# Criminalization of "Hate" Speech **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 20, 2015, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905 "2015-12-20T07:01:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/81 "2015-12-21T23:27:44Z")
Hardly “apologia” since I quite dislike the whole quasi-judicial concept of human rights tribunals. I only came in here to correct your grossly inaccurate posting about the Steyn case and the alleged “banning” of a song which was never banned at all, and legally never could have been. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/82 "2015-12-21T23:51:44Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Hardly “apologia” since I quite dislike the whole quasi-judicial concept of human rights tribunals. I only came in here to correct your grossly inaccurate posting about the Steyn case and the alleged “banning” of a song which was never banned at all, and legally never could have been. You’re still soft pedaling this. It’s actually quite a useful tool for disguising what is at base using coercion to silence unpopular speech. The Canadian Human Rights Commission was created by an act of the Canadian parliament. It pursed a magazine and a writer for writing that was deemed as Islamophobic. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is a regulatory body that attempted to ban a song for using a word that was deemed homophobic. Those are the facts. It speaks to the tendency to suppress speech that some people deem hateful, which is the them of this thread. So, back to the two questions in the OP. Do you think there will be laws criminalizing hate speech? Do you think such laws would be a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/83 "2015-12-22T00:07:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So is it your view that only speech that puts lives at risk may permissibly be regulated? I’m not taking a position on this debate; just asking. Absolutely not…just responding to her crowded theater example. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/84 "2015-12-22T00:26:14Z")
It should be noted that the “fire in a crowded theater” example is not actually legal precedent. It’s not shouting “fire!” that is illegal, it’s attempting to start a panic. Speech has to have real consequences, do substantial harm, to be punishable. The problem with hate speech is that it hurts feelings, which is not a viable basis on which to regulate content. Hate speech that actually is incitement to violence is of course actionable. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/85 "2015-12-22T00:55:27Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > The Canadian Human Rights Commission was created by an act of the Canadian parliament. It pursed a magazine and a writer for writing that was deemed as Islamophobic. It didn’t “purse” or “pursue” anyone. An activist with the Canadian Islamic Congress pursued Steyn and the magazine. The BC tribunal sided with the magazine and defended it. So did the Canadian Human Rights Commission by dismissing the complaint. Congratulations on getting the facts exactly backwards. > [@Waymore](#): > > The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is a regulatory body that attempted to ban a song for using a word that was deemed homophobic. The CBSC isn’t a “regulatory body” and they don’t regulate anything. Do you understand what the word “voluntary” means? The federal regulatory body for broadcasting in Canada is the CRTC. > [@Waymore](#): > > Those are the facts. Not a single thing you’ve claimed in this entire thread has been a “fact”. > [@Waymore](#): > > So, back to the two questions in the OP. Do you think there will be laws criminalizing hate speech? Do you think such laws would be a good thing? No and yes, respectively. No, because of a tendency for absolutist rather than balanced interpretations of the Bill of Rights, notably the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Yes, they’ve been a good thing in other countries. It allowed Canada, for instance, to deport a virulent neo-Nazi anti-Semite back to Germany, where he was promptly arrested, tried, and convicted of fomenting hatred. In the US, conversely, it allowed Fred Phelps to spread his reprehensible hatred and stage a deeply offensive circus sideshow around the funerals of fallen US soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/86 "2015-12-22T01:00:09Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Ah, yes - hate is “defined” as whatever the person I dislike is saying. > > For a many who favor hate speech laws, this is indeed what their “definition” of hate amounts to. Do you seriously claim that Glenn Beck does not speak in hateful terms? Seriously? I mean, with a straight face? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/87 "2015-12-22T01:00:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The CBSC isn’t a “regulatory body” and they don’t regulate anything. Do you understand what the word “voluntary” means? The federal regulatory body for broadcasting in Canada is the CRTC. And the CRTC doesn’t regulate content either. It does mandate a certain amount of Canadian content on radio and TV, but it stops there; it does not tell broadcasters what they can and cannot play on the radio or show on TV. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/88 "2015-12-22T01:19:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Do you seriously claim that Glenn Beck does not speak in hateful terms? Seriously? I mean, with a straight face? That isn’t relevant to the argument. Yes, Glenn Beck speaks in hateful terms because that is his job. I am sure you have on occasion and I know that I have about many things. