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?
What do you mean, “being a jerk?” You’ll have to be more specific.
And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does.
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.
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
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And would you really want the 1st Ad repealed just so we could fine a few blathering morons for Holocaust denial?
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.
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 for evidence of how “smart” the general public tends to be.
I get the feeling you just don’t read the things I post, or the articles I link to.
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.
How do you measure the harm involved in being the victim of child porn, as in dollars or lives?
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.
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 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. 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?).
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 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 “Get Lost Jerk” to Sarkozy’s car.
In Singapore the pursuit of peace and social order has hate speech laws against “wounding religious feelings” used surprisingly in questionable manners.
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.
I think I do.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
“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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
All that most hate speech laws are, is recognizing instances of advocating or threatening violence that currently get to fall through the cracks.