WaPo editorial "Why America needs a hate speech law"

[Ruken]

@Czarcasm

Paywall-blocked.

It’s amazing that people make this excuse in 2019.

[DrDeth]

@iiandyiiii

Dumb editorial and a dumb idea, IMO. I’m all for social condemnation and consequences (i.e. shunning, shaming, boycotts, etc.) for hate speech – and very serious such consequences when it’s particularly egregious, or from someone with a lot of power. But I think government consequences would help the hateful, by making them martyrs and victims.
…

Yep, and there’s this little thing called the Bill of Rights. The law WaPo is proposing (yeah it’s Op/ed so maybe it’s not their official position:rolleyes:) would, IMHO violate the 1st Ad.

[CarnalK]

@Little_Nemo

I think the Trump administration demonstrates why this is a bad idea. We are seeing a resurgence of racism because we have a presidential administration that supports racism.

So what would happen if we placed limits on the First Amendment? Would the Trump administration then be compelled to combat racism? No, they would simply ignore any hate speech violations they agree with and leave the laws unenforced. They would instead use that same power to silence their political opponents, including those who are speaking out against racism.

We have to remember that a government that has the power to ban hate speech also has the power to ban any other kind of speech and will choose how to use that power. If we enact a law that allows the government to shut down Nazi rallies, they can use that law to shut down Black Lives Matter protests. So overall we’re better off with a government that doesn’t have that power.

I don’t really buy the slippery slope argument. Once you get to the point of thinking the President would start only enforcing hate crimes committed against white people, why do you think the first amendment is going to save you? What if he starts only investigating kidnapping/murder/whatever federal crime if it’s a white victim? If the courts or Congress don’t stop him, you’re fucked. The absence of hate speech laws won’t save you.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kobal2

The fact that it’s clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift’s case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?

Vegetarians, too.

[tomndebb]

The Op-Ed (not Editorial) WaPo piece that triggered this thread is wrong. (And, despite some nit-picking and cherry-picking and deliberate misinterpretations, Shodan is correct.) Allowing certain forms of speech to be criminalized would inevitably be used by one side or another to persecute those with whom they disagree or whose goals they oppose.
We already have legitimate laws against yelling"Fire!" in a crowded theater or incitement to an actual crime. Beyond that, vague references to “bad” speech are simply open tickets to authoritarian governments (left or right) to use the law to suppress opposition.

[Little_Nemo]

@CarnalK

I don’t really buy the slippery slope argument. Once you get to the point of thinking the President would start only enforcing hate crimes committed against white people, why do you think the first amendment is going to save you? What if he starts only investigating kidnapping/murder/whatever federal crime if it’s a white victim? If the courts or Congress don’t stop him, you’re fucked. The absence of hate speech laws won’t save you.

I’m not just making this up. The Trump administration has established the double standard for free speech rights based on whether it’s a conservative group or a non-conservative group. And they’ve followed the existing precedent of selectively non-enforcing laws they don’t agree with.

I agree that ultimately we can’t, as individuals, withstand the forces of the government if it chooses to just begin acting anyway it wishes. But the government isn’t some alien entity; it requires the willingness of ordinary citizens to allow it to act and to carry out its orders. So collectively we can thwart a corrupt and dictatorial government.

[Magiver]

I invite Richard Stengel and the horse he road in on to move to China and experience government control of speech in all it’s glory.

Not only no but oh-hell-no. The First Amendment is at the top of the list for a reason.

[Chingon]

#SendHimBack

[Unreconstructed_Man]

@Kobal2

The fact that it’s clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift’s case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?

She wasn’t being sarcastic, she wasn’t being satirical, and to compare her bigotry to Modest Proposal is asinine. She’s just a racist with a massive bug up her ass about white people.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

What should happen if someone violates one or all of those ten principles of free speech?

They shouldn’t be invited to the next “We support free speech” party.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@HurricaneDitka

What’s the “context” around “white men are bullshit” that you think would make it acceptable?

I gather your assertion is that there is no possible context that would accomplish this.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Bryan_Ekers

I gather your assertion is that there is no possible context that would accomplish this.

I could probably concoct some wild hypothetical where I would find it acceptable. I’m not aware of anything like that being the case here though, back in reality, with Sarah Jeong’s tweets. I find “it’s clearly sarcastic and satirical” to be utterly unconvincing. I’m not aware of anything about her tweet or the surrounding context that indicate it’s anything but her sincerely-held (and racist) belief.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So someone saying “kill the white people” repeatedly on stage, indeed for a large live television audience, unacceptable by default?

[DrDeth]

@Bryan_Ekers

So someone saying “kill the white people” repeatedly on stage, indeed for a large live television audience, unacceptable by default?

In a humor routine? Might be OK, as long as that was clear. :dubious:

[Bryan_Ekers]

@DrDeth

In a humor routine? Might be OK, as long as that was clear. :dubious:

So it’s not a matter of phrasing but of clarity?

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

They shouldn’t be invited to the next “We support free speech” party.

Ok, so you post principles that nobody need adhere to. Were you endorsing the principles, or once again posting “facts” that you disagree with for some obscure reason?

[madsircool]

@Czarcasm

Paywall-blocked.

Clear your browser cache then it isnt paywall blocked.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

Ok, so you post principles that nobody need adhere to. Were you endorsing the principles, or once again posting “facts” that you disagree with for some obscure reason?

I endorse the principle of free speech. I think that it extends beyond the mandate that government generally not interfere with it contained in our First Amendment. I think Timothy Garton Ash’s 10 Principles of Free Speech are a good first pass at outlining roughly how far beyond mere government non-interference the principle might reasonably extend. The core principle of free speech, is a good one, and I wish more of our countrymen agreed with me on that, but I’m not going to propose we ship those that don’t to re-education camps or exile them. In that sense, “nobody need adhere to” it, but I think it would be wise and good of them to do so.

[Kobal2]

@Unreconstructed_Man

She wasn’t being sarcastic, she wasn’t being satirical, and to compare her bigotry to Modest Proposal is asinine. She’s just a racist with a massive bug up her ass about white people.

No, she isn’t. If she was, you wouldn’t have to dig up a curated selection of tweets from 5 years ago when she was making fun of her online harassers to prove it. And by prove I mean smear in bad faith hoping people who don’t actually know her look at it very closely. See : James Gunn.

[Kobal2]

@HurricaneDitka

That’s fair. I doubt it’ll be believed or accepted here, but I don’t think the extremists on the right that engage in hate speech are generally representative of “the right” either.

Well, how much more representative can it get that one of them got elected President ?