WaPo editorial "Why America needs a hate speech law"

Lenny Bruce is spinning so fast in his grave he may have achieved takeoff velocity.

Richard Nixon Would have loved ‘hate speech’ laws in the 60’s and 70’s. Then He could have given it to those campus radicals good and hard, eh? They said lots and lots of hateful things back then,

Hate speech laws are generally advocated by people who believe they have current cultural supremacy and want laws to cement their position. When the left was outside of the mainstream, they believed in total free speech, even going out of their way to be hateful and shocking to make the point. People made All kinds of ‘shock art’ in the 70’s that their targets found hateful, The first amendment was the only thing protecting those people from government persecution.

I’m sure Andre Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ was seen as hateful and oppressive hy many Catholics. And certainly drawing a cartoon of Muhammed would be seen as ‘hate speech’ by many. So are those of you who thjnk hate speech laws are cool would be willing to have the government punish a cartoonish for drawing fhat cartoon? and if so, would you apply the same standard to Serrano, or Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin, or Howard Stern? how about Kathy Griffin holding up a model of the severed head of the president? Should she have been charged with a crime? Would you honestly prefer a world in which these people were charged with crimes for saying what they did?

I prefer a world in which Illinois Nazis only have to worry about Jake and Elwood Blues, not government stormtroopers shutting them down because they engage in badspeak. And I would say the same for Illinois Communists.

Here’s a modest proposal: Any party that wants hate speech laws can have them if they allow their opposition to define what is and isn’t hateful. After all, if it’s so clear cut and non-partisan, that shouldn’t be a problem, right?

Here, chuck another one on the pile of “categorical opponents of hate speech laws who have no idea what hate speech is

The funny part of this is that **Sam Stone **'s country (Canada) has hate speech laws and they have experienced none of the slippery slope nonsense that Sam envisions.

You’re clearly wrong. You just think Canada is doing fine because the recent genocide of conservative white men has been censored by Supreme Leader Trudeau.

Everybody should be able to say or write whatever the fuck they want.

And everybody should be able to say or write whatever the fuck they want in response to the above.

Nobody can respond to any of the above with physical violence against persons or property.

Case closed. Simple.

So let’s say I start a flyer campaign to say that Jews are child molesters. I stick a pamphlet in every car in the neighborhood and buy GoogleAds to get clicks on my website. You can just respond with a “Jews aren’t pedophiles” flyer campaign? That’s how society should respond?

No, I believe they’re the ones covered by the “…or you’re thick” part.

Mate, you’ve never lived in a totalitarian state.

I have.

And **that experience is precisely why I love our hate speech laws.

So a Leaver who voted Out in 2016 for economic reasons, but who is demonstrably not thick would, by elimination, have to be a racist. Is that what you’re saying?

Again, without context, it’s impossible for me to refute what you’re saying, not because what your saying is necessarily valid (or invalid for that matter), but because without context, the rest of us are not there to experience the same set of phenomena that you’re referring to. You want us to accept that the way you experienced the phenomena is the way the rest of us should have experienced and interpreted it, which is, as I see it, one of the chief distinctions between modern conservative worldview and that of progressives, or that of people who don’t so much identify as (typically white) conservatives.

Freedom of speech is always going to be valued more by ethnic and political minorities for the obvious reasons. Among other things, freedom of speech is the freedom of a group that has less power to criticize and challenge the group that has the power. Speech is a tool for the group without power to challenge power, which is why you saw progressives creating shock art in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and why you had gangsta rap in Southern California in the late 80s and early 90s. It’s a way to push back against the inevitable thuggery of the group that possesses power.

Hate speech laws don’t exist to promote Straight Outta Compton albums or Piss Christ paintings; those are artifacts that emerge as a result. They exist so that people don’t violence doesn’t percolate so easily in the mind before it becomes actual violence. Violence, in and of itself, can be either an individual or social act. A personal dispute, a drug deal gone bad, a bitter custody battle that ends in violence - that’s more local. But racial violence is intended to be an act of social violence - always.

Yup.

Sorry, but that’s a self-contradictory statement.

*Unless * … you’re talking about Boris Johnson’s shorting chums, in which case, yes, I was wrong, and I apologize.

I failed to account for the third category of “evil capitalist swine”. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

So, “Racist, or thick, or just plain greedy evil”.

Is that because you think it’s harmless or you think that’s the price we must pay for a free society?

So the group with the larger ad campaign wins?

Stop angling for a gotcha. You’re not going to get a debate-winning gotcha. HTH.
Try to argue from sincerely held convictions instead.

Don’t apologize. Short-term chaos profiteers like Reese-Mogg absolutely fit in the “thick” box. They’re a different *kind *of short-sighted from the usual urrr durrr UK more prosperouser alone set, but still ultimately complete idiots.

On The Media had a very good primer on the history of Free Speech and specifically the dangers of Free Speech Absolutism a few weeks back. It is a long listen (three parts) but I think anyone who is interested in the subject would find it very informative and thought provoking. Lots to disagree with but based on lots of great explanations of the history. Transcript here. The second segment is where it gets most informative IMHO.

Today’s NYT also has a very pertinent bit that is on point for the subject of this thread re non-governmental attempts of censorship, and the attempt to create norms alluded to above, what I now have learned gets called being “cancelled.”
Clearly there is a balance to be had. Speech that restricts others’ rights and causes others harms does not an absolute pass over everything else.

Yet some in these discussions only see the harms as they relate to those with POVs that they are sympathetic to. “Cancel” culture is an exercise of speech that can cause harms to others just as the use of hate speech can. “Free Speech” too often means the freedom to say what I want to hear and only that.

There is and will be a tension over what the norms are, evolving standards. It was once okay to use speech that is not okay now and we have not sunk into totalitarianism because there are social norms that get enforced socially for norm violative speech.

If there is an easy way to decide where the line gets drawn though I sure don’t see it … but the discomfort with the fuzzy blurry greyness should not justify retreat into the simplistic comfortable fiction of absolutism to either side.

Being against hate speech laws doesn’t necessarily make one a free speech absolutist. I’ve got no objection to laws relating to harassment in the workplace, libel, slander, or threats.

Out of curiosity, in the last two years how many examples of hate speech do you see in the United States that should be outlawed?

OK, let’s agree that good hate speech laws are a good thing to have.

Now, is the U.S.government capable of passing effective hate speech laws, laws will actually protect minorities and marginalized groups? In other words, do you guys want Republican-approved hate speech laws?