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China today? There is nothing illegal about _hateful_ speech whether it comes from PETA, the NRA, Save the Whales or the PTA and there shouldn’t be. Free Speech is an ideal that is part of the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution and therefore the U.S. itself. Of course hateful speech should be allowed and even strongly protected even by the people that reject the message itself. That is the reason the ACLU, a generally liberal organization, occasionally defends free speech rights for neo-NAZI groups and the KKK. It isn’t for them specifically. It is to protect those rights for everyone. This thread is incredibly disturbing to me because it seems like younger people have collectively lost the understanding of a very basic and fundamental concept. I don’t care what Canada and Europe think free speech is because they have never gotten it right and don’t even have a coherent philosophy that dictates it. The U.S. is the only major nation that has consistently and that right will never be eroded by the more civically illiterate among us trying to use their delicate sensibilities to destroy the very fabric of this nation. Luckily, the Supreme Court agrees with me and that is all that matters so feel free to describe your totalitarian wet dreams but keep in mind they are just that. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/89 "2015-12-22T01:49:14Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > INo and yes, respectively. No, because of a tendency for absolutist rather than balanced interpretations of the Bill of Rights, notably the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Yes, they’ve been a good thing in other countries. It allowed Canada, for instance, to deport a virulent neo-Nazi anti-Semite back to Germany, where he was promptly arrested, tried, and convicted of fomenting hatred. In the US, conversely, it allowed Fred Phelps to spread his reprehensible hatred and stage a deeply offensive circus sideshow around the funerals of fallen US soldiers. There is no “balanced” interpretation of rights. The only time balancing occurs is when one right gets in the way of another right. If a right has to be balanced against something that is not also a right, then it’s not a right at all. If we can “balance” the right to speak freely then we can also balance the right of trials for the accused. Yet we consider that right to be pretty absolutist, and for good reason. That’s because rights by their nature are absolutist. If they aren’t, then they aren’t rights, they are privileges. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/90 "2015-12-22T02:05:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It didn’t “purse” or “pursue” anyone. An activist with the Canadian Islamic Congress pursued Steyn and the magazine. The BC tribunal sided with the magazine and defended it. So did the Canadian Human Rights Commission by dismissing the complaint. Congratulations on getting the facts exactly backwards. > > The CBSC isn’t a “regulatory body” and they don’t regulate anything. Do you understand what the word “voluntary” means? The federal regulatory body for broadcasting in Canada is the CRTC. > > Not a single thing you’ve claimed in this entire thread has been a “fact”. > > No and yes, respectively. No, because of a tendency for absolutist rather than balanced interpretations of the Bill of Rights, notably the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Yes, they’ve been a good thing in other countries. It allowed Canada, for instance, to deport a virulent neo-Nazi anti-Semite back to Germany, where he was promptly arrested, tried, and convicted of fomenting hatred. In the US, conversely, it allowed Fred Phelps to spread his reprehensible hatred and stage a deeply offensive circus sideshow around the funerals of fallen US soldiers. So you think it’s a good idea to ban hate speech. Glad we got that out in the open. You’re petty nitpicking makes a lot of sense now. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/91 "2015-12-22T02:06:53Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > And the CRTC doesn’t regulate content either. It does mandate a certain amount of Canadian content on radio and TV, but it stops there; it does not tell broadcasters what they can and cannot play on the radio or show on TV. Except for Dire Straights songs apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/92 "2015-12-22T02:09:30Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > This thread is incredibly disturbing to me because it seems like younger people have collectively lost the understanding of a very basic and fundamental concept. I don’t care what Canada and Europe think free speech is because they have never gotten it right and don’t even have a coherent philosophy that dictates it. The U.S. is the only major nation that has consistently and that right will never be eroded by the more civically illiterate among us trying to use their delicate sensibilities to destroy the very fabric of this nation. Luckily, the Supreme Court agrees with me and that is all that matters so feel free to describe your totalitarian wet dreams but keep in mind they are just that. Well said. I think of myself as generally left wing, liberal and someone who values social justice; but these days I sometimes feel as though I have as little in common with the more vocal parts of the supposedly “liberal” left as I have with the Tea Party. Powerful factions within both left and right have gone off the deep end. This is a time when we should be more vigilant than ever about self-appointed totalitarian arbiters of what speech is “acceptable”. I think the ideological roots of the anti-free-speech sentiment on the left that’s been highly visible among US students recently are in the po-mo social theory that still dominates academia. This is a good