Union constitution and that he stood by his words.

"They are true, and it is rather scandalous that, 60 years after the war, one cannot express oneself in a coherent and calm way on these subjects," he said.

Before an appearance in court on Thursday, where he was appealing a conviction last spring for "inciting racial hatred," Le Pen called it "astonishing and shocking that the justice minister has not accorded me the presumption of innocence."

About 76,000 Jews were deported to death camps during the German occupation of France from 1940 until 1944, with the help of the collaborationist Vichy government. Only about 2,500 of them survived. Thousands of French civilians were killed in attacks by the German Army.
Le Pen, who in 1987 dismissed the Nazi gas chambers as a mere "detail" of World War II history, has been convicted of racism or anti-Semitism at least six times.

He has run for president four times and enjoys a strong following. In 2002, he came in second in the first round of presidential elections with 16.8 percent of the vote, crushing the Socialists and shaking the political establishment to the core."In France, at least, the German occupation was not especially inhumane, even if there were a number of excesses, inevitable in a country of 550,000 square kilometers," he was quoted in the interview as saying.

He questioned the veracity of the historical record of mass executions of civilians in France by the German Army.

"Besides," he continued, "If the Germans had carried out mass executions in all corners as the conventional wisdom has it, then there wouldn't have been any need for concentration camps for political deportees." Speaking in a relaxed tone peppered with slang, Le Pen also said that the Germans treated the French no worse than they treated their own German soldiers.

"Ah, of course, if one was caught with a weapon five minutes after four soldiers of the German Army had been gunned down, one would quickly have been bumped off," he said. "But note that the Germans acted the same way toward their soldiers who had sinned."

A fierce nationalist and opponent of the European Union, Le Pen also said, "It's not just from the European Union and globalization that we need to deliver our country, but also from the lies about its history."
He also suggested that the official version of the June 1944 massacre in Oradour-sur-Glane, the worst Nazi atrocity in France in World War II, was untrue. A German convoy rolled into the southern village, rounded up its residents and gunned them down before setting the buildings and the piles of bodies on fire; 642 people were killed.

"On the drama of Oradour-sur-Glane, there is a lot more to be said," Le Pen said, citing it in the context of examples in which he said the Gestapo actually tried to prevent civilian deaths.

Human rights and Jewish groups were quick to react. The Movement Against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples said it will sue Le Pen, calling his statements, "an intolerable offense and an insult to the memory and to the families of all who suffered physically and paid with their lives as victims of the monstrous crimes of Nazism."

----
http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHAT...RT_ARCH_30J&objet_id=890343&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01

Article publié le 24 Février 2005
Source : LE MONDE.FR
Taille de l'article : 488 mots


Extrait : [...]La cour d'appel de Paris a confirmé jeudi 24 février la condamnation de Jean-Marie Le Pen à 10 000 euros d'amende pour incitation à la haine raciale, pour des propos sur les musulmans parus dans Le Monde du 19 avril 2003. Dans un entretien au quotidien, le président du Front national avait affirmé : "Le jour où nous aurons en France, non plus 5 millions mais 25 millions de musulmans, ce sont eux qui commanderont". "Et les Français raseront les murs, descendront des trottoirs en baissant les yeux.

[translation, first para by pure]
The court of appeal of Paris, confirmed Wednesday, Feb 24, the sentence of Jean Marie Le Pen to a 10,000 fine for inciting racial hatred, for his remarks on Muslims published in Le Monde, April 19, 2003. In an ordinary conversation, the president of the National Front asserted:

The day that we have in France not just 5 million but 25 million Muslims, it will be them in charge. … The French will hug their walls [in fear], step down from the sidewalks [to the street], and lower their eyes. If they don't, they'll be told, "Why are you looking at me like that, buddy, you searching for a fight?"

 

[secretme]

One day, making tracks
In the prairie of Prax,
Came a North-Going Zax
And a South-Going Zax.

