No.
That’s not ‘inciting hatred’.
Im quite sympathetic to this argument. The history of banning or limiting free speech has invariably been a sinister history. Every stage of history and every society has limited free speech, some more than others but all have done it. Polytheism banned free speech in regards to monotheism, as did monotheist society over ploytheism, pagans over christians, christians over pagans, christians over atheists, monarchists over republicans, republicans over monarchists, communists over democrats, democrats over communists and so on. None of these examples turned out particularly well. Most were done for a mixture of perceived public good and sinister political reasons. As it turns out most (if not all) of the prevailing wisdom in these societies were built on a house of cards intellectually.
If in doubt allow free speech as far as possible, an exception would be direct and proven incitment to violence(not always an easy distinction to make I admit). The alternatives are usually much worse. I also notice the thread has limited itself largely to nasty white supremacists. This is the wrong type of issue to debate free speech on. They are an all too easy target for those wishing to limit free speech in a modern democracy.
So, how would European-style hate speech laws have helped blacks in the American South between the end of Reconstruction and the present?
After all, if some white Southerners were willing to defy laws against lynching, and were willing to defy court-ordered desegregation, and were willing to commit extra-legal violence against blacks who asserted their legal rights, what makes you think they would have been willing to obey laws regarding the mere expression of an opinion?
I’m afraid i just don’t see how your proposed solution solves the problem.
But shouldn’t the moral and legal responsibility rest, then, on the person who acts? You can complain all you like about the alleged inevitability of acts resulting from hate speech, but the fact is that each of us has free will, and each of us should be able to make our own decision about what acts we will and will not carry out.
If some Cracker A gets on a soapbox and starts ranting about how all blacks or Jews or whatever should be killed, and Cracker B then goes out and kills some blacks or Jews, i’m in favor of putting Cracker B in prison. Unless Cracker A forced him at gunpoint, or on pain of harm to his family, he has not been coerced into committing an act of violence; he has done it of his own accord.
By the way, for those interested in this stuff, the Supreme Court will today here an interesting and quite important case about the issue of free speech. You can read a bit about Elonis v. United states here. The person involved in the case made explicit threats against co-workers, his ex-wife, local schools, and the FBI over Facebook.
I’ve argued that inciting others to hatred or even violence should be protected speech, and that we should punish those who act. My own line, however, is drawn at direct threats like this, and i hope that the Supreme Court agrees with the “reasonable person” argument in this case.
Please note that the narrative “In Germany, the state claims the right to tell people what to think and say” is wrong.
Restrictions to the Freedom of Speech have routinely been challenged before the Constituional Court. The CC has upheld those restriction that protect other constituional rights.
One important clause in the Basic Law states that “Human dignity is inviolable”. Seems like a banality, but as contrast to Nazi ideas it has been very important in the CC’s over time. So, laws concerning insults, libel and slander tend to be stricter.
The law against public holocaust denial is mostly based on not violating the dignity of the victims.
The 2005 law against public justifying, endorsing or glamorizing the Nazi depotism is based on this and on preventing a hazardous breach of public peace.
The law against the public use and display of the swastika is directed in general against the symbols of antiliberal, antidemocratic and anti-constitutional organizations. Banning these organization is a complicated legel process, not a simple edict.
Basically, being a xenophobic and racist bigot is legal, as is marching under banners that proclaim these views. You just cannot play with the symbols of the Third Reich or aggrandize it.
On the other hand, courts have upheld examples of speech that might not be covered in other countries. For example, there was a recent case of an elected employees’ representative on his companies worker council. He stated that this companies working conditions resembled that of a concentration camp. The court confimred that this was hyperbolic speech, but covered by the law. Thus, his employer was not allowed to fire him.
It can make people hate a particular person or group of people.
It can’t “make” anyone feel anything. Someone might choose to take it a certain way, and feel a certain way, but a statement about abortion policy doesn’t and can’t make anyone hate anyone else.
Normal how? Being urged by an employer to vote for a specific candidate would have raised plenty of hackles anywhere I’ve ever worked. What would have happened if, in response, another employee had sent out an email asking everyone to vote for a different candidate?
FWIW, a number of Western European countries make it a criminal offense to insult their Presidents… that seems mind-blowing to me, an American.
I don’t have a problem super-lax or super-strict rules on free speech, as long as it’s consistent and evenly applied.
When one side gets much freedom of speech but the other side is stifled, that’s a problem.
Check out the sedition laws of the 1790s, and of the WWI era,in the United States.
Well, yeah, we had slavery, too, which seems mind blowing today. I think that poster was clearly speaking in the present tense.
