# WaPo editorial "Why America needs a hate speech law" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699 "2019-10-30T14:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/361 "2019-11-04T19:06:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No shit. > > Fraud isn’t covered by freedom of speech because society has just waved a magic wand and determined that this kind of speech isn’t a true Scotsman. The boundaries of what speech doesn’t count as speech is this entire debate, and I welcome you to it. I have been in it for a while. And yes, I am glad you realize that it is fraud. That is why it is prohibited. What _other_ **crime** does Holocaust denial encompass? Being a jerk? ---
**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:** [November 4, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/362 "2019-11-04T19:21:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What _other_ **crime** does Holocaust denial encompass? Being a jerk? What do you mean, “being a jerk?” You’ll have to be more specific. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/363 "2019-11-04T19:26:52Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The other? The other is denying and distorting an unprecedented crime against humanity, and accusing the historic victims of fabricating it. This is rather more significant than lying to investors and causing economic harm, because Holocaust denial is one of the pillars of anti-Semitism. Like all historic events, lack of knowledge or, worse, outright denial, carries the risk that in some form it could happen again. Which is exactly why anti-Semites engage in it, and why most countries consider it a flagrant form of hate speech. That there are variations on exactly what is being denied doesn’t make it any more ambiguous or less hateful; the general theme is always that much or all of it was fabricated by the Jews themselves and the Nazis are being unfairly maligned. It’s hate speech at its worst and ugliest: > [https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion](https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion) And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/364 "2019-11-04T19:29:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I have the impression that the transgender community in the area harbors a small core of particularly strident activists who always seem to show up at these sorts of protests, and that might be what you’re seeing here. I suspect that’s true of most protests, but it invariably starts there. The “this won’t get any worse” attitude is precisely how it gets worse. (In the interest of fairness, and to ensure trans people aren’t unnecessarily accused of something, I should point out the people who protested were not, it seems, transgender people.) You are likely right in that Canada’s hodgepodge and inconsistent human rights tribunals, while originally well intentioned and generally fair, are a greater threat to freedom than the existing hate crimes law. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/365 "2019-11-04T19:36:05Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Freedom of speech has been maintained only by a constant fight of the progressives against, essentially, the moral majority. For centuries. But now, it’s the former guardians of the gates who say that they should be opened. Ir doesn’t bode well for the future of free speech. I don’t think the ACLU has changed its tune on free speech since defending the Communists and original Nazis in the '30s, have they? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/366 "2019-11-04T19:50:03Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does. And\* measurable\* harm. In fact if the fraud doesnt cost anyone any lost dollars, the “fraudsters” can likely get off. How does one measure the harm caused by Holocaust denial? And would you really want the 1st Ad repealed just so we could fine a few blathering morons for Holocaust denial? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/367 "2019-11-04T19:50:36Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t think the ACLU has changed its tune on free speech since defending the Communists and original Nazis in the '30s, have they? They say no. Others say yes. See “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities”, ~2018 or so. I haven’t checked myself so couldn’t tell you one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/368 "2019-11-04T20:24:39Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does. If you’ve been following along with the recent line of argument here, you’d see that I’ve been putting forward the idea that the goal of hate speech laws is to prevent the very worst kind of hateful divisiveness that is toxic to the goal of achieving a peaceful and cohesive society (by the latter term I mean a society that embraces shared values rather than racial or other tribal conflicts) – see for instance posts #333 and #348. As such, I argue that the operative principle here is to prohibit the most vile and extremist speech that causes significant harm to those objectives by promoting hate, conflict, marginalization, and potentially violence. My view is that whether such harm is “immediate” or not is immaterial if it’s likely to have a significant long-term impact. I’m aware that the criterion of immediate harm was introduced by the Supreme Court but I consider it to be myopic in the extreme, a view reflected in the