Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:13 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,291

WaPo editorial "Why America needs a hate speech law"


The editorial is by Richard Stengel, MSNBC analyst and former Time magazine editor and U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

Problems with attempts to control hate speech always begin with defining the term. Stengel acknowledges this ("there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is") and offers two:
Quote:
speech that can cause violence by one group against another.
Quote:
hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.
He includes examples of speech he considers problematic - but these don't all conform well to his definitions:
Quote:
Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
(I'm stunned that an intelligent person, even if he disagreed, would not find it easy to give reasons why some people might want to protect that.)

Quote:
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did.
Quote:
When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did.
Quote:
A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one.
So this isn't just a push to change the First Amendment - it makes sense only if there's some sort of Ministry of Truth to decide whether troublesome speech qualifies as "hateful". Which inevitably leads to the effective definition: Hate speech is whatever those with enforcement authority deem troublesome.

This editorial is not one of a kind. Here's a recent one from the NY Times: Free Speech Is Killing Us.

What's up with this push in national newspapers - formerly bastions of free speech love - toward unprecedented restrictions on it?
  #2  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:17 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
My objection to a hate-speech law isn't so much such a law itself, as it is that it would be unequally applied. It would probably be a case of "It's hate speech if Group X does it, but not if Group Y does it, even if by definition they're both protected groups."
  #3  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:20 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,291
Check out the photo that accompanies the editorial with this caption: "Thousands of protesters march against a planned 'Free Speech Rally" on Aug. 19, 2017, in Boston."

One of the protest signs reads "Silence is Violence". It's not a big step from that to "Failure to Denounce" laws: you commit a crime if you overhear "hate speech" (as defined this week by the Ministry of Truth) and stay silent instead of reporting it.

Last edited by Xema; 10-30-2019 at 10:21 AM.
  #4  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:38 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
I have the same objection that I always do.

The government is supposed to shut down hate speech. Trump is President, and there is a narrow majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court, and the GOP controls the Senate. I seriously doubt if now is a good time to give the government the power to regulate what might or might not incite violence.

I also seriously doubt if it would be a good time if the Dems take over Congress and the White House.

"I think group X is disgusting and wrong, and whatever they want should be rejected absolutely". There is no way to define group X narrowly enough so that I could agree with a law banning the statement.

IMO Mr. Stengel rather badly misses the point.
Quote:
I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate.
The distinction between the two types cannot be articulated, because it doesn't exist.

If I hate the speech, then the speech is inciting hate, by definition. It then becomes simply a question of who gets to hate, and who doesn't.

Regards,
Shodan
  #5  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:42 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
There is always a worrying subset of hate-speech-law supporters whose true motivation isn't shutting down hate speech, but seeking a legislative weapon with which to squelch opponents.
  #6  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:44 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Hate speech laws are censorship. Let the haters identify themselves in their speech and deal with that. I want those people shut down, but not by restricting free speech, that is guaranteed to come back and bite us all in the ass.
  #7  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:04 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There is always a worrying subset of hate-speech-law supporters whose true motivation isn't shutting down hate speech, but seeking a legislative weapon with which to squelch opponents.
And as long as they are never named they become the perfect strawman when you have no legitimate reason to oppose hate speech regulations.
  #8  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:05 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There is always a worrying subset of hate-speech-law supporters whose true motivation isn't shutting down hate speech, but seeking a legislative weapon with which to squelch opponents.
I'm not even sure it's a subset.

When the NYT publishes an opinion piece calling for the government to outlaw flag desecration or to silence Maxine Waters or Joe Biden, we can talk. Until then, it's more "free speech for me but not for thee".

Regards,
Shodan
  #9  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:41 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm not even sure it's a subset.

When the NYT publishes an opinion piece calling for the government to outlaw flag desecration or to silence Maxine Waters or Joe Biden, we can talk. Until then, it's more "free speech for me but not for thee".

