I’m just going to stop you there. What existing hate speech legislation bans factual information?
This is strawman alley and I’m not proceeding any further down it with you.
clairobscur, that was wonderful, and heartening, to read. I’m glad there are some people that still ‘get it’ (and can express ‘it’ so eloquently)
I have to assume you’re trying to make a point, but it’s not well taken. This is a warning for hate speech. While this topic is fine to debate, engaging in this behavior is not allowed on the board.
[/moderating]
Seems clear to me that those were simply hypothetical opinions of other people who would want to ban speech.
I think this warning for “hate speech” pretty well illustrates my point about censorship.
Since the SDMB doesn’t allow disputing warnings in the main thread, I’ll expand on this on ATMB.
I’m of course withdrawing from a thread about censorship that is censored.
This really isn’t a good example. A Native American can’t open up a casino in downtown Dallas or Orlando, Florida because the states those cities are in either don’t allow gambling or restrict it in other ways. Native Americans can open casinos on their own land because it’s sovereign territory. i.e. They don’t get to open casinos because they’re Native American they get to open them because they control their own territory.
Affirmative Action laws in the United States these days aren’t typically written in such a way as to only apply to certain races. The same is true regarding laws against discrimination in the workplace.
DO hate speech laws prevent murder? Do they stop people from hating gays? Or just from going around and preaching it openly?
:smack:
That should be “HATE SPEECH LAWS are short-sighted and ineffective”. NOT “opposing bigotry.”
I see the previous poster has already addressed Native American casinos, which is basically what the law is – it’s not because they’re Native American, it’s because they’re opening them in sovereign territory, which is an entirely different subject. If you want to debate that, it would probably be best to start a new thread. (I also am not all that informed on the laws regarding reservations)
Once again, what do you mean by “affirmative action”? No, it’s not a dodge – there are a number of different types of affirmative actions. Are you talking about things such as trying to start new educational programs in minority area school districts, or more like hiring quotas? (The latter is illegal, IIRC)
Jews and gays aren’t a race…what’s your point? It’s still a type of bigotry.
If you think banning hate speech willl make people shut up, well – you’re much, much more of an optimist than I am.
If people can’t openly express hateful ideas, that’s going to make it harder to spread hateful ideas to other people. The fewer people who hold hateful ideas out there, the less likely that one of the people holding that idea is going to be sufficiently radicalized to carry out a violent act.
Seems a pretty obvious logical chain. Where do you think it breaks down?
A proper hate crime law would essentially be a criminal libel law where the victim would be a class of people instead of an individual. It’s not going to outlaw the mere expression of hate. Some of the objections here have been ridiculous.
Haters will simply use code words to avoid the law while simultaneously crying that they are being persecuted for revealing “truth.” The second part of this already occurs with open racists (and Fundamentalist Christians) and some far left nutcases proclaiming that they are the victims of persecution, today.
Hate speech laws simply gives them ammunition to encourage more recruitment.
Going to ban Abrahamic religions or their holy texts as well? At some point, wanting to have the state or a state empowered mob enforce some form of purity and eventually homogeneity of thought is going to run into some problems.
How do they propagate their beliefs if they’re using code words? If “Kill all the gays,” is illegal, and bigots start saying, “Kill all the badgers,” instead, how do new recruits learn that “badgers” means “gays?” How do the bigots keep law enforcement from learning what the codes are?
Also, can you demonstrate where this has actually happened? Canada, for example, has hate crime legislation. What code words have been developed by Canadian racists to circumvent hate crime laws? How successful have they been at this? Have all Canadian bigots started doing this, or are some still using more traditional slurs? If the latter, isn’t there some utility in at least quieting those that are too dumb to use the “code word” workaround?
Lastly, if they’re already crying about being persecuted, it strikes me that “They’ll cry about being persecuted,” isn’t much of a reason not to have hate crime laws.
No. If someone wants to put their propaganda on their sleeve then we benefit as a society by knowing who they are.
And wholly unregulated, completely unfettered speech also runs into some problems. There isn’t an obvious, easy answer to this question. Suppressing hate speech means the chance that a malevolent government will use those laws to suppress dissent. Allowing it to run unfettered means the chance that a sufficient portion of the populace will embrace and enact the ideals promoted by hate speech. I don’t think it’s easy to say which of these outcomes is more likely - both have happened in the history of just this country, to say nothing of the rest of the world - nor is it easy to predict which outcome would be more damaging.
Did you read the next sentence after the one you quoted? It provides important context as to the scope of the question I was asking.
Thank god someone has said this so succinctly.
The posts that have gotten the most attention from one side here are straight out of a textbook. The well-written logic’s fallacies textbook. They are off-point (China and North Korea have nothing to do with this), tautologies (penalizing hate speech is bad because it restricts free speech), slippery slopes (Trump is going to lock you up if you criticize him), just plain bizarre (what about all the valuable information we are going to lose if hate speech goes underground) and so on and so on.
The fact is that we have laws on the books that deal with lots of rather vaguely defined but prohibited activities that could be ripe for abuse if we lived in a totalitarian system: conspiracy. Obstruction of justice. Libel. Fraud. Treason. In a very specific case, abuse of power. Terroristic threats. Sexual harassment.
Anyone can think of tough cases where these laws could be abused to suit a bad agenda, but in the whole, the way we structure our justice system means that people who make these charges in civil or criminal hearings have to back them up with evidence, and many times it’s up to a judge or jury to figure out the facts and questions of intent.
Donald Trump or the Communist Party of China has jack-all to do with it.
If someone wants to tell me in clear terms why society will be harmed if the author of a Holocaust denial book is compelled to pay some kind of damages for the junk he writes, please have a go. Just stay on-topic to my question and don’t use slippery slopes or all the other fallacies we have seen on parade. Tell me how society loses if Holocaust denialism becomes punishable in some way.
Remember the Constitution constrains the government and isn’t necessary to empower the individual who has intrinsic natural rights. If you want to live in the world where people maintain that useful fiction you have to work at it. Constraining the state is of vital importance even if an empowered state can, through force, enact policy that is beneficial. Process matters.
And I think living in a society where people can freely debate, offend, and reason is far superior to living in a society ruled by an omnipotent state with surveillance everywhere .
It is punishable, socially and in every other way aside from legally. I think outlawing it could lend some sense of apparent legitimacy to the deniers, as they can much more credibly claim to be martyrs and victims. So that would be a “loss” for society, IMO.
Referencing entities that have power over us when we are talking about losing liberty and empowering those very entities is the literal opposite of a fallacy.
I see this as a contradiction. If you maintain that people are punished for hate speech (through shunning or whatever), but that punishment leads to legitimacy, then shunning already leads to legitimacy…? So why does an additional punishment make such a difference? And can you just generally be more specific as to what you think would happen?
Wrong. Our judicial system has shortcomings, but being like totalitarian regimes is not one of them. Punishment in North Korea is quick and severe; our court system is slow and full of technicalities.