How do you define "hate speech"?

In My Humble Opinion
21

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.

22

So what would you call “lock her up” in the context in which it was used? Perfectly OK?

23

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.

24

“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.

25

My personal one is a little narrow - inciting/requesting/encouraging actual violence against named or unnamed persons for personal gain; either political or financial.

26

The question was:

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”?

27

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?

28

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?

29

I recognize that sometimes a sentence can be both.

My personal view is similar to UltraVires:

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:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#docCont

30

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?

31

The question was how do I define hate speech, not what IS the definition of hate speech.

32

No.

I think a trial was implied.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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.

37

I view all speech and restrictions thereof in the exact manner as does the US Constitution. No more, no less.

38

Cool, now make excuses for “Jews will not replace us.”

39

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)

40

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.