Regards,
Shodan
In what country do you imagine Biden would have been violating hate speech laws? You seem to have a comically poor understanding of the subject to bring up an article about Biden and frigging De Niro wishing they could punch Trump. If you can't understand how burning an American flag is fundamentally different than talking about say, evicting all Muslims from the country I suggest you try harder to understand.
  #10  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:52 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by xema
Quote:
Originally Posted by the article
hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of *
* a laundry list of pre-established categories.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
My objection to a hate-speech law isn't so much such a law itself, as it is that it would be unequally applied. It would probably be a case of "It's hate speech if Group X does it, but not if Group Y does it, even if by definition they're both protected groups."
Yes, this.

But not so much because I think we should not have protected categories, formally or informally; I do think history, and hence a cultural awareness of people who were disenfranchised or marginalized over a long period of time, is relevant and has bearing on people's current situation.

But.

I really dislike the notion that we've got all the categorical oppressions identified, got 'em knocked right down into this here plastic box, know what they are, know who the players are, yep, if you're on the list you've been a victim of social injustice, if you're not, shut the fuck up and get in line, o privileged spoiled one.

I dislike it because it substitutes an assembled list for the responsibility to listen to people.

Last edited by AHunter3; 10-30-2019 at 11:52 AM.
  #11  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,781
Dumb editorial and a dumb idea, IMO. I'm all for social condemnation and consequences (i.e. shunning, shaming, boycotts, etc.) for hate speech -- and very serious such consequences when it's particularly egregious, or from someone with a lot of power. But I think government consequences would help the hateful, by making them martyrs and victims.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with criminalizing threats and advocacy for violence (i.e. "kill the Jews!"), which I think goes well beyond hate speech.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-30-2019 at 11:58 AM.
  #12  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:33 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
In what country do you imagine Biden would have been violating hate speech laws?
A country that implemented Stengel's suggestions about curtailing free speech, for instance
Quote:
speech that can cause violence by one group against another.
Quote:
You seem to have a comically poor understanding of the subject to bring up an article about Biden and frigging De Niro wishing they could punch Trump.
There isn't anything wrong with my understanding. Punching people is violence, and saying you want to punch someone could cause violence, and is therefore by Stengel's standrad hate speech that should be curtailed.
Quote:
If you can't understand how burning an American flag is fundamentally different than talking about say, evicting all Muslims from the country I suggest you try harder to understand.
Again, there is no problem with my understanding. Because burning an American flag is not different from talking about evicting Muslims. Both can cause violence, both can arouse hatred in others, both are therefore hate speech by Stengel's definition.

The only difference is who hates the message. Which goes back to what I said - if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech.

Regards,
Shodan
  #13  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech.
Then maybe you should stop pushing that self-serving definition.
  #14  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:42 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Then maybe you should stop pushing that self-serving definition.
So what is the definition of hate speech to use?
  #15  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
A country that implemented Stengel's suggestions about curtailing free speech, for instance
There isn't anything wrong with my understanding. Punching people is violence, and saying you want to punch someone could cause violence, and is therefore by Stengel's standrad hate speech that should be curtailed.
Again, there is no problem with my understanding. Because burning an American flag is not different from talking about evicting Muslims. Both can cause violence, both can arouse hatred in others, both are therefore hate speech by Stengel's definition.

The only difference is who hates the message. Which goes back to what I said - if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech.

Regards,
Shodan
No, you clearly misunderstand. In no country that has passed hate speech laws would Biden's musings about punching Trump be covered. There's other laws about "incitement to violence" maybe.
  #16  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:46 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
So what is the definition of hate speech to use?
From various dictionaries: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

From Wiki: "Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
  #17  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:47 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I have the same objection that I always do.

The government is supposed to shut down hate speech. Trump is President, and there is a narrow majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court, and the GOP controls the Senate. I seriously doubt if now is a good time to give the government the power to regulate what might or might not incite violence.

I also seriously doubt if it would be a good time if the Dems take over Congress and the White House.

"I think group X is disgusting and wrong, and whatever they want should be rejected absolutely". There is no way to define group X narrowly enough so that I could agree with a law banning the statement.

IMO Mr. Stengel rather badly misses the point. The distinction between the two types cannot be articulated, because it doesn't exist.

If I hate the speech, then the speech is inciting hate, by definition. It then becomes simply a question of who gets to hate, and who doesn't.

