Again, not a uniquely American phenomenon or demographic attracted to repugnant ideologies. Other democracies have taken more aggressive positions against hate speech. Has the result been making it more attractive to that demographic? I think there has been a general rise in alt-right type rhetoric in western democracies. Seems to me it’s a function of other factors rather than attempts to ban hate speech specifically.
The definition you propose would also criminalize speech that attacks majorities like white and straight people.
An old friend who’s now a retired cop basically heard every possible slur possible about his race when arresting someone who was a minority. Aside from a routine extra charge against persons of color being arrested, it could have also resulted in him arresting many of the bystanders for hate speech.
Are you okay with that?
Hate speech laws would apply equally to everyone, regardless of ethnic identity.
I’m not a cop. I don’t know how police are trained to respond in those situations. My suspicion is that they are trained to prioritize.
To expand on that killer note from the robot, yes many have denied it before and with evidence that shows how stupid are the ones that propose that elimination myth.
Or, like the Willie Wonka Meme in that link says:
Who cares what some Nazis wish to protest?
The pro-violence Nazis chose to meet at Charlottesville. The pro-violence antifa chose to confront the Nazis at Charlottesville. Violence ensued. Is any body shocked that Nazis and antifa chose to beat each other senseless (if that were possible) in front of the lame stream media cameras? Both sides received the attention and beating they deserved.
The problem with banning free speech will be choosing who gets to decide what is, and is not, unlawful free speech in the future. Congress? The Supremes? The President? State legislators? A politically chosen Cabinet member? The DNC? The voters?
I saw a Twitter thread by a black woman who met white people who genuinely believed and were taught that black people got free homes, cars, jobs, college, etc etc. Such a wild misapprehension of power dynamics in this country probably also plays a factor.
Oh no, I missed an opportunity to post: beep Yes beep. Oh well. 
And if it was on a 2nd hand twitter feed, it must be true. Right?
shrug I guess it didn’t occur to me to question that some white people seem to have unjustified beliefs about black people. I mean, that’s self evident, isn’t it? Besides, white supremacy is predicated on the idea that minorities are somehow trying to wipe out the white race, but the mechanism isn’t often explained. I thought this story might show some insight into that, and explain how white supremacists feel besieged, even with the constant reminders of the racism that still exists. It hadn’t occurred to me in all the controversy about affirmative action that some people might think it meant that black people got free everything, but it does make some sense.
Prioritizing enforcing the law based on political considerations works so well.
Here is a current story that seems relevant to this thread:
Would any of you feel comfortable with a Sessions-led DoJ ferreting out “hate speech” and prosecuting offenders?
This is exactly the problem. What is or isn’t considered hate speech would depend on who was in power or who’s sitting in the courts. For example, a scientist criticizing fundamentalist Christians for pushing creationism might be prosecuted for hate speech against a religious group.
Let’s remember to vote on an amendment to address that during the next civil war.
It would be a horrid precedent. You might (though still a bad idea) ban specific symbols, but white supremacists aren’t dependent on specific symbols, and can choose to phrase their noxious doctrines in a way that is, superfically at least, politically correct. One could argue that BLM, etc. should also be banned if “white supremacists” are. Who is to decide? Jeffie Bo Sessions? Samuel Alito? Sean Hannity?
Interesting comments by Starving Artist, especially since the Republicans achieved their ascendancy by “excoriating and attacking everyone they disapprove of.”
The comment favoring Nazism over communism is interesting, but also misleading. Nazism was a specific movement in a specific country, while communism is an umbrella term which includes some groups which fought against murderous regimes. And if you want to calibrate ideologies by numbers of recent deaths, don’t forget Americanism which killed at least a million in each of Korea and Iraq, and perhaps two million in Vietnam.
The thing about any sort of bullies, and Fascists/Nazis are no exception, is that they like to get their martyrdom in first, to manufacture a sufficient sense of grievance against the world as justification for the vengeance they want to wreak. Trying to use the law to ban an idea as such is all grist to their mill: to avoid that, all you can do with law is prosecute consequences or likely probable or intended consequences. In the UK we have various laws, probably much more “catch-all” definitions than would be tolerated in the US, on offensive behaviour, public order and incitement to hatred and discrimination, but prosecutions are relatively rare, and dependent on the circumstances of each individual case.