And it happened that both of them came to a place
Where they bumped. There they stood.
Foot to foot. Face to face.

"Look here, now!" the North-Going Zax said, "I say!
You are blocking my path. You are right in my way.
I'm a North-Going Zax and I always go north.
Get out of my way, now, and let me go forth!"

"Who's in whose way?" snapped the South-Going Zax.
"I always go south, making south-going tracks.
So you're in MY way! And I ask you to move
And let me go south in my south-going groove."

Then the North-Going Zax puffed his chest up with pride.
"I never," he said, "take a step to one side.
And I'll prove to you that I won't change my ways
If I have to keep standing here fifty-nine days!"

"And I'll prove to YOU," yelled the South-Going Zax,
"That I can stand here in the prairie of Prax
For fifty-nine years! For I live by a rule
That I learned as a boy back in South-Going School.
Never budge! That's my rule. Never budge in the least!
Not an inch to the west! Not an inch to the east!
I'll stay here, not budging! I can and I will
If it makes you and me and the whole world stand still!"

Well...

Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.
In a couple of years, the new highway came through
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax
And left them there:
Standing,
Un-budged,
in their tracks.

I always did love that one in a kind of omg it's way too true and awfully sad kind of way.

 

[Oblimo]

this brings me to your point about Germany being 'unique,' in one sense, yes. but as far as lethal jew hatred, hardly. the German's chose Poland as a site for many of there death camps: why? because of the jew hatred in Poland. Germany was not criticized by the Pope for its actions, why? Catholic anti semitism, and offshoot of xian antisemitism.

It wasn't anti-semitism or even Nazism that made Germany unique; it was the Prussian War Machine. It must never build momentum ever again.

 

[Pure]

hate crimes in the US.

are mostly against black persons, but the current federal laws, which apparently cover Black persons in the exercize of federally guaranteed rights (e.g. voting), are apparently INapplicable regarding hate crimes against gays, lesbians, bi's etc.

http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/

[Note by pure] //In the US, a bill [HR 1592] expanding a definition of 'hate crimes' to include sexual orientation, has been stalled for years, partly due to the violent opposition of the xian far right entities.

The website has been documenting the deaths of gays, lesbians, etc. in the US from hate crimes, during this period.//

from the website Welcome to Hatecrimesbill.org. This site tells three unfolding American stories about the Hate Crimes Bill.

The first story concerns the painful reality of violence in America based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Since May 3 , 2007 when H.R. 1592 passed in the House of Representatives, we have blogged news stories about the deaths of Aaron Hall, Amancio Corrales, Bill Clayton, Erika Keels, Kenneth Cummings, Nakia Ladelle Baker, Oscar Mosqueda, Paul Broussard, Roberto Duncanson, Ruby Rodriguez, Ryan Skipper, Satendar Singh, Sean Kennedy, Sean Owen, Steven Domer, Terrance Aeriel, Dashon Harvey, Lofemi Hightowner, and Natasha Aeriel.

 

[cantdog]

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

You can't get a law that really wants to, I don't think.

Laws are written and voted on by people who are no more wise than the haters. They may be nationalists, or whatever, but they have an Us/Them view of the world. With such a view, Them are never human, but evil.

The people writing the law aren't going to write it in a way that prevents them from acting against Them, hating Them and saying so, warning people against Them, and so on. They may use a different Them, but when you go and try to write a law, what is it going to say?

A limit on the KKK prohibiting hate crimes is also a limit on anti-communists who would bomb Cambodia, or anti-muslim people who would authorize Guantanamo and Shock-and-Awe attacks on civilian populations, just for wearing the wrong clothes and not acknowledging Christ or the Trinity. The mainstream haters won't pass a law which limits their own pet hate.

A truly all-encompassing law against hateful slaughter and despoilment for reasons involving one group with animosity against another group? Never happen. It would destroy nationalism. It would make the precepts of Jesus apply to Christianity, and they hate it when that happens.