values of most other countries. To the counter-argument that this is a nanny-state approach, or as one poster put it, that “you have to trust that the general public is smart enough to tell truth from propaganda”, please see [post #333](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21953798&postcount=333) for evidence of how “smart” the general public tends to be. > [@DrDeth](#): > > How does one measure the harm caused by Holocaust denial? I get the feeling you just don’t read the things I post, or [the articles I link to](https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion). > [@DrDeth](#): > > And would you really want the 1st Ad repealed just so we could fine a few blathering morons for Holocaust denial? The First Amendment didn’t need to be repealed for the various limitations on free speech that already exist, about which several posters never tire of reminding us. Nor would it need to be repealed for carefully crafted and well justified laws against the most vile and socially damaging hate speech. It certainly wasn’t repealed when thousands of people were accused on the flimsiest pretexts of subversion and being communist sympathizers during the Red Scare of the McCarthy era. The excesses of that era were caused by an unhealthily paranoid and polarized society, not by hate speech laws, and the First Amendment did nothing to prevent it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/369 "2019-11-05T00:18:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … > > I get the feeling you just don’t read the things I post, or [the articles I link to](https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion). > > The First Amendment didn’t need to be repealed for the various limitations on free speech that already exist, about which several posters never tire of reminding us. Nor would it need to be repealed for carefully crafted and well justified laws against the most vile and socially damaging hate speech. It certainly wasn’t repealed when thousands of people were accused on the flimsiest pretexts of subversion and being communist sympathizers during the Red Scare of the McCarthy era. The excesses of that era were caused by an unhealthily paranoid and polarized society, not by hate speech laws, and the First Amendment did nothing to prevent it. Yes, but how to _measure_ the harm, as in dollars or lives? Is anyone here saying that Holocaust denial is a _good thing_?:dubious: No, but it would for this sort of thing. The limitations are basically for people being directly and measurably harmed. Even Kiddie porn laws fall under that. Somewhere, a _Child must be harmed_ to sell pics or film of kiddie porn. Which is why \*writing \*kiddie porn is legal. Yes, they were 'accused" by Sen McCarthy, but of treason, perjury and espionage, not just their views. Were any of them put in prison? (No) I think you are confused over what a person, even a individual politician may do vs what the entire government may do. You may decide not to buy a book you fine 'vile". You may encourage others not to buy it. You can say that the writer is vile. You can encourage your local library not to buy it. You may lead a campaign to boycott it. But what you _can’t_ do is get the government to ban it or put the author in jail. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/370 "2019-11-05T00:27:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, but how to _measure_ the harm, as in dollars or lives? Is anyone here saying that Holocaust denial is a _good thing_?:dubious: > > No, but it would for this sort of thing. The limitations are basically for people being directly and measurably harmed. Even Kiddie porn laws fall under that. Somewhere, a _Child must be harmed_ to sell pics or film of kiddie porn. Which is why \*writing \*kiddie porn is legal. How do you measure the harm involved in being the victim of child porn, as in dollars or lives? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/371 "2019-11-05T02:08:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, but how to _measure_ the harm, as in dollars or lives? Is anyone here saying that Holocaust denial is a _good thing_?:dubious: Financial losses are measurable in quantifiable dollars and cents, because that’s what financial accounting is. Other harms, such as emotional harms to children, are not quantifiable in the same way, but are still prohibited and treated seriously. > [@DrDeth](#): > > No, but it would for this sort of thing. The limitations are basically for people being directly and measurably harmed. Even Kiddie porn laws fall under that. Somewhere, a _Child must be harmed_ to sell pics or film of kiddie porn. Which is why \*writing \*kiddie porn is legal. This is simply false. A depiction of child pornography can be a drawing or otherwise simulated – where no actual child exists – and still be illegal in the United States. See [sections 1466A and 2252A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States#1466A_-_Obscene_visual_representations_of_the_sexual_abuse_of_children) of the PROTECT Act signed into law by George W. Bush. One fellow was sentenced to 20 years for possession of pornographic anime. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, they were 'accused" by Sen McCarthy, but of treason, perjury and espionage, not > just their views. Were any of them put in prison? (No) This is false, too. The Red Scare involved major sectors of the federal government well beyond Joe McCarthy, and a whole groundswell of cultural impetus in broadcasting, filmmaking, and publishing. For example, the FBI was deeply involved, as was the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). McCarthy wasn’t even part of the House, he was a Senator, and had nothing to do with HUAC. Thousands of people were accused, attacked, discredited, and blacklisted, pursued by HUAC and J Edgar Hoover’s FBI, losing their reputations and careers based on things they were reputed to have said or written, or organizations they belonged to (most of which were completely innocuous). And yes, some did go to jail (have you forgotten the famous case of Alger Hiss, whose guilt remains uncertain to this day?). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/372 "2019-11-05T02:22:00Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The idea that free speech absolutism has become entrenched in US jurisprudence is meant to denote a particular approach or philosophy that is rather uniquely American rather than the word “absolutism” being taken literally. That approach is one that I think I pretty much spelled out in post #336; to reiterate the key point: > > The premise of hate speech prohibitions is that there are certain views that are so vile that objectively no civilized person should or would agree with them. This would include things like advocating genocide, or advocating violence against minorities defined by race, ethnicity, or gender-related attributes, or dehumanizing those minorities in a vile and hateful fashion by suggesting that they’re something less than human, because those views are fundamentally inconsistent with a civilized and peaceful society. … Let’s pause here. **Ravenman** this post responds to your points as well. Do hate speech laws stop at things like advocating violence or even dehumanization? Is burning a Qu’ran doing that? It is to my mind objectionable and disagreeable speech on par with burning the American flag, and not on par with a call to violence or dehumanization, yet it was leading the list of the article quoted by the op. Not a fan of the BDS movement and I do think that some of its supporters are anti-Semitic … but [France](https://brandeiscenter.com/french-courts-treat-bds-as-a-hate-crime/) labelling public support of BDS as “hate speech” subject to conviction? As poorly as I think of the BDS movement and of some of its supporters, holding those views is not “fundamentally inconsistent with a civilized and peaceful society”. France also brings us the case of an activist convicted the crime of holding [a sign that said](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-france-sarkozy-idUSBRE92D0SV20130314) “Get Lost Jerk” to Sarkozy’s car. In [Singapore](https://southeastasiaglobe.com/singapore-hate-speech/) the pursuit of peace and social order has hate speech laws against “wounding religious feelings” used surprisingly in questionable manners. > [@](#): > > This is the basic sticking point in hate speech debates, that opponents of hate speech laws refuse to recognize the primacy of peace and social order. … And you are correct. I do not recognize that peace and social order automatically takes primacy over freedom of thought and expression. There are both fundamental rights of self-expression and to equality. Neither has primacy over the other. > [@](#): > > … If you think any law against hate speech, as we’ve been discussing it here and as implemented in other democracies throughout the world, would allow Trump or any government bureaucrat to silence his critics, then you really and truly don’t understand what hate speech laws are. I think I do. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/373 "2019-11-05T03:49:59Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Let’s pause here. **Ravenman** this post responds to your points as well. > > Do hate speech laws stop at things like advocating violence or even dehumanization? Is burning a Qu’ran doing that? It is to my mind objectionable and disagreeable speech on par with burning the American flag, and not on par with a call to violence or dehumanization, yet it was leading the list of the article quoted by the op. What I will say here is that the formulation of hate speech laws in different countries naturally follow the contours of those countries’ political culture and approach to civil liberties. It’s not a monolithic thing. The hate speech laws I understand best, and that frankly I think are the most moderate and restrained of the ones I know about, are the ones in Canada; I previously cited a short article about them, and if you’re interested, [here it is again](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E). These laws have been rarely applied so there isn’t much precedent, but I would say that the answer to your first question is yes, those hate speech laws stop at advocating violence, genocide, or the kind of extreme hate that leads to dehumanization. I don’t think that merely burning a Qu’ran would rise to that level, but it may depend on the circumstances – someone barging into a gathering of devout Muslims in a mosque specifically to do that in order to cause great offense and deliberately provoke a violent confrontation might possibly be vulnerable to charges under s. 319(1). But as I said, hate speech laws arise from the political culture and civil liberties of the country in which they’re enacted. You seem to have