No, if sufficient people had rejected hateful ideas, there would be no ‘need,’ no impulse, to prohibit them. Does your country jail people for espousing geocentrism?
No, I would hope that actual, large-scale violence against a minority group would be met with gunfire. And other efforts to organize and defend the community under attack.
What would you have them do, accept chains and death?
Of course not; no one does. But better war, than unchallenged genocide.
Of course, but it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
And the ban regarding denial of the Armenian genocide wasn’t a stab at the current Turkish government. It’s better explained by the importance of the Armenian community in France. More like the embargo on Cuba to please voters of Cuban ancestry.
But it might result in a crime being committed, so society has an obvious vested interest in preventing it. You can judge that, on balance with other public interests, you’re better off not making incitment itself a crime, but doing so isn’t arbitrary.
Legaly, you aren’t , but morlly, do you think you didn’t commit any fault by inciting him to do so? It seems to me you’re certainly to blame for the result, and the relatives of the deceased (and probably the media and the general population) will blame you for it too. Which means that there is a general feeling that what you did was wrong. You sai it yourself : you’re an asshole.
And the only reason why you’re not sentenced for it is because the society in which you live has decided that the harm of not allowing you to speak your mind was greater than the harm you can do by causing a death. It doesn’t mean that you caused no harm. Nor than another society can’t decide that the harm you caused is greater than the harm incurred by intimidating you into not telling people to beat up other people.
I’m reminded of Henry Louis Gates, the Chair of the African-American Studies Department commenting that if Chicago ever passed hate speech laws the first people arrested would probably be three black women for referring to a police officer as a “dumb Polack” after they saw him arresting a man with the police officer’s grandmother tearfully discussing the history of anti-Polish bigotry in the US.
I’m also reminded of the Arab countries who upon the release of the film Schindler’s List banned it on the grounds that it promoted anti-German hatred.
But you ignore that the most tyrannical regimes indoctrinated evil by suppressing ideas they disapproved of. Your prevention of tyranny is another man’s inculcation into tyranny. My point is people, left to vet the market of ideas, tend not to choose willful ignorance and hatred. Outliers exist, but they only produce tyranny when given the legal seal of approval to censor.
It is simplistic, but I made it to prove a point. Freedom of expression is not anarchism. See above.
Suppressing something doesn’t mean people will stop thinking something.
Both of which are restrictions on free speech.
It seems to me that the average European is far less scared of his/her government than the average American is. Therefore Europeans tend to be grateful that their government is protecting them from hate speech rather than seeing it as an attack on their civil rights.
Libel is already illegal, no?
Well, from the wiki: Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation
As to how that is legislated in Europe, that’s a rather broad question.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be conspiracy. I can be prosecuted for incitement to commit crimes without any reason to suspect I personally was going to commit said crimes.
Ah I see you’ve misparsed what I have been saying.
It’s like this: there are plenty of kinds of prohibited speech even in the US: incitement to commit crime, state secrets, “fire in a theatre”, public obscenity, copyright infringement etc.
In the first couple of lines you quoted from me, I’m not talking about drawing a line between whether something incites violence or merely obscenity, say. I’m saying for all the flavors of restricted speech there’s a need for human judgement in the grey areas.
There is no inconsistency between that and saying that incitement to violence and incitement to hatred are essentially the same thing.
I didn’tI misparsed anything. You said incitement to hate = incitement to violence. But it;s clear what you MEANT to say was incitement to hate can sometimes be the same as incitement to violence. The one is always a crime, and the other is sometimes a crime. They are not equivalent (or even “essentially” equivalent).
So, even though you seem unwilling to retract your original statement, it’s clear that you won’t defend it, and we can just move on and accept what you MEANT to say.
I’d say the first part is certainly true, for better and worse.
The second part seems a little more interpretive. Do you Europeans really feel that you need protection from speech? Or do you just assume that it’s part of a orderly modern civic environment?
I was- Greece, Italy and France all have laws that either explicitly or implicitly make insulting the President a crime, and many have laws that prohibit disrespecting or burning the flags a criminal act as well.
Which strikes me as kind of funny in the context of this thread, with all the people talking about how much better the Euro concept is, vs. the US one.
As with many things, discussing “European” vs “USA” makes no real sense as there are so many different laws across the European states.
A law against insulting the head of state in the UK could never be passed, it is our national pastime.
I’ve never said that and don’t think that. Either incitement to crime or incitement to hate (which I maintain are essentially the same thing) have a whole spectrum to unambiguously illegal to gray areas to “fair use”. And I’ve said so several times.
That is my position, and you can debate it but I’m really getting bored with your attempts to misrepresent it.
I am not making a slippery-slope argument. My examples support my point that the criminalization of speech is more often used to further the state’s agenda, rather than to protect its people.
I do not consider it beneficial for the government to favor some political parties over others.
I think you’re closer to the situation, so I’ll accept your explanation. My comments reflect the reporting at the time.
But note that many people would also characterize the US embargo of Cuba to be due to a diplomatic spat rather that something that benefits the American people.
After the racist cabbie I got yesterday, I’d say it is part of my ability to digest breakfast peacefully.
Not directed to me, but I’ll answer from my perspective. The presumption is that certain extreme forms of hateful speech against particular well-defined groups, particularly vulnerable minorities, is not consistent with a peaceful and just society. I thoroughly reject the idea that trying to get the new black neighbors to move out by burning a cross on their front lawn and threatening them should be protected by free speech, just as I vehemently reject the idea that the victims’ recourse should be to take advantage of the Second Amendment and arm themselves to the teeth – and, presumably, shoot their tormentors. And they might be able to get away with it by claiming that they “feared for their lives”. This is craziness. This is the kind of escalation of social turmoil and violence that is rejected by peaceful societies.
The concept of just what hate speech is doesn’t seem to be well understood by some, judging from some of the examples cited – to meet the threshold requires a lot more than just stupid bigotry or a vague insult.
One can cite lots of examples in the past and present where states have censored and criminalized speech to further a political agenda. One can also cite lots of examples where such states have also suspended civil liberties, jailed political opponents, and so on. Unless you buy the “slippery slope” argument, the answer to those examples is “so what?”
Any civilized society has to have some limits on speech and on personal liberties to maintain peace and order, and the US is no exception. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because you feel like it, you can’t be drunk and disorderly in public just because you think it’s fun. And as for jailing people, hey, the US is a world leader on that score. The nature of free speech is always just a question of where you draw the line, and what some nasty and tyrannical states have done in terms of all kinds of abuses has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yeah, you know, I thought it was awesome in 1998, when scientists invented the magic humanity-exclusion machine, that’s been turned on since then and magically excludes America from the forces of society that normally effected the vast majority of human societies in human history. 99.99% of human political machines eventually became massively corrupt, but we Americans are exempt, because the machine is on! There’s no worry that just because times are good now, doesn’t mean that they’ll be good forever. No, don’t you see, the magic machine is on!
Yaayyyyy!!!