No, they don't even want such a law. They write ones that only limit somebody else from hating and despoiling the ones those people hate.

Wisdom stands above all such group-centered morality, and wisdom acknowledges that all men are human, all men are as worthy as one another, and hating a group of them is wrong-headed. But wisdom is rare. You won't have enough truly wise men in one room to pass a law such as the one you want.

 

[Pure]

note to cant

cant A limit on the KKK prohibiting hate crimes is also a limit on anti-communists who would bomb Cambodia, or anti-muslim people who would authorize Guantanamo and Shock-and-Awe attacks on civilian populations, just for wearing the wrong clothes and not acknowledging Christ or the Trinity. The mainstream haters won't pass a law which limits their own pet hate.

pure: it's an interesting point, and a partly valid fear. but i think not supported in the facts. US federal efforts against anti war persons, guantanamo protesters, and militant, but non violent muslims, have been a feature of life since Mc Carthy's time, and were apparent in the 60s, in FBI efforts against ML King. the prosecution of those with information about guantanamo, has proceded (I'm thinking of a muslim chaplin). i do not see a 'hate speech' law, like Canada's significantly adding to the Federal arsenal; for one reason, the federal gov--fbi, cia, etc.-- operate outside the law, as the destruction of CIA tapes case, at present, is demonstrating.

However the best test of this *hypothesis*-- and it is one, isn't it?-- would be to look at Canada, France, Germany etc. I know of no evidence that these governments, armed with 'hate speech' laws for several decades, have used them, significantly, on left or 'peace' activists.

So while the hypothesis is interesting, i know of no evidence for it.
In my knowledge, it's without foundation. Can you supply any evidence?

Where does such a hypothesis come from?

It's somewhat reflective of the US citizens' paranoia about government--- which oddly enough does NOT result in many american citizens making efforts to prevent the growth and arbitrary exercize of federal executive power.

congress-- and people generally-- will balk over hate crimes legislation but affirm executive's primacy over the other branches, and its ability to act arbitrarily, exemplified for instance in the Patriot Act.

So i find the stunning juxtaposition, for example, of Rox, who holds for the freest speech possible as a guarantee against tyranny, but supports the President's newly asserted power to detain a US citizen indefinitely without charge.

Americans--a lot of them-- will be celebrating their country as 'freest in the world,' even as they vote for fascistic measures. The KKK guy will be 'free' to harangue on the street corner, and the preacher advocating a gay pogrom will launch his invective from the pulpit, untrammeled by the law, while certain muslims disappear into the 'black hole,' of secret prisons, absence of charges, and indefinite detention.

Go figure.

 

[cantdog]

A limit on the KKK prohibiting hate crimes is also a limit on anti-communists who would bomb Cambodia, or anti-muslim people who would authorize Guantanamo and Shock-and-Awe attacks on civilian populations, just for wearing the wrong clothes and not acknowledging Christ or the Trinity. The mainstream haters won't pass a law which limits their own pet hate.

it's and interesting point, and a partly valid fear. but i think not supported in the facts. US federal efforts against anti war persons, guantanamo protesters, and militant, but non violent muslims, have been a feature of life since Mc Carthy's time, and were apparent in the 60s, in FBI efforts against ML King. the prosecution of those with information about guantanamo, has proceded (I'm thinking of a muslim chaplin).

However the best test of this *hypothesis*-- and it is one, isn't it?-- would be to look at Canada, France, Germany etc. I know of no evidence that these governments, armed with 'hate speech' laws for several decades, have used them, significantly, on left or 'peace' activists.

So while the hypothesis is interesting, i know of no evidence for it.
In my knowledge, it's without foundation. Can you supply any evidence?

Where does such a hypothesis come from?

It's somewhat reflective of the US citizens' paranoia about government--- which oddly enough does NOT result in many american citizens making efforts to prevent the growth and arbitrary exercize of federal executive power.

congress-- and people generally-- will balk over hate crimes legislation but affirm executive's primacy over the other branches, and its ability to act arbitrarily, exemplified for instance in the Patriot Act.