some issues with the laws in France, and though your account a bit light on details, I’m inclined to agree that the standard of civil liberties in France is not up to that in some other countries. You also mention Singapore, and IIRC that place is totally over the top in low standards of civil liberties and many aspects of draconian laws, and are notorious for example for their use of caning as punishment for some three dozen different offenses, some of them relatively minor, which has caused international condemnation. So all hate speech laws are not created equal, and some bad ones are not evidence that it’s a bad idea, any more than the US is evidence that what I will continue to call free speech absolutism as previously defined is a good idea; indeed the social turmoil at present seems to be good evidence that it is not. > [@DSeid](#): > > And you are correct. I do not recognize that peace and social order automatically takes primacy over freedom of thought and expression. There are both fundamental rights of self-expression and to equality. Neither has primacy over the other. There’s a debate to be had about which is the more fundamental, but my own belief is that peace and social order, including an equitable and just society, is the fundamental purpose of government. Government only has a duty to minimize the infringement of personal freedoms as little as possible consistent with those goals. The fact is that any and all laws including basic criminal laws and property laws all infringe our freedoms to some extent, and all rational peace-loving citizens accept that. Limited hate speech laws governing extreme and dangerous behaviors are not a special intrusion into personal liberties but merely a necessary consequence of that same principle, with the intent of preserving the peace and social order. Without them society is potentially more divisive, tumultuous, and possibly violent. > [@DSeid](#): > > I think I do. Then I repeat, if you think any of the kind of hate speech laws we’ve been talking about would help someone like Trump legally silence his critics, then you’re not thinking of real-world hate speech laws as enacted in western democracies, but instead you’re thinking of some imaginary fiction. It may be illegal to insult the royalty in Thailand, but in the political and cultural context of western democracies, hate speech laws don’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/374 "2019-11-05T04:56:28Z")
I honestly want to know, why is slandering Johnny Somali subject to legal remedy but slandering Somalians is not? At what level of specificity does freedom of speech kick in? Is it because calling Somalians child molesters doesn’t cause immediate and accountable financial harm to ny specific individual? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/375 "2019-11-05T05:24:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … > > This is simply false. A depiction of child pornography can be a drawing or otherwise simulated – where no actual child exists – and still be illegal in the United States. See [sections 1466A and 2252A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States#1466A_-_Obscene_visual_representations_of_the_sexual_abuse_of_children) of the PROTECT Act signed into law by George W. Bush. One fellow was sentenced to 20 years for possession of pornographic anime. > > This is false, too. The Red Scare involved major sectors of the federal government well beyond Joe McCarthy, and a whole groundswell of cultural impetus in broadcasting, filmmaking, and publishing. … And yes, some did go to jail (have you forgotten the famous case of Alger Hiss, whose guilt remains uncertain to this day?). “Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”. Note the word ;visual". So, actual 'writing" is legal, and the legal status of drawn porno is still doubtful: > **[Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors | United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States)** > > In the United States, pornography is generally protected as a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Where pornography ceases to be protected expression is when it fails the Miller obscenity test, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California. Another case, New York v. Ferber (1982), held that if pornography depicts real child abuse or a real child victim, as a result of photographing a live performance for insta... and I see no one in prison for 20 years, got a cite? One guy got six months, but he pled guilty. Yes, and so? Alger Hiss wasnt accused of writing or saying commie stuff, but of committing espionage, a totally different crime. He was convicted of perjury, not of saying commie stuff or being a Communist. No one was convicted of any crime involving for simply saying commie stuff or spreading commie propaganda. What the hell does the McCarthy trials have to do with Free Speech? It wasnt illegal to be a Communist. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/376 "2019-11-05T12:43:01Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I honestly want to know, why is slandering Johnny Somali subject to legal remedy but slandering Somalians is not? At what level of specificity does freedom of speech kick in? Is it because calling Somalians child molesters doesn’t cause immediate and accountable financial harm to ny specific individual? Slander isn’t even a crime (in the US). If you slander me, I have a high bar, in the US, of showing that you have damaged/harmed me. To seek civil remedy. Pretty damn hard to do that if you go around saying that Quakers should be eradicated because we eat babies\*. Borrowing “arguments” presented thus far, It’s certainly the very worst kind of hateful divisiveness that is toxic to the goal of achieving a peaceful and cohesive society. The claim is it’s causing harm to those _objectives_, but it’s certainly not causing harm, let alone criminal harm, to people by promoting hate, conflict, marginalization, and potentially violence. There is no immediate harm to people. Who cares! Immediate is immaterial! Is it likely to actual _cause_, hate, conflict, marginalization, and violence? Oh sorry, \* potentially\* violence – can’t forget the weasel words. The presented evidence does not support an affirmative conclusion there. Borrowing terms like “likely” and “significant” from scientists isn’t going to fool anyone. But it may get your Olestra banned. What else did I miss, oh yes: “potentially more divisive, tumultuous, and possibly violent” (holy weasel words, Batman!) Potentially not. \*We don’t, AFAIK; YMMV (please feed your Friend according to its user guide to ensure normal behavior – hunger may result in errors) And similarly, components of the PROTECT Act look to be bad law. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/377 "2019-11-05T13:14:57Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I honestly want to know, why is slandering Johnny Somali subject to legal remedy but slandering Somalians is not? At what level of specificity does freedom of speech kick in? Is it because calling Somalians child molesters doesn’t cause immediate and accountable financial harm to ny specific individual? The current interpretation is that the individual must be specifically named for them to have any standing in regards to defamation, that no reasonable person will believe a slanderous statement about a group will apply to all members of that group, and that group defamation doesn’t have a tendency to cause personal harm. That’s the long and the short of it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/378 "2019-11-05T15:08:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I don’t think that merely burning a Qu’ran would rise to that level, but it may depend on the circumstances – someone barging into a gathering of devout Muslims in a mosque specifically to do that in order to cause great offense and deliberately provoke a violent confrontation might possibly be vulnerable to charges under s. 319(1). I would presume that someone deliberately trying to incite violence could be charged with other crimes in most civilized countries without bothering to classify that as “hate speech.” There is a legitimate logical argument to be made that if you’re saying “hate speech” is limited to trying to start a riot or advocating violence, those things are already illegal and could be handled by those laws. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/379 "2019-11-05T17:32:11Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I would presume that someone deliberately trying to incite violence could be charged with other crimes in most civilized countries without bothering to classify that as “hate speech.” There is a legitimate logical argument to be made that if you’re saying “hate speech” is limited to trying to start a riot or advocating violence, those things are already illegal and could be handled by those laws. Possibly, depending on the circumstances, but [it’s already been established](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21953556&postcount=326) that this is not always the case. Another ruling that I personally found disturbing was _R.A.V. v City of St. Paul_ where burning a cross on the lawn of a black family was considered just peachy-fine “protected speech”. And the existence of hate speech laws not only catches incentivations of hate that may easily fall through the cracks of other laws, but, as in the case of designated “hate crimes”, it may elevate the severity of the crime and how it’s investigated and punished beyond what it would be if done without targeted hateful intent. I’m not going to rehash all the arguments for hate speech laws that have been ongoing in this thread for 8 pages now other than to re-iterate that there’s a damn good reason that virtually all of the world’s freest democracies have enacted laws against hate speech. That the US is a rare outlier in this respect, not to mention how stridently many here defend that anomaly, is an interesting aspect of American culture mostly, I think, reflecting an aversion to and distrust of government in general. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/380 "2019-11-05T17:59:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I would presume that someone deliberately trying to incite violence could be charged with other crimes in most civilized countries without bothering to classify that as “hate speech.” There is a legitimate logical argument to be made that if you’re saying “hate speech” is limited to trying to start a riot or advocating violence, those things are already illegal and could be handled by those laws. All that most hate speech laws are, is recognizing instances of advocating or threatening violence that currently get to fall through the cracks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=20)