WaPo editorial "Why America needs a hate speech law"

[Slash1972]

@Shodan

I don’t want a government controlled by SJWs to tell me what I can say. You presumably don’t want a government controlled by fascists telling you what you can say. So we compromise and agree that the government doesn’t get to tell anyone what to say, absent some kind of incitement to immediate violence.

It’s not a perfect compromise, but it’s better than if either side wins.

This seems entirely reasonable to me.

[HurricaneDitka]

@DrDeth

So this is now the Sarah jeong thread?

No, it’s still about hate speech. She’s just one example.

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

No, it’s still about hate speech. She’s just one example.

Why are you criticizing what she said if you like hate speech? That’s what I don’t get.

[Jonathan_Chance]

That’s enough, Ravenman. Don’t impugn another poster’s motivations.

[HurricaneDitka]

nm, just saw the mod note, I’ll leave that line of discussion alone.

[Xema]

@Ravenman

… if you like hate speech?

This is a truly fundamental error.

Opposition to hate speech laws does not imply affection for hate speech. Instead, it implies an understanding of the nasty place where such laws lead.

[Miller]

@HurricaneDitka

Brett Stephens wrote:

… The tests for who gets to work at publications like The Times or The Atlantic ought to revolve around considerations of liveliness, integrity, maturity, and talent…

So Brett Stephens is still out, then.

[Ravenman]

@Xema

This is a truly fundamental error.

Opposition to hate speech laws does not imply affection for hate speech. Instead, it implies an understanding of the nasty place where such laws lead.

What nasty place has anti-defamation laws led to?

[Velocity]

@Xema

I think you’ve entirely missed the point here. Free speech advocates absolutely do understand why good-spirited people might want to ban such things as Koran burning. The whole point of free speech protection is to allow expression of ideas that many people find unpleasant / offensive / dangerous / obnoxious, etc. The assumption (based on much history) is that endorsing legal suppression of unpopular views leads to bad things - far worse than allowing them.

There are some countries or cultures that cannot/do not recognize a delineation between “Things I find wrong” and “Things that ought to be banned.” To them, wrong and ban-nable are one and the same.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Velocity

There are some countries or cultures that cannot/do not recognize a delineation between “Things I find wrong” and “Things that ought to be banned.” To them, wrong and ban-nable are one and the same.

It’s an attitude that even pops up here on the SDMB from time to time.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So what punishment does Jeong deserve, in the eyes of people who think she deserves any?

[MrDibble]

@HurricaneDitka

This is just “hate speech for thee but not for me”. Like attempts to justify Sarah Jeong’s hate speech, it’s just a lame attempt to give political cover to one side of the current political divide.

“Unrepentant Apartheid racists” may be just “one side” of a “political divide” to you.

I suppose Nazis were also just “one side of a political divide” to you, too?

ETA: I think this bears repeating here:

Well, it’s nice to know that Shodan acknowledges that his side *are *fascists, but I don’t really see the relevance. It’s *good *if fascists lose. Didn’t we settle that in 1945?

[RickJay]

@BigT

I see the situation the same as I do gun control. Other countries have laws against hate speech, and they seem to work well. The US is well known for its racism problem–less so other countries.

1. The fact other countrues are not as well known for racism pro blems doesn’t mean they don’t have them. The USA is better known for EVERYTHING. It’s the loudest media market, and

2. I am skeptical of the correlation between hate speech laws and the actual prevalence of hate.

[MrDibble]

@RickJay

2. I am skeptical of the correlation between hate speech laws and the actual prevalence of hate.

Germany, France and South Africa (just to name 3 countries whose hate speech laws I’m familiar with) have all experienced quite a bit of hate in the recent past.

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

It’s an attitude that even pops up here on the SDMB from time to time.

Like bringing in Brett Stephens into debates, considering his views on the need to punish people who refer to him as a bedbug.

[wolfpup]

Without wishing to get mired in this debate, I really wish that people would make the effort to understand what hate speech laws really are in western democracies, instead of the boogeyman many are inventing, with references to totalitarian dictatorships, censorship in China, and ridiculous hypotheticals about government-imposed dictates over what you’re “allowed” to say. For one example, [Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada](Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada).

The application of the extremely limited and carefully adjudicated hate speech laws in Canada have resulted in beneficial outcomes like the deportation of Ernst Zundel. If similar laws were applied in the US, they would have virtually none of the scary consequences being hypothesized here, but they would likely have been effective in stopping the most reprehensible and hateful of the Westboro Church protests against the funerals of fallen soldiers.

In the final analysis the only argument against such legal remedies to toxic activities that grievously disrupt social peace and order is the “slippery slope” argument, which stems from a fundamental distrust of government – a uniquely American phenomenon, and hence the uniquely absolutist nature of certain constitutional provisions. I think it’s a disservice to the interests of a peaceful and just society, but a “peaceful and just society” was never a founding objective of the American republic, but rather, one that maximized personal freedom.

[Oakminster]

You either believe in free speech, or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s a process by which the Constitution can be amended, if you can persuade enough people to go along with it. I will resist those efforts.

I believe in free speech. Even speech I find offensive. I wore a uniform to protect that right, and I’d do so again if there was some urgent need for out of shape middle aged guys in the military. Even Notre Dame fans have a right to be heard–though I prefer to crush them, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Oakminster

You either believe in free speech, or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s a process by which the Constitution can be amended, if you can persuade enough people to go along with it. I will resist those efforts.

Not to rain on absolutist parades, but does that include such actions as libel, slander, threats and the revelation of national secrets?

[tomndebb]

@MrDibble

Germany, France and South Africa (just to name 3 countries whose hate speech laws I’m familiar with) have all experienced quite a bit of hate in the recent past.

And the hate continues despite laws against hate speech.

[Miller]

@tomndebb

And the hate continues despite laws against hate speech.

We have laws against murder, and also, we have murder. That doesn’t mean the laws aren’t doing anything.