That’s a different area of the law-- what type of speech can be a fireable offense, and what type of speech cannot be banned by the government. Freedom of speech does not mean that private entities must give you a platform for your speech, and removing that platform is not censorship.
If I had claimed this was a definition of hate speech, it would have been circular, but I did not. I’m simply saying “hate” in the sense of hate speech has a more specific meaning than when used generally. “I hate ice cream” is not hate speech.
Inciting to commit a crime is not directly committing a crime either.
When? Where did I say there was a distinction between the two kinds of inciting?
And when the group get a broad enough support, they’ll abolish the laws that protect civil rights, like anti-discrimination laws, then constitutional protections, and eventually probably free speech too.
How comes you fear that restricting free speech might result in tyranny, but don’t fear that not restricting hate speech might result in tyranny? Possibly because the USA hasn’t been ruled by the nazi party yet.
Let us (Europeans) be a little warry about that hate speech thing. It didn’t turn out so well the last time.
Neither can anything else anyone says.
Sure, but i don’t think it’s that much of a stretch. The problem is that, while many Americans hold the nation up (correctly, in my opinion) as a bastion of free speech, it hasn’t always been like that, despite the presence of the First Amendment. Most of my own students have never heard of the sedition laws of the 1790s, or of the 1910s. It’s like they happened on another planet.
World War I was really that long ago. While some of the distinctions drawn here between American and European attitudes to free speech are important and real, there have always been a substantial number of Americans who, when you scratch the surface, have far more limited definitions of freedom of expression, especially when one or another of their sacred oxen is being gored. While it’s often the liberal supporters of hate speech laws who get criticized in the US for being anti-free speech, plenty of conservatives have shown little regard for free speech in the United States too.
People were being booted out of government jobs for being (or suspected of being) gay in the 1940s and 1950s. At the same time, people were being dragged in front of Congressional committees, and then thrown in jail for contempt if they refused to discuss their political affiliations or talk about the affiliations of friends and colleagues.
Some of the language circulating around here during the Iraq war, in which people were referred to as “supporters of Saddam” simply for criticizing American foreign policy, is not that far off the type of attitude required to sustain sedition laws. If the US Congress had passed a sedition law in 2003, i’d be willing to bet that you could have found millions of Americans who wouldn’t have thought it an especially bad idea, no matter what the Bill of Rights might have to say.
Do you really believe that the adoption of hate speech laws in Weimar Germany would have prevented the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party? Do you really believe that the current absence of Nazism among European countries can be attributed to the bans on hate speech?
When Michael Brown’s step-father, upon hearing the ruling of the grand jury, stood before a large crowd of angry protesters and said “Burn the bitch mother-f—er down! Burn the bitch down! Burn the bitch!" he quite literally incited a riot.
And yet, I don’t see any chance of his being arrested and charged with using speech and his position (as step-father to the slain) to incite a riot.
Thus is the conundrum of free speech and restrictions upon it. It is always a choice of what we allow and who we allow to say it.
The less restrictions, the better. This prevents the covetous power of banning others we don’t like from saying things we don’t want to hear. He who determines the freedom of other men is the greatest threat to all men.
Because I believe that restricting hate speech would make it more likely that such a group would get a “broad enough support” to gain power. The likelihood is low – but I believe it’s lower in the present when there are no such restrictions.
The problem I have with the criminalization of certain types of speech and associations is that it is often serves the state’s interest rather than the peoples’.
For example, take the Chinese government restrictions on Christian ministries. I’m sure there’s some nominal “to maintain public order” reason for it, but the real reason is the state fears organizations who don’t kowtow to the Party. The restrictions are a tool of state control of the population.
Or, take the German ban on Nazi symbols. The state claims it’s to protect the population, but it also conveniently makes it harder for the neo-Nazis to politically organize and threaten the current mostly liberal paradigm. Restricting political discourse is a common tool of authoritarian states and it stains the German commitment to an open society.
Or, take the French ban on denying the Ottoman genocide of Armenians. This is purely a diplomatic stab at the current Turkish state. Of course, the Turks are just as guilty by restricting discussion of the genocide. Public discourse of history should not be a casualty of international diplomacy.
The other problem with restrictions on speech and associations is that it usually targets minorities. Sure, it’s the neo-Nazis now, but what if it’s the left-handed throat-singers tomorrow? (I am not a left-handed throat-singer.) Once the state has established that small groups can be censored and/or banned, why would they not target other small groups in the future when it becomes politically expedient? The purpose of protecting free speech is to protect the unpopular speech; that is, speech which most people would disagree with.