# How do you define "hate speech"? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 3, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952 "2019-04-03T00:17:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/21 "2019-04-03T16:27:47Z")
I guess where I draw the line is at when it’s intended to incite violence against, or directly threaten a specific disadvantaged/discriminated against group for being part of that group. Otherwise, people should be allowed to say any hateful thing they want. Basically it’s the difference between someone getting up and advocating that say… gays should be beaten, versus someone chanting that “God hates fags”. The first should be regulated as hate speech, while the second is hateful, and assholish, but not “hate speech” in the sense of something the government needs to intervene in. In the case of people chanting “Lock her up!”, it fails one standard, in that Hillary Clinton, as a politician, isn’t being attacked for being part of any disadvantaged/discriminated against group. She’s being attacked for her political views, which aren’t the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/22 "2019-04-03T16:29:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. So what would you call “lock her up” in the context in which it was used? Perfectly OK? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/23 "2019-04-03T16:47:30Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I guess where I draw the line is at when it’s intended to incite violence against, or directly threaten a specific disadvantaged/discriminated against group for being part of that group. Otherwise, people should be allowed to say any hateful thing they want. > > Basically it’s the difference between someone getting up and advocating that say… gays should be beaten, versus someone chanting that “God hates fags”. The first should be regulated as hate speech, while the second is hateful, and assholish, but not “hate speech” in the sense of something the government needs to intervene in. That goes against the Brandenberg opinion. A person can have an opinion and state the opinion that gays (or women, or Republicans, or Christians) should be beaten unless those words incite imminent lawless action. And if you are inciting imminent lawless action, it doesn’t matter if it is against a group or an individual. The term “hate speech” IMHO is a meaningless pejorative that serves only to limit free speech, in this country through social pressure and in other ostensibly free countries, by force of law. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/24 "2019-04-03T16:48:36Z")
“Lock her up!” doesn’t incite violence against an identifiable group - odious but legal. “Shoot her!” does incite violence but against a single individual - illegal “Shoot all women!” in small private discussions does incite violence against an identifiable group but not in public - odious but legal “Shoot all women!” in public arena does incite violence against an identifiable group - odious, illegal and hate speech. I made the distinction between public and private for the last one just to make ti obvious. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/25 "2019-04-03T17:05:04Z")
My personal one is a little narrow - inciting/requesting/encouraging actual violence against named or unnamed persons for personal gain; either political or financial. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/26 "2019-04-03T18:40:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. … The question was: > [@](#): > > Do you in, retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, the people in charge of law and order had shut down that language, that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it kind of is hate speech? Should that have been allowed? Since you seem to think you know what was going on in Amanpour’s head, what do you imagine she was thinking law enforcement would do to “shut down that language” and disallow it? Would it not include “locking up people”? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/27 "2019-04-03T18:59:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Since you seem to think you know what was going on in Amanpour’s head, what do you imagine she was thinking law enforcement would do to “shut down that language” and disallow it? Would it not include “locking up people”? You seem to not recognize the difference between a question and a call to action. ETA: which is a tad ironic given the topic you proposed us to discuss. And by the way, do you think hate speech exists at all? What is it? ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/28 "2019-04-03T19:01:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > \*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. The question was how I would define it, not what I think the legal definition should be, so I gave what IMHO is what makes something hate speech. Others of course can have different opinions which is what we’re discussing in this thread. If you disagree with a particular point I made, I’d be happy to debate it. As for the whole free speech thing, I don’t get the argument often made by conservatives these days that liberals are “suppressing free speech.” Things like protests against against some conservative speakers on college campuses are sometimes brought up, and Trump himself has been making some noise about this issue lately. The obvious reply is don’t the protesters have the same right to free speech as well? Why should those speaking out against hateful speech have there right to free speech infringed upon? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/29 "2019-04-03T19:22:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You seem to not recognize the difference between a question and a call to action. … I recognize that sometimes a sentence can be both. > [@Ravenman](#): > > … ETA: which is a tad ironic given the topic you proposed us to discuss. And by the way, do you think hate speech exists at all? What is it? My personal view is similar to UltraVires: > [@UltraVires](#): > > … The term “hate speech” IMHO is a meaningless pejorative that serves only to limit free speech, in this country through social pressure and in other ostensibly free countries, by force of law. I recognize that a number of jurisdictions have defined the term and given it legal force, and their definitions vary, but are not far out of line with the general mood in this thread. For example, here is Canada’s: > [@](#): > > Public incitement of hatred > > 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of > > (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or > > (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. > > Wilful promotion of hatred > > (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of > > (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or > > (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. > > Defences > > (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) > > (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; > > (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; > > (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or > > (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. > > Forfeiture > > (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct. > > Exemption from seizure of communication facilities > > (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section. > > Consent > > (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. > > Definitions > > (7) In this section, > > communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer) > > identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable) > > public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public) > > statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations) [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#docCont](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#docCont) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/30 "2019-04-03T19:39:11Z")
Do you think the chants of “Lock her up!” are likely to lead to a breach of the peace? More importantly, do you think it’s appropriate for someone who swore on a bible to uphold the US Constitution to advocate for the imprisonment of their political enemies without trial? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/31 "2019-04-03T19:46:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That goes against the Brandenberg opinion. A person can have an opinion and state the opinion that gays (or women, or Republicans, or Christians) should be beaten unless those words incite imminent lawless action. > > And if you are inciting imminent lawless action, it doesn’t matter if it is against a group or an individual. > > The term “hate speech” IMHO is a meaningless pejorative that serves only to limit free speech, in this country through social pressure and in other ostensibly free countries, by force of law. The question was how do _I_ define hate speech, not what IS the definition of hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/32 "2019-04-03T20:10:34Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Do you think the chants of “Lock her up!” are likely to lead to a breach of the peace? No. > [@The\_Tooth](#): > > More importantly, do you think it’s appropriate for someone who swore on a bible to uphold the US Constitution to advocate for the imprisonment of their political enemies without trial? I think a trial was implied. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/33 "2019-04-03T20:22:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Yes but it was a really stupid question. As an intelligent well informed journalist who has lived in and covered the US for decades she should know the answer was “None.” Law enforcement has no responsiblity to shut down speech. Just the opposite. As one of our basic rights it should be the responsibility of law-enforcement to ensure those rights are protected. I thought Comey answered it quite well. I wouldn’t have been as subtle. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/34 "2019-04-03T20:31:14Z")
He has already declared her guilty and is advocating for her imprisonment. Hardly becoming of one who has sworn to uphold the constitution. It’s kind of part of the job. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/35 "2019-04-03T20:42:05Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > As an intelligent well informed journalist who has lived in and covered the US for decades she should know the answer was “None.” Law enforcement has no responsiblity to shut down speech. Just the opposite. As one of our basic rights it should be the responsibility of law-enforcement to ensure those rights are protected. I thought Comey answered it quite well. I wouldn’t have been as subtle. I’m just guessing, but I’d say part of the motivation for asking the question was to either allow Comey to give the answer he did, or to see if Comey would give an even more newsworthy, totally off the rails answer. Sometimes journalists ask softball questions to see what the subject may say, and sometimes the answers to dumb questions are especially newsworthy. Think of, “Ms. Palin, where do you get your news?” An intelligent, well-informed journalist who lived in and covered the US for decades would probably assume that a major public figure would have an answer to that question… but it didn’t play out that way, to everyone’s delight. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/36 "2019-04-03T23:40:33Z")
I really am curious to know which of the three words in the phrase “Lock her up” implies a Trump wants a trial to determine guilt. Otherwise I’m left here believing Ditka is making stuff up so he doesn’t have to admit to supporting a president who’s violating his oath of office. ---
**Author:** ![LennieB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8dc957/32.png) [@LennieB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LennieB)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/37 "2019-04-04T01:07:28Z")
I view all speech and restrictions thereof in the exact manner as does the US Constitution. No more, no less. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/38 "2019-04-04T13:31:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No. > I think a trial was implied. Cool, now make excuses for “Jews will not replace us.” ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/39 "2019-04-04T15:09:05Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Do you think the chants of “Lock her up!” are likely to lead to a breach of the peace? I do and quite obviously it implies imprisonment of a political opponent without a trial. I think people are stretching if they don’t believe the later (I do think people can disagree on whether the chanting can lead to a breach of the peace even though I disagree) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952/40 "2019-04-04T15:23:31Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I do and quite obviously it implies imprisonment of a political opponent without a trial. I think people are stretching if they don’t believe the later (I do think people can disagree on whether the chanting can lead to a breach of the peace even though I disagree) I don’t believe the “without a trial” bit. It’s a three-word slogan, so both sides are tempted to paint whatever context around it their heart desires, but aside from the chant, President Trump recently used Twitter to promote the idea of [TRIALS for his political opponents](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-retweets-call-treason-trials-political-opponents-false/story%3fid=59470577). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-hate-speech/831952.md?page=3)