Regards,
Shodan
QFT +1

Hate speech, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. Doubt you'll get any of the partisans here (or anywhere) to admit that their side is even capable of hate speech, let alone ever guilty of it. Gee whilikers, man, don't you realize that the other side is evil?

Last edited by Scumpup; 10-30-2019 at 12:48 PM.
  #18  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:53 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From various dictionaries: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

From Wiki: "Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
Under those definitions, saying "American people are brutal warmongers" would be hate speech.
  #19  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:01 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,771
From the opinion piece:
Quote:
This “marketplace” model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood.
That's easy. Individuals either check the underlying sources themselves and come to their own conclusions, or they trust someone else to do that for them. Someone like a journalist.

The Russian interference via social media is at its heart a trust problem. Media scrutiny is a life skill that should be given more emphasis in schools and in parenting. Not everything on the internet is true.

Instituting a form of censorship does not solve the core problem, because the censor is ultimately susceptible to corruption and lies, too. Taken to an extreme, you get something like N. Korea or Chinese political debate.

~Max
  #20  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
There has been a frightening decline in support for the principle of free speech in this country.
  #21  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:05 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There has been a frightening decline in support for the principle of free speech in this country.
Under the generally accepted definition of "Free Speech", or under a particular definition you support?
  #22  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:11 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From various dictionaries: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

From Wiki: "Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
I can't go along with making that a crime. People should be held accountable for the actual results of such speech, but I'm not going to go along with censoring opinions, no matter how odious. And I truly wish there was a way to do that without resulting in the suppression of valid and necessary speech. It does suck, but freedom comes at a price, and abiding the existence of such garbage and the humans who spout it is one of those prices.
  #23  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Under the generally accepted definition of "Free Speech", or under a particular definition you support?
I don't think the principle of free speech has a precise, agreed-upon definition. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'the generally accepted definition of "free speech"'. If you're looking to discuss it though, I'd offer this as starting point.
  #24  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think the principle of free speech has a precise, agreed-upon definition. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'the generally accepted definition of "free speech"'. If you're looking to discuss it though, I'd offer this as starting point.
Paywall-blocked.
  #25  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Paywall-blocked.
(well, those newspapers won't sell themselves)

Here and here are (non-paywalled) links to his list of 10 principles of free speech, as at least a starting point.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-30-2019 at 01:33 PM.
  #26  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:35 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The only difference is who hates the message. Which goes back to what I said - if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech.

Regards,
Shodan
I think any law curtailing hate speech is bound to be abused by those enforcing it. That being said, I understand where the frustration from those on the left comes from. The problem is that on the right, hate speech is largely of the “I hate blacks, Muslims, gays, Mexicans, etc. because they are black, Muslim, gay, Mexican, etc.” Someone from one those groups then responds with “I hate you because you hate me.” The original haters on the right then respond to the effect of saying, “see, there is hate speech on the left to.” Those are hardly equivalent in terms of hate speech, but many on the right make them out to be the same.
  #27  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
There's a fair bit of the "I hate white men because they are white men" variety of hate speech coming from the Left these days too.
  #28  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:47 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a fair bit of the "I hate white men because they are white men" variety of hate speech coming from the Left these days too.
A fair amount?
If you've got cites from any non-obscure left-wingers, would you mind posting them?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 10-30-2019 at 01:48 PM.
  #29  
Old 10-30-2019, 01:49 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a fair bit of the "I hate white men because they are white men" variety of hate speech coming from the Left these days too.
Got even one instance of that happening?
  #30  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
A fair amount?
If you've got cites from any non-obscure left-wingers, would you mind posting them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Got even one instance of that happening?
Let's start with an easy one: Sarah Jeong
  #31  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:25 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's start with an easy one: Sarah Jeong
That's not even within ten miles of being a good cite. Give a pertinent quote.
  #32  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:25 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
In no country that has passed hate speech laws would Biden's musings about punching Trump be covered.
How about Thailand's lèse-majesté law?

From Wiki:
Quote:
It is illegal to defame, insult, or threaten the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent. The lèse-majesté law has been on the statute books since 1908. The punishment is three to fifteen years of imprisonment per count ...

