This question was inspired by this clip from a CNN interview of Comey. In it, Christiane Amanpour asks:
Prior to this, it had never even occurred to me that semi-serious people might consider “lock her up!” to be “hate speech”.
So, the question is: How do you define “hate speech”?
“Lock her up” is nothing like hate speech in whatever definitions there are for that. But it is a lot like incitement to violence with a thin veneer of legality about it. I’m hoping that’s what she meant, but really, what did she expect Comey to do? Arrest Trump for starting it? Arrest people for saying it? I just don’t see what she was thinking here.
Although I would count as something of a libtard in your book, I don’t much like the idea of “hate speech” as a category of offense. First of all, it has “speech” in it, the freedom of which we are guaranteed. Second, as a label that can (as we see in this example) be expanded ever wider to include anything we don’t like, it tends to stifle thought as well as speech.
The typical example of hate speech is using the N-word against an african-american person, i.e. calling the person the N-word or using it as a pejorative when referring to them. So let us suppose we are going to label that an example of hate speech, where does that get us? It’s not going to prevent people from using it in a private situation, and if used in a public situation other people have the option and right to judge for themselves whether the person using that term is a bigoted jerk or a righteous dude or something else. If it is used by a politician, then the voters know where this politician stands and can vote accordingly. If it is used by an appointed official, that’s a bit harder to remedy, but whoever appointed that official should be held responsible as if they said it themselves.
So I repeat, what does the concept of hate speech get us compared to what it risks and outright loses for us?
I wouldn’t consider lock her up to be hate speech.
I seem to recall something about a “constitutional solution” or something like, and that makes me a bit nervous as we’re treading into “inciting to violence” territory.
SIGH! what makes “hate speech” as a legal/political term so…well, hateful is that it’s a slippery damn thing. Who’s definition do we use?
That being said, hate speech…is a form of “political correctness” (sigh) specifically designed and legislated (hate crime) to punish to a greater degree, while hypothetically keeping within constitutional norms for actual criminal offenses, those whose views and speech and action the “offenderatti”(double sigh) find more disagreeable because the underlying views oppose their views.
I find the term “hate speech” to be hate speech in and of itself.
I’m not sure I answered the question, but I did my best.
somewhat ninja’d by Roderick Femm
If the following comments seem verbose, it’s because I’m trying to draw some fine lines. Note that I think while some cases may be borderline others are clear, and the existence of borderline cases should not be something that is pointed out by the offenders in the obvious cases groups as any kind of defense. Here goes. IMHO hate speech means verbally attacking someone or a group of people due to there being part of a group that has not done anything warranting attack. This means things like all racial groups, all genders, most sexual orientations, and most religions. If the group is not inherently evil than verbal attacks against someone for being a member of that group constitutes hate speech. If a group is inherently evil IMHO that removes the hate speech label for speech attacking that group. This is why I said most for sexual orientation and religion. Speech attacking someone because they are black, or transgender, or gay, or Muslim, is hate speech. Speech attacking someone for being a pedophile, or a member of a violent religious cult does not constitute hate speech.
As far as the lock her up goes, I’m going to say it is not hate speech when members of the crowd say it. When Trump himself says it that’s a different story since he has the ability (somewhat) to actually act on that sentiment.
“abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” works well enough for me.
I don’t consider “lock her up” to be hate speech, it’s just personal animus.
*snip.
So the term “hate speech” means only what FlikTheBlue judges for himself/herself to “warrant attack” or to be “inherently evil.” If so, according to FlikTheBlue, then no hate speech. If not, according to FlikTheBlue, then hate speech.
That is exactly my problem with the term. Any tyrant can mold it to fit his ideal. At least in the U.S. we don’t ban it, unlike our supposed free speech loving friends in Canada and the UK.
“Lock her up” is not hate speech. It’s more like “sieg heil”. Containing no information or directives (lock her up could be seen as a directive but I don’t think it really was in this case), but just a battle cry for in-group identification and solidarity.