So i find the stunning juxtaposition, for example, of Rox, who holds for the freest speech possible as a guarantee against tyranny, but support the Presidents newly asserted power to detain a US citizen indefinitely without charge.

Americans--a lot of them-- will be celebrating their country as 'freest in the world,' even as they vote for fascistic measures. Go figure.

They vote for fascistic measures, and you don't see this as evidence?

It is the most egregious example of what I am saying, Pure. The PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act are laws which explicitly enable the search for Them, to check Them, to humble Them, to imprison Them indefinitely on the whim of one man.

You don't see the aim of these laws as group-centered morality in action?

They have their no-fly list, their profiling, their black prisons, their wholesale domestic spying. They have their extraordinary rendition, their torture camps in Cuba, the arguments of Gonzales, Ashcroft, and the like. They shoot a rocket launcher at a car with four passengers in Yemen, one of which is suspected to be al-Qaeda, and effectively carry out an extrajudicial sentence of death against the man, without trial or even capture. They incidentally, in so doing, murder three other men for the crime of being in the same car. This action is publicized in the papers! Crowed about!

No, this sort of shit is exactly aimed at group-centered conflict, to support it. The group they hate is not worthy of any protection at law, not being human. It is thus no loss, when the rights and freedoms of the rest of us are likewise abridged. They will tell you not to worry, because it is not you against whom they require all this power to harm without check or limit. Not you, Them.

But your freedoms are gone, as well, all the same.

But there's no evidence? You see, in this climate of hate, a punctilious observation of carefully crafted constitutional limits, of the kind that allows you to be assured that no abuse will ever occur, if we have hate crime legislation?

Listen. The antiwar forces in the country are being lumped with THem, because they seek to impede the all-out slaughter of Them. They won't hesitate to twist any law whatever to attack a perceived Enemy, and you know it.

Group-centered morality is structured like that. What's good for Them is bad.

I think it's goddamn obvious that abuse is not just likely but inevitable.

 

[Pure]

reply to cant

sorry, cant, i see your drift, but the evidence doesn't seem to support you, to date.

in the US, the gov't is doing quite fine without 'hate speech' laws--some people have simply disappeared forever! 'treason, traitorous acts, and aiding the enemy' work quite well, in a pinch.'

cant: You don't see the aim of these laws as group-centered morality in action?

p: yes i do, and this bunker mentality has not needed 'hate speech' laws to enforce itself. extraordinary measures against what those rox refers to as follows How about you have an identifiable body of citizens who have de facto if not formally renounced their citizenship and are conspiring with foreign enemies to attack the United States in the form of terrorist acts that murder large numbers of our citizens? can and have been justified simply by asserting a 'state of war' or national emergency.


the gov'ts WITH hate speech laws--England, Canada, France, and Germany have not used these against the left and the peace activists.

is it conceivable, yes? is it actual, no.

again, looking at German history, Hitler in the 1930s simply relied on brute force and on legislation--like the Patriot Act-- giving him extraordinary powers. he did not need a law about 'hate speech,' that would apply to a Jew saying, "The Nazi party are scum." the Jew was simply declared treasonous [against the Reich] and non-human.

 

[Weird Harold]

pure: it's an interesting point, and a partly valid fear. but i think not supported in the facts. US federal efforts against anti war persons, guantanamo protesters, and militant, but non violent muslims, have been a feature of life since Mc Carthy's time, and were apparent in the 60s, in FBI efforts against ML King. ...

However the best test of this *hypothesis*-- and it is one, isn't it?-- would be to look at Canada, France, Germany etc. I know of no evidence that these governments, armed with 'hate speech' laws for several decades, have used them, significantly, on left or 'peace' activists.

With the exception of Germany, which had the very recent example of Nazi Hate Speech to expurgate, none of your example have a history of using the law to opress a significant segment of it's citizenry -- or to keep them in outright slavery. Canada and France have no history of Jim Crow Segregation to guide them in perverting Hate Speech Laws to persecute rather than protect.