There is no legal definition, however, of what actions constitute lèse majesté, and there is plenty of room for interpretation. The Supreme Court decided that the law also applies to any previous monarchs. Criticism of any privy council member also raised the question. Even "attempting" to commit lèse majesté, and making sarcastic comment about the King's pet have been prosecuted for lèse majesté.
And what would have been the fate of someone in Russia or China making such comments about Stalin or Mao?

Last edited by Xema; 10-30-2019 at 02:27 PM.
  #33  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:29 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That's not even within ten miles of being a good cite. Give a pertinent quote.
"White men are bullshit" - Sarah Jeong
  #34  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:33 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
From her Wiki page:
Quote:
In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color. Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate controversy.
  #35  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:34 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No, you clearly misunderstand. In no country that has passed hate speech laws would Biden's musings about punching Trump be covered.
No, I understand perfectly. We are discussing Stengel's suggestions for how we should curtail free speech by labeling as "hate speech"
Quote:
speech that can cause violence by one group against another.
Biden's threat can cause violence and would therefore be "hate speech" under Stengel's rules. It would therefore have to be outlawed.


That's if consistency and the equal protection of the laws is of concern. If it's just "punching Trump doesn't bother me but evicting Muslims does so the first isn't hate speech but the second is" then it's a question of whose ox is being gored and that doesn't work as a definition either.

Regards,
Shodan
  #36  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:36 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From her Wiki page:
What's the "context" around "white men are bullshit" that you think would make it acceptable? or not 'hate speech'? or, most importantly, not a perfect example of 'the "I hate white men because they are white men" variety of hate speech coming from the Left'?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-30-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #37  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:42 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,369
On top of hiring that outspoken racist, Sarah Jeong, the NY Times also published a racist rant titled "Can My Children Be Friends with White People" in 2017, by a professor named Ekow Yankah. The Washington Post published a pile of sexist bilge under the title "Why Can't We Hate Men" in 2018.

As the OP showed, both the Washington Post and the New York Times have recently published calls for censorship of "hate speech", thus turning away from their history of supporting a free press in past generations. Luckily those two newspapers don't govern the country and the First Amendment clearly makes any ban on "hate speech" unconstitutional. But if the First Amendment were overturned and hate speech were made illegal, then obviously the New York Times and the Washington Post should be the first two entities to be prosecuted under the new law, because they are the most powerful publishers of hate speech in the country.

Last edited by ITR champion; 10-30-2019 at 02:42 PM.
  #38  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:47 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From various dictionaries: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

From Wiki: "Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
Again, this is all fine and well in theory, but how is it going to work out in practice? There is likely to be a punch-up vs. punch-down phenomenon at play in real life, whereby if someone from a disadvantaged group spews hate speech against a privileged group, it won't be considered as prosecute-able as vice versa.
  #39  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:53 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The problem is that on the right, hate speech is largely of the “I hate blacks, Muslims, gays, Mexicans, etc. because they are black, Muslim, gay, Mexican, etc.”
Another part of the problem is that the left labels opposition to (for instance) illegal immigration as being "that is because you hate brown people therefore it's hate speech". And when the response is "no, I just don't like illegal immigration" they say "yes it is because you hate brown people".

Which goes back to what I said earlier. If you give the government the power to decide what you meant, there is no way in principle to stop the government from abusing that power even against you, or groups you favor. And then Trump issues an executive order that desecrating a US flag is an incitement to violent overthrow of the government and there is no consistent way to argue against it.

I don't want a government controlled by SJWs to tell me what I can say. You presumably don't want a government controlled by fascists telling you what you can say. So we compromise and agree that the government doesn't get to tell anyone what to say, absent some kind of incitement to immediate violence.