summary from a Dutch commenter on another site today: > [@](#): > > I haven’t seen safe spaces yet. Those are a uniquely Anglo-American thing. But the arguments used by students to advocate safe spaces are basically the same that some vocal Muslims and the Regressive Left use to enforce 7th century blasphemy laws in a 21st century society. > > The basic idea is that language is a power structure that can be used to oppress minorities. This idea goes all the way back to Michel Foucault, one of the most cited scholars nowadays. Foucault’s research mainly focused on clinics, sexuality, gender, women, etc, because they were the outcasts in a society dominated by white heterosexual males. And of course language has been used to oppress. Nazi propaganda for example, with movies like “Der Ewige Jude”. > > Yet there is a world of difference between state-sanctioned hatred in Nazi Germany of the 1940’s and cartoons drawn by Kurt Westergaard and the Charlie Hebdo editors in 21st century democratic countries. If we apply Foucault’s theory to Charlie Hebdo, then suddenly the roles are reversed. Then the Charlie Hebdo staff suddenly become racist oppressors and the terrorists are freedom fighters. It’s completely bonkers, but it is the position held by the French philosopher Emmanuel Todd and Islamist apologists. > > The idea that language is a power structure that is used to oppress minorities is the poison that runs through universities in both North America and Western Europe. I think this is the most extreme form of the challenge to free speech that we face. Of course, I realize that many who advocate some form of anti-hate-speech legislation would not remotely align themselves with this kind of agenda, but I think it’s important to understand how far some people would seek to take this, and why. A well meaning desire to suppress dissenting opinion can make for some strange bedfellows. > **[Regressive left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left)** > > Regressive left, also referred to as regressive liberals or regressive leftists, is a pejorative term to describe by its proponents a branch of left-wing politics that is accused of being accepting of, or sympathetic to, views that conflict with liberal principles, particularly by tolerating Islamism and other authoritarian positions, like promoting censorship. Among those who have used the term are the British political activist Maajid Nawaz, American political talk-show hosts Bill Maher a In... ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/93 "2015-12-22T02:32:54Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Except for Dire Straights songs apparently. I’ll repeat what you’ve been told over and over: nobody in Canada is banning “Money for Nothing.” The CSBC, a voluntary industry association of broadcasters, didn’t like it, and _asked_ (not demanded, mandated, or otherwise ruled) that broadcasters not play the song. As a result, many radio stations played the song anyway–some put it into heavy rotation. As for the CRTC, the government-run broadcast regulator, if you can find me anything that says the CRTC banned “Money for Nothing,” or indeed, any other song, I’d like to see it. You apparently do not understand what the CRTC does–it is Canada’s equivalent of the FCC in that it regulates broadcast frequencies and output wattages, allocates spectrum frequencies, and so on. It is unrelated to the CBSC, and does not ban content. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/94 "2015-12-22T03:12:33Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > I’ll repeat what you’ve been told over and over: nobody in Canada is banning “Money for Nothing.” The CSBC, a voluntary industry association of broadcasters, didn’t like it, and _asked_ (not demanded, mandated, or otherwise ruled) that broadcasters not play the song. As a result, many radio stations played the song anyway–some put it into heavy rotation. > > As for the CRTC, the government-run broadcast regulator, if you can find me anything that says the CRTC banned “Money for Nothing,” or indeed, any other song, I’d like to see it. You apparently do not understand what the CRTC does–it is Canada’s equivalent of the FCC in that it regulates broadcast frequencies and output wattages, allocates spectrum frequencies, and so on. It is unrelated to the CBSC, and does not ban content. From the original [source](http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-banned-in-canada-20110114) I linked to: > [@](#): > > The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that “Money for Nothing,” a Dire Straits hit from 1985, is too offensive for Canadian airwaves. The song is being singled out for the repeated use of an anti-gay slur — “that little faggot” — in its second verse. > [@](#): > > The ruling does not ban the song outright — versions with the offending words edited out are safe for airplay. The song was banned. The Canadian parliament didn’t pass a bill banning the song I grant. Radio stations refused to comply, and good on them for doing so. But it was still banned. So, instead of quibbling, let’s talk about the two questions in the OP. Do you think hate speech laws are coming to the US? Do you think such laws would be a good idea? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/95 "2015-12-22T03:37:35Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > The song was banned. The Canadian parliament didn’t pass a bill banning the song I grant. Radio stations refused to comply, and good on them for doing so. But it was still banned. By a body that had nothing to back up a ban with. It could not sanction radio stations, it could not take away their broadcast licenses, it could not demand that on-air hosts that played, and program directors that playlisted, the song, be fired. It could do nothing but ask radio stations not to play the song, and had no power it do anything if its request was ignored. Rolling Stone had the idea wrong, as did most non-Canadian news sources. They seemed to attribute more power to the CBSC than it actually had. It is just an industry association where membership and compliance are voluntary. It has no power to ban anything. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/96 "2015-12-22T03:45:36Z")