Except for Canada, the rest of your examples have long histories of religious/ethnic strife and anti-semitism -- at times, violent anti-semitism called Pogroms -- but they have no matching histories of free speech or "individual legal rights."

The history their laws and cultural biases are built on are so different from the laws and cultural biases of the US that they cannot be used as a "test" of a hypothesis about the US government.

For starters, the checks and balances balances built into our federal government depend on an informed electorate choosing informed representatives -- an informed electorate in turn depends on the first ammendment guarantees of free speech, free press, and freedom of assembly.

Supressing the KKK's ability to campaign for a return to Jim Crow or the Aryan Brotherhood from claiming tax free status as a religion, and you open the door for suppression of ANY group opposed to administration in power at any given time -- as long as their opposition can be characterized as "Hate Speech" and I've seen a great deal of hate-filled speech about the current administration based largely in their neoconservative christian religious affiliations; Hate Speech under most of the definitions you've cited.

Do you really want to put that kind of temptation in front of "King Goerge?"

How about his successer? How would they handle the temptation to label their friends a protected group and label anyone who is less than polite in opposing them as "Hate Mongers."

Ogg has pointed out that England's "Hate Speech" laws are selectively enforced -- how badly could Hate Speech laws be perverted by selective enforcement; the selection chosen by the government in power in any given.

If the GWB/Neo-con/RNP haters on this board could selectively define and enforce Hate Speech, how many registered Republicans would be left for the 2012 elections?

 

[Pure]

note to weird h,

WH Supressing the KKK's ability to campaign for a return to Jim Crow or the Aryan Brotherhood from claiming tax free status as a religion, and you open the door for suppression of ANY group opposed to administration in power at any given time -- as long as their opposition can be characterized as "Hate Speech" and I've seen a great deal of hate-filled speech about the current administration based largely in their neoconservative christian religious affiliations; Hate Speech under most of the definitions you've cited.

Do you really want to put that kind of temptation in front of "King Goerge?"

How about his successer? How would they handle the temptation to label their friends a protected group and label anyone who is less than polite in opposing them as "Hate Mongers."

I see your drift, and cant's.

If I may suggest a distinction, here. I think you will agree, that when a government chooses rightly or wrongly to declare-- or make its citizens think there is--an emergency, 'hate speech' laws are hardly needed. the "indentifiable body" of citizen-conspirators, to use rox's term, can be dispatched readily. GWB has set the wheels in motion, and provided the laws and executive directions necessary.

rather, short of the emergency, as is the case in Canada, France and Germany, i propose that 'hate speech' laws do help in deterring and punishing some of the hate mongers, and lessening their impact. convictions under these laws demonstrate, publically that the govt has commitment to protecting the common groups singled out by the 'mongers,' e.g., blacks, jews, gays; that calling for or suggesting beatings and killings, or promoting the attitudes (hates) that lead such acts to be carried out, is NOT acceptable 'political speech.'

and in these quieter situations, there is little temptation to misuse a 'hate speech' law (though the right will claim any nutbar's being fined, is an abuse of his rights.)

 

[Pure]

the latest attempt of mr levant to cricize 'hate speech' laws,

at least applied to him, is at

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080120.wcomment0121/BNStory/National/home

having now some familiarity with his line of argument, it reinforces my opinon that it doesn't address existing canadian law. in effect, he's arguing, rox style, about the ideal state of things. the arguments, even here, do not convince, since he persists in a number of misrepresentations, e.g. that the 'hate speech' laws address 'hurt feelings' as opposed to real dangers brought into being by certain hateful speech.

he is aware of the irony that jewish secular liberals helped get such legislation on the books, with the threat of antisemitic acts in mind; this move then leads to rightwing jewish folks like himself being charged with promoting hatred of muslims!

