On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Coito ergo sum]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

[mistermack]

We've all been silenced anyway, and not even by the law.

I would love to draw big pictures of mohammed and post them here and there, just because some git tells me I can't. That I wouldn't class as incitement to hatred. Just incitement to free speech. But I don't see anyone doing it anywhere.
Maybe the internet should have a "draw mohammed" day, with millions of cartoons going up simultaneously. ( but don't say it was my idea ).
.

[Trolldor]

Utter tosh. You're assuming that your silencing of someone else's speech is valid and their silencing of yours is not.

[Coito ergo sum]

No it's not.
It's never worth it to outlaw someone else's opinion because you think it's offensive.

I agree with that. But if it's designed, or highly likely, to lead to hate crimes, that's where it starts to adversely affect other rights of other people.

One, produce evidence that certain words are highly likely to lead to hate crimes.

Two, the speech doesn't adversely effect the rights of other people, the violence does. Arrest the criminals.

Just offensive, no, definitely not. But you can be very offensive without inciting hatred.

You use terms as if they have precise meanings when they do not. What is offensive can be a statement like "eating beef is good," and a Hindu might think that a sign like that in a Hindu neighborhood is "inciting hatred" against Hindus, who hold cows sacred. Muslims find that artwork that defaces the Koran is "inciting hatred." Is it? Christians have claimed the same about art pieces like "Piss Christ" and South Park episodes of the Virgin Mary bleeding from her asshole. Since they don't fly planes into buildings or strap bombs to the chests of their children, those art pieces are only considered "offensive" and not "inciting hatred." Cartoons of the prophet Mo were, of course, eliminated from all mainstream media outlets because they were "inciting hatred" and not merely "offensive."

I would definitely vote for banning incitement to violence,

You mean imminent violence, like, "Hey kill that guy!"?

and I'm leaning towards favouring banning incitement to hatred.

Horrid idea. That's what gets South Park episodes edited unfairly, and Dutch Parliament members prosecuted.

After all, the step between the two is tiny.

It's actually a huge gulf, of canyon proportions.

If you incite hatred, you will surely get violence.

Almost never, actually.

Depends how it works in practice. If people can use the law to silence what's just offensive, then it's written wrong, or applied wrong, and that's what needs fixing.
.

What you think is offensive and what you think is "inciting hatred" is by far not universally, or even pluralistically, agreed upon. Be careful what you wish for, for you might get it.

[Coito ergo sum]

We've all been silenced anyway, and not even by the law.

I would love to draw big pictures of mohammed and post them here and there, just because some git tells me I can't. That I wouldn't class as incitement to hatred. Just incitement to free speech. But I don't see anyone doing it anywhere.
Maybe the internet should have a "draw mohammed" day, with millions of cartoons going up simultaneously. ( but don't say it was my idea ).
.

There was a draw muhammed day a month or two ago.

And just because you don't consider it incitement to hatred doesn't mean it's not incitement to hatred.

[FBM]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

lolwut?

[Trolldor]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

lolwut?

If words were actions everybody would be dead by now.

[FBM]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

lolwut?

If words were actions everybody would be dead by now.

Speaking (and typing) are actions. Words spoken by certain people at certain times send millions into war or to WalMart. Everything a person does is behavior. Even thinking.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

lolwut?

You said "every society has restrictions on behavior" and then you said that the "only question is about whether restriction of a certain type of "speech" is advisable.

To "behave" is "to act in a particular way." Act.

Speech and actions are different things entirely. It's the difference between saying I want to do something and doing it. It's the difference between openly extolling the benefits of marijuana use, and actually using it. Even though using marijuana is illegal, wearing a shirt suggesting that pot is great is not.

[mistermack]

Utter tosh. You're assuming that your silencing of someone else's speech is valid and their silencing of yours is not.

Nope, I'm drawing the line at PUBLIC incitement to hate another person or persons. Past that would be illegal for me and everyone else. Up to that line would be legal for all.
Who would decide would be a judge with years of experience.

[Trolldor]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

lolwut?

If words were actions everybody would be dead by now.

Speaking (and typing) are actions. Words spoken by certain people at certain times send millions into war or to WalMart. Everything a person does is behavior. Even thinking.

Words don't send millions to war at all. It takes the whole construction of subservient culture and training for words to have any effect - and even then it's simply a matter of refusing. Look at Draft dodgers.

[FBM]

Every society has restrictions on behavior, both explicit and implicit. Restricting behavior is how socities survive. The only question is about whether restriction on a certain type of speech is advisable.

You jumped from behavior to speech. Speech is not behavior.

lolwut?

You said "every society has restrictions on behavior" and then you said that the "only question is about whether restriction of a certain type of "speech" is advisable.

To "behave" is "to act in a particular way." Act.

Speech and actions are different things entirely. It's the difference between saying I want to do something and doing it. It's the difference between openly extolling the benefits of marijuana use, and actually using it. Even though using marijuana is illegal, wearing a shirt suggesting that pot is great is not.

Speaking isn't an action? Putting on and wearing a shirt aren't actions? Am I not acting when I type this? Are not my muscles contracting when I speak? Are not my neurons firing when I think about what I want to say? Speaking is action, it is behavior. I teach English; I'm teaching behavior.

[Trolldor]

Language isn't behaviour.

[FBM]

Words and speech sends millions to war.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw837zt8 ... re=related[/youtube]

[Trolldor]

And I suppose the fact that Hitler brought Germany back from the third world contributed nothing.
I suppose his skill as an orator meant nothing. I suppose the German populace's desperation meant nothing.

It was all the words.