It’s not a quibble. You started this thread asking about hate speech laws passed by governments, and used this as an example. Except, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, no government legislature or agency banned the song; nobody did. A voluntary group of private radio broadcasters suggested it should not be played. And radio stations ignored that group of private radio broadcasters and played the song, with absolutely no legal repercussions. If you think that means the song was banned, I’m afraid that we are so far apart on basic concepts that there is little point engaging you. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/97 "2015-12-22T03:46:00Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > That isn’t relevant to the argument. Yes, Glenn Beck speaks in hateful terms because that is his job. I am sure you have on occasion and I know that I have about many things. I was rebutting **Xema** who somehow thought that, by citing Glenn Beck as an instance of hate speech, I was defining hate speech. **Xema** ’s post was so badly phrased that it appeared to be denying that Glenn Beck was hateful at all. A really badly put together post, that’s all. > [@](#): > > . . . There is nothing illegal about _hateful_ speech whether it comes from PETA, the NRA, Save the Whales or the PTA and there shouldn’t be. Free Speech is an ideal that is part of the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution and therefore the U.S. itself. Of course hateful speech should be allowed and even strongly protected even by the people that reject the message itself. . . . I actually agree with all of this, very strongly. All speech, as speech, is legal, and needs to remain that way. Speech only becomes actionable when it crosses certain legal lines, such as exhorting violence, conveying harmful untruths, revealing official secrets, and other extremely limited cases. (Also when it violates SDMB rules.) ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/98 "2015-12-22T03:46:47Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > So, instead of quibbling, let’s talk about the two questions in the OP. Do you think hate speech laws are coming to the US? Do you think such laws would be a good idea? No. Free speech is not up for casual or political debate in the U.S. and that is a really good thing. People that don’t understand the philosophical concept can debate it among themselves but it is a debate based on true ignorance on many different levels. The 1st amendment can’t just be swiped aside because a few radical leftist get offended at something. The Supreme Court has already shown through binding decisions that they will strike down any laws that infringe on free speech, hateful or otherwise. For example, the infamous and now deceased Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church was a lawyer and used his ‘God Hates Fags!!!’ campaign at funerals to be as offensive as possible. Even the most passionate common bigots hated him for it but he used his offensiveness at a money grab for anyone that assaulted his group or his right to free speech. He filed lawsuits against anyone that attacked his group directly and usually won the damages claims. He also won his Supreme Court case in [Snyder v Phelps](http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps) and I agree with that decision. Satan has probably already put Fred Phelps in a special cell in hell designed just for him but the court decision was correct. It is right there in the 1st amendment and is meant to be sacrosanct. If a notoriously hateful and offensive person like that can win a 1st amendment case fairly recently, I don’ think we are in any danger of reversals in the near future despite what the constitutionally ignorant among us would like to think. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/99 "2015-12-22T03:50:05Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > By a body that had nothing to back up a ban with. It could not sanction radio stations, it could not take away their broadcast licenses, it could not demand that on-air hosts that played, and program directors that playlisted, the song, be fired. It could do nothing but ask radio stations not to play the song, and had no power it do anything if its request was ignored. > > Rolling Stone had the idea wrong, as did most non-Canadian news sources. They seemed to attribute more power to the CBSC than it actually had. It is just an industry association where membership and compliance are voluntary. It has no power to ban anything. How about you answer the two questions posed in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905/100 "2015-12-22T03:57:33Z")
In all seriousness, do they not teach civics and Constitutional basics in high school these days? I went to a fairly bad high school and yet we all still understood the 1st amendment and its significance cold. Some people here and elsewhere keep responding like they either don’t know what the Constitution represents and its significance or they think that the 1st amendment is just another law that you can work around if you want to badly enough. Is that the case or are people guilty of that just deliberately trying to ignore inconvenient truths? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminalization-of-hate-speech/740905.md?page=6)