It's not a perfect compromise, but it's better than if either side wins.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:55 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's the "context" around "white men are bullshit" that you think would make it acceptable? or not 'hate speech'? or, most importantly, not a perfect example of 'the "I hate white men because they are white men" variety of hate speech coming from the Left'?
You did provide one example. They are rare, and certainly not accepted by the so called 'left' except for a few extremists. That is no where near a 'fair bit' of that kind of speech though, it's one of the weakest 'what aboutisms' I've ever seen.
  #41  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, this is all fine and well in theory, but how is it going to work out in practice? There is likely to be a punch-up vs. punch-down phenomenon at play in real life, whereby if someone from a disadvantaged group spews hate speech against a privileged group, it won't be considered as prosecute-able as vice versa.
I was asked to provide a definition of "hate speech" when I objected to Shodan's petty, self-serving definition of the term, and I did. If you prefer his "it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you", so be it.
  #42  
Old 10-30-2019, 02:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You did provide one example. They are rare, and certainly not accepted by the so called 'left' except for a few extremists. That is no where near a 'fair bit' of that kind of speech though, it's one of the weakest 'what aboutisms' I've ever seen.
YOU are the one that asked me for "one example":

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Got even one instance of that happening?
And as for "certainly not accepted by the so called 'left' except for a few extremists", Sarah Jeong got a plum position on the NYT Editorial Board even after this came to light. How is that "not accepted"? Is the NYT Editorial Board just "a few extremists"?
  #43  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:04 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's the "context" around "white men are bullshit" that you think would make it acceptable?
The fact that it's clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift's case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?
  #44  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:08 PM
pool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,607
Czarcasm are you in favor of passing some type of hate speech legislation or are you just playing devil's advocate here, what is your position?
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"

Last edited by pool; 10-30-2019 at 03:09 PM.
  #45  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:26 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From Wiki: "Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
This would include:

- A black comedian telling a joke that makes fun of white people
- A Jehovah's Witness saying Catholicism is not the true faith and Catholics are going to hell
- A person saying men who identify as women should not be allowed to play women's sports
- Seth MacFarlane, who once made an episode of "Family Guy" that made a lot of mean jokes at the expense of Italian-Americans
- A woman saying men present a danger to women because sexual assault is more prevalent than people want to believe
- Dave Chappelle, like a thousand times over

I'm just going by your Wikipedia definition. You can't base a law on this.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #46  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This would include:

- A black comedian telling a joke that makes fun of white people
- A Jehovah's Witness saying Catholicism is not the true faith and Catholics are going to hell
- A person saying men who identify as women should not be allowed to play women's sports
- Seth MacFarlane, who once made an episode of "Family Guy" that made a lot of mean jokes at the expense of Italian-Americans
- A woman saying men present a danger to women because sexual assault is more prevalent than people want to believe
- Dave Chappelle, like a thousand times over

I'm just going by your Wikipedia definition. You can't base a law on this.
No, but you could use it as a base to begin talks about the subject, unlike the version I objected to in the first place.
  #47  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:35 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
YOU are the one that asked me for "one example":

Quote:
You said there was a fair bit of it. There isn't.
And as for "certainly not accepted by the so called 'left' except for a few extremists", Sarah Jeong got a plum position on the NYT Editorial Board even after this came to light. How is that "not accepted"? Is the NYT Editorial Board just "a few extremists"?
I won't defend them. They are not the representatives of the left though. Hate speech of this nature is not defensible by anyone, none of it justifies it's use elsewhere. If you're not going to condemn all of it then you are supporting it. If you are condemning all of it there's no reason to categorize the targets of it.
  #48  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:37 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Sounds like the modern left’s dream come true. That said, it’s a terrible, terrible idea and the author should feel bad.
  #49  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:44 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,773
I think it's a bad idea. Hate speech is wrong but we shouldn't make it illegal. It'll still exist but we'll drive it underground where it will fester. We're better off as a society is we let these people talk, identify who they are, and then marginalize them.

And banning speech is a dangerous precedent. If we ban hate speech today, we'll end up banning legitimate speech that somebody in power just wants to suppress. We'll have Republicans making it illegal to disrespect President Trump and corporations getting laws passed against "defaming" their products by reporting consumer problems.
  #50  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:47 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Sounds like the modern left’s dream come true.
The modern left weren't the ones trying to make it illegal to burn a flag or calling for the NFL to discipline payers who kneeled down during the National Anthem.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017