Plus there’s the argument that it’s easier to keep an eye on them if they haven’t been driven underground by the prospect of prosecution.
As with the role of the federal government in health care, it’s very easy to stand on principle when it’s not YOUR life on the line. Or are we still arguing whether white supremacy and Nazism inherently call for violence and/or death against large groups of people?
There are laws in the UK that criminalize words intended to stir up hatred. They’re not always prosecuted but they exist. Germany and other countries have them as well. They don’t prevent hate and nobody who supports these laws argues that they can achieve peace, only that they can perhaps make society a little nicer and more civil. They also reduce the possibility of violence by not permitting the possession of weapons at gatherings. Offensive symbols and imagery are also controlled in some countries. They can still have controversial protests, but they reduce the likelihood of violence such as the kind that took place last weekend. Frankly, anyone and any jurisdiction with common sense could foresee that this sort of ‘rally’ is a powder keg.
No it doesn’t, and that’s not what I said. WTF are you ever talking about??
My thoughts are that hate speech law would be well defined (the definition I linked being a good start) and not subject to capricious interpretations of whoever happens to be currently in power. Other democracies appear to be able to enforce such laws with little negative impact to freedom of speech or suppression of open criticism of authority, why not in America?
The definition you linked to is terrible:
[QUOTE=Some website]
Speech that is intended to offend, insult, intimidate, or threaten an individual or group based on a trait or attribute, such as sexual orientation, religion, color, gender, or disability.
[/QUOTE]
“Offend” and “Insult” are not sane grounds for bringing criminal charges against a person; that is, frankly, a ludicrous standard for legal sanction.
When you get into “intimidate” and “threaten” it starts to make sense, but you run up against the obvious problem that those things are already illegal. You aren’t allowed to threaten or intimidate people. Burning a cross on someone’s lawn is a criminal threat.
Canada has hate speech laws; because of the narrowness of the definition and the general reluctance to prosecute people for things they say (which is deliberately written into the law) the laws are very hard to get to stick and are very rarely enforced, once in a great while popping up against a person who is either mentally unbalanced or trying to get attention by being charged. And the thing is, in almost every case, you could have laid some other charge under the Criminal Code of Canada. Parading around screaming “Kill the Jews” is a violation of multiple existing criminal statutes. It’s not clear Canada’s hate speech laws really add much to the law at all. The only thing that doesn’t really land in the camp of “already illegal” is the prohibition of hate propoganada, which is strictly defined as the promotion of genocide, and of course is uniquely a crime only in a situation where it’s not someone actively inciting a riot (e.g. writing a book called “We Should Kill All The Jews,” as opposed to riling up a crowd to kill people; the latter’s already illegal.) That is a much more narrow slice than the one you posted a link to, and I’m actually simplifying it; there are many added conditions that could negate the laying of charges:
- If the statement made is true
- If the statement is made in the context of a religious opinion,
- If the statement is made in the honest belief that it is true, and is an argument for public benefit,
- If the words being used are being used for the purpose of opposing the promotion of hatred and genocide (e.g. quoting a Nazi in an editorial against Nazis.)
The long and short of it being that it’s a very, very, very narrowly defined thing, and as a result, frankly, it’s hardly used. The demonstration itself in Charlottesville would not clearly be a criminal offense - obviously the violence would be, but to convict someone of an offence if they held that in Canada, you would have to prove very specific elements of a crime. Just parading around like an idiot with your swastika flag isn’t going to do it.
I agree with your analysis; however, I think that having these laws on the books is valuable to Canada simply by sending the message of the type of society most Canadians want to have. It is very similar to the Confederate monuments, but in reverse, as a symbol. It also shows that a country can pass such laws and not descended into an endless cycle of banning more and more speech or witch hunts (i.e. very few people have been charged and convicted of Canada’s hate speech laws). That being said, with respect to the USA, I agree indirectly with Hurricane Ditka above with respect to trying to have such laws in the USA. The American political system is so fubar you simply couldn’t give the government that kind of power, because I think both political parties would abuse it. There’s too much partisanship, really hate for the other side, in the US political system.