Well, “Lock her up after trial by jury by peers!” doesn’t exactly make for a catchy chant at a rally.
While a working definition has it’s place I would suggest instead looking at how it’s being enforced.
For instance, instead of just condemning Canada for any law that infringes on the American measure of utterly free speech, look instead to how the law is actually being applied. Is it being seriously overused or misapplied? Used to silence political opponents etc?
Or is it being used to good effect, to rein in the likes of Ann Coulter’s or Westboro Baptist’s trash talking/misinformation bordering on hate? Not every nation thinks that kind of frothy rhetoric is entirely without risk to the public discourse or to productive engagement over issues.
Just because America can’t possibly see it ever being anything but broadly abused by corrupt actors, doesn’t mean every nation need feel that same fear. In some places such laws ARE abused and perhaps that’s what would play out in America, and the fear is justified. But again, not everyone need follow that example.
I don’t think the definition is as important as the spirit and application, to be honest.
elbows, you make a good point, but just so you’re aware, “rein in the likes of Ann Coulter” would be an example of “silence political opponents” and not a “good effect” to many on the American right (and I would hope, perhaps in vain, some on the left).
She’s not a political opponent, she’s an opportunistic pundit.
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
Joseph Stalin
Speech control is thought control. Why would anyone want the state to control speech when historically tyrannical states have been responsible for the greatest crimes against humanity is baffling.
Should opportunistic pundits be silenced?
Depends, are they vocally advocating for violence in a public space?.
Also noting the goalpost moving of “political opponent” into vacuous talking head
So…what’s your definition of hate speech?
Did the OP ask if it should be banned? If it did, I didn’t catch that. I don’t think it should be banned (although, of course, incitement to violence, incitement to riot, and so on, should continue to be illegal, whether it involves hate speech or not). Is hate speech illegal in the US? I don’t think it is, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
-
Not a political opponent.
-
Not silenced. But told to be aware anything straying into hate will be actionable.
She still spoke! But she was more precise in expressing her view, so yes, to ’good effect’!
Definition isn’t as important as application and enforcement in such things. Anything can be abused.
(Your Pres insisted on security clearance for his kids! And gave cabinet positions to relatives!)
Language is complex and nuanced, nearly any political view can be raised without straying into hateful speech. Who wouldn’t want better language instead of hateful language in the public dialogue?
People who don’t want the government to have the power to define and / or arbitrarily enforce their view of what constitutes “hateful language”.
On another note, I’m completely mystified by this view that Ann Coulter is not a “political opponent”. Do you think that “political opponent” only includes people running for elected office?
I forget, when did she run in an election against another candidate?
AFAIK, she did not. That’s what I’m asking: do you only consider people who have run for office to be “political opponents”? I have no trouble, for example, thinking of the NRA and Gifford’s gun-control group as “political opponents”. Same with Democrats and Republicans generally, or Planned Parenthood and various pro-life groups, etc.
Then she’s not. Glad we cleared that up.
But she wasn’t silenced, is the point, no matter how you define her position!
And most people falling afoul of the law, also are NOT silenced. They are simply required to express their views without hate.
Everyone with eyes can see the current rise of white supremacy incidents in today’s America. Lots of people see a connection to unfettered free (hate) speech. The current state of affairs and tone of political dialogue in US today isn’t a great advertisement for leaving hate speech unaddressed, to be honest.
I agree that trying to classify her as not a political opponent is a silly aside and totally irrelevant. If someone holds the view that _____ are terrible people and they are ruining the country, and they are prohibited from saying so because their speech is deemed by the appropriate government authorities as no being expressed “without hate”, then “silenced” seems like an appropriate-enough short-hand description of what’s going on, doesn’t it?
No, actually, it doesn’t.
And if NOT ACTUALLY being silenced, means ‘silenced’ to you, I’m going to bow out, as it’s just silly to continue, in my opinion.
(Ask a Chinese/Russian to maybe explain the difference, I suppose.)
And when he chants “lock her up”, he doesn’t. I’m not going to guess what he means, I can only go by what he says. And what he says doesn’t sound much like upholding the constitution to me. I think it’s a fine example of hate speech, though.
Well that certainly puts you in the minority here. Care to share with us how you define “hate speech”?
You know a retweet is a bit different than a tweet? FWIW, I think the original tweeter considers that the treasons trial would be show trials (considering Obama is also shown behind bars for ‘treason’).
Yes, that’s why I said “used Twitter to promote the idea of” rather than just “tweeted”