I would consider anyone today walking around sieg heiling to be practicing hate speech. Specifically, I’d consider it overtly threatening speech that expresses prejudice against Jews. It’s much more than just in-group solidarity - that ship sailed in…oh, 1939 at the latest.
We had a war to decide it, and everything…
Well, now, in present time, yes.
The part that I bolded is where the worm starts to swallow its own tail, so to speak.
As much as I dislike either/or arguments, when you start to exempt groups from hate speech, you turn the very term into itself and labeling the words and actions of those groups hate speech is itself hate speech.
Either everyone commits acts of hate speech or no one does and either all hate speech is inherently evil, to be avoided or none of it is.
Yes, even pedophiles and members of westboro church are entitled to protection from hate speech. It’s the only way to truly protect our society from those who are truly evil and work to our destruction.
Is that how you define it? It’s whatever FlikTheBlue says it is? Because I find this post to be confusing. I think the OP asked how *you *would define it, not how you would criticize how others define it. What’s your definition?
I like MrDibble’s definition. “Lock her up” is directed against a person, not a group, so would fail his (and my) definition of hate speech.
I wouldn’t consider “lock her up!” to be hate speech, although it was clearly an indication by the mob that they do not value democracy, nor the rule of law and there certainly was an element of misogyny in it. Also, that mob clearly doesn’t get irony, given Trump’s long history of illegal behavior, but it’s not hate speech.
HurricaneDitka, I agree with you that it’s not hate speech. MrDibble’s definition works well enough for me, although I would add nationality, gender, and disability status to his list.
Giving Christiane Amanpour the benefit of the doubt, she may have been inartfully suggesting that the “lock her up” chant was hate speech due to its misogyny. I disagree because the chant targets Clinton not on the basis of her gender but, ostensibly, for other reasons.
I think that: (1) Trump is a misogynist and (2) some of his supporters’ opposition to Clinton may have been rooted in their personal misogyny. However, this particular chant isn’t hate speech even if it may have been the product of the same myogynistic animus that drives hate speech against women.
I can’t watch the clip to see the response, but I hope it was something along the lines of “you’re fucking right it should be allowed”.
"Lock her up!’
“Bring back slavery!”
“Blacks are inferior!”
“Anyone in a MAGA hat is a Nazi!”
“Trump should be in prison!”
are all examples of hate speech, IMO. And hate speech is protected by the Constitution.
Thus, WADR, the question “is this hate speech” is beside the point. The suggestion that the FBI should act against people who speak like that, or the government “shouldn’t allow” it, is out of the question.
It’s a point I’ve made in the past - do you want the government to be able to act against people who suggest prison for their political opponents, when Donald Trump is President?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t define it at all. Sticks and Stones…
I think it’s perfectly clear from the context that Amanpour mixed up the terms “hate speech” and some variation on “incitement to violence.” They are kinda, sorta in the same neighborhood, but it is clear that they aren’t interchangable terms.
But as long as the right-wingers can have a journalist as a punching bag and continue to ignore the racism and sexism in our society, knock yourselves out with this thread.
It doesn’t make much more sense as an accusation of “incitement to violence” than it does “hate speech”. The chant wasn’t “beat her up”, it was “lock her up”, as in arrest her. There’s no call for violence there.
I would define hate speech as speech that is specifically meant to target a particular category of people, and is also false. Not that something can’t be true and hateful, but rather that if truthful speech gets banned because it offends, that opens up an enormous can of worms.
Not hate speech. Indicative of other personal failings, perhaps, but not hate speech. Sensationalist journalist is sensationalist.
Which is still a facile argument, because the journalist wasn’t advocating locking up people for hate speech. She was asking a question about responsibilities of law enforcement. But of course the right-wing media can’t handle journalists posing questions to people in, or who were once, in power, unless it means sticking it to Clinton or whomever.
So we have the typical shitty right-wing journalists like the Daily Caller, the Federalist, and other garbage websites manufacturing fake news to attack libtards. Quelle surprise.