 

[Weird Harold]

If I may suggest a distinction, here. I think you will agree, that when a government chooses rightly or wrongly to declare-- or make its citizens think there is--an emergency, 'hate speech' laws are hardly needed. the "indentifiable body" of citizen-conspirators, to use rox's term, can be dispatched readily. GWB has set the wheels in motion, and provided the laws and executive directions necessary.

When a government has a Patriot Act that is coming under increasing pressure from constutional challenges, they need some other "we're only bending the Bill of Rights, not breaking it" method of continuing -- or redirecting -- their erosion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

My whole position here -- as it is on so many other issues you raise -- is based on the premise, "we do NOT need more laws!" The fact that I can see the "writing on the wall," so to speak, that new laws will not accomplish their stated purpose but will be perverted (by the government or by some special interest group) to some purpose entirely at odds with the stated intent.

We need to simplify our legal code(s), not expand them with useless and marginally unconstitutional laws.

The US has laws on the books (State, Federal, and local levels) which cover the kind of hate-mongering that is truly dangerous -- incitment to violence and/or conspiracy to commit violence/violate Civil Rights. The RICO statues have been used very effectively against the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood to supress "Hate-Crimes" to incarcerate the leaders as well as the grunts.

Yes, the government can use existing laws and/or less indirect new laws than "hate-speech" laws to to oppress selected groups, but I"m arguing against hate-speech laws -- inroads are being made against (government) human rights abuses in the US without them and the current government (and the forseeable future governments) do NOT need another potential tool for oppression disguised as protection from oppression.

The only "hate speech" definition I would accept as reasonable as the one I described in my first post on this thread:

A US Law limiting the amplification or electronic transmission of speech advocating or inciting, the violation an individual or group's Constitutional rights should work just fine. (not that that kind of wording would ever get passed because it would severely limit many of the special interest groups interested in passing laws to violate the first and second ammendments; like "Hate Speech" laws. )

To pervert that definition would require changing the Constitution which is just tad bit harder than a bureaucrat (or politician) changing an agency's working definition to suit the public's bogeyman of the moment.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm for hate crime legislation - just as there are 'aggravating' circumstances for other crimes, I believe there is a difference between a mugging and a race-beating or gay-beating. Or, for that matter, between burning crosses and defacing political placards.

Insofar as hate-speech is concerned, I understand the qualms expressed by Cantdog and others. So I would limit it to the same 'protected classes' as hate crimes, with the possible inclusion of Jews and immigrant communities. As I tried to state earlier, I see the distinction because the defined classes are minorities defined primarily by hereditary circumstances, whereas other religious or political groups have historically gained members through proselytizing (or conquering), or compose a majority.

 

[oggbashan]

...
Ogg has pointed out that England's "Hate Speech" laws are selectively enforced -- how badly could Hate Speech laws be perverted by selective enforcement; the selection chosen by the government in power in any given.

If the GWB/Neo-con/RNP haters on this board could selectively define and enforce Hate Speech, how many registered Republicans would be left for the 2012 elections?

I think that there are enough laws in almost any country that give powers even to elected governments to suppress opposition.

In England we have laws still on the statute books that could be used to suppress most of the media. For example, our ancient laws on witchcraft and fortune-telling could easily be used against pollsters, TV anchor persons predicting the result of an election, most newspaper pundits, stockbrokers, margin dealers, insurance salesmen, teachers writing school reports predicting examination results, doctors prescribing a drug regime or suggesting an operation...

We have riot laws. Any magistrate can declare that a riot is in progress with an assembly of 3 or more people and authorise the police to use any force necessary to disperse the rioters, including use of the military. Remember Tianamen Square? It could happen in England and be perfectly legal. It won't, but only because our magistrates are reasonable people who work within guidelines. But what if the government appointed unreasonable magistrates? Any political meeting by an opposition party could be declared "a riot" - particularly if attacked by government supporters - and deadly force used to break it up.

Government in democratic societies depends on the consent of a presumed majority of the people.

Og