On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Robert_S]

There is a huge difference between "I am sick to death of that towelhead religion and all the paedos that follow it" which I find reprehensible, but ought to be allowable under the law and "I greatly respect the prophet and it's followers are pretty good people, but unfortunately we need to kill them all to preserve our national character." which I don't think ought to be allowed by law, even though there is not a hateful word in it.

Good to understand your position a bit better, but you still don't say why specifically it should not be allowed by law.

Because it is a call to actively do something that is both violent and illegal. Well, I suppose if you were to call for a law to make belonging to that religion a capitol crime, then it would only be violent.

Do you think it should be legal to try to convince someone to injure or murder another person or a group? If I'm waking on a public street and some guy instructs another to go and assault me for the way I look, then I would hold both of them responsible. The actual assaulter should be held at least as responsible for his actions as if he acted on some spontaneous impulse and the person instructing him should also be held legally responsible for deliberately setting in motion a chain of events to have me assaulted. If he did not instruct the other person, I would most likely have not been assaulted and he damn well knew it. Therefore they should both get some jail time.

One of the most hated groups in my country are pedophiles. If I were to 'speech' that someone was a pedophile, I would be 'inciting hate' almost definitively.

The part of it that would be libel or slander, assuming that it is an unfounded accusation, is rightly illegal. The part about inciting hate should not be. That is, if I hold a liberal opinion and some Fox Nuze watcher would hate me for it, it still shouldn't be illegal to inform the twat that I am a liberal, even though it would lead to me being the object of hatred and perhaps even dirty looks from time to time.

[Hermit]

Hitler was not Superman. He silenced his opponents through the power of his speech, thereby giving himself unlimited power of speech, which resulted in disaster. An extreme situation, and a very good example of why it is wise to avoid extremes.

Despite Hitler's oratorical skills, his rise to power had very little to do with what he said or how he said it. Other factors were of far greater importance.

If WWI had concluded with a Marshall Plan or the Great Depression had begun petering out just a few months earlier than it did, neither Hitler nor the NSDAP would have attracted much of a vote.

Even so, Hitler never received a majority of any vote until after his seizure of power. As candidate in the presidential election he got 30.2% of the vote in the first round in March 1932, and 36.7% in April. Hindenburg got 49.6 and 53.1% respectively. In the German federal election, March 1933 the NSDAP received 43.9%. Using the classic divide and rule strategy, Hitler managed to get his Enabling Law through parliament, making him effectively the dictator we know him as. As soon as he got that through, he began eliminating troublesome members of the Reichstag, 96 of them.

Another crucial factor was Hitler's private army. The SA, though not particularly big, was very effective in disrupting the electoral activities of is rivals, focusing on the two chief ones, the socialists and the communists.

To say that Hitler came to power because of his oratorical skills and racist ideas is, to say the least, wildly inaccurate. To say that he came to power because the Weimar Republic lacked hate-crime laws, is utter nonsense.

[FBM]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

[JimC]

I'm not sure about this. Hitchens is so persuasive, it's easy to go along with him.
But look what he skips around. He defends the right to insult religions, agreed. He defends the right to push highly controversial views like holocaust denial. Again agreed.
But what he DOESN'T do, is face up squarely to INCITEMENT TO RACE HATRED.
You can't claim to be fully honest, unless you tackle the hard bits. He concentrates on the easier stuff.
It is surely not beyond the wit of man to frame a law, so that a wise judge can say : There is the line, and you crossed it. Or : There is the line, and you kept just inside it. Or even : I think you ever so slightly went over the line, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I can't embrace a world where PUBLIC incitement to race hatred is considered a right.
Lots of rights impinge on other rights, you can't have it all ways.
I think this is one right that could kill, and in any case impinges on people's rights to live without threat or fear.
.

It would depend on the nature of the PUBLIC incitement to race hatred...

If it could be established there was intent to incite violence, or that there was a good chance that the race-hate speech would actually cause violence, then the line you are talking about would be crossed. I agree that the key is framing the law so that it is only applied to prevent the sort of incitement which has a seirous chance of causing violent reactions.

[Hermit]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

I do agree that speech is part of behaviour. I also think that the debate as to whether it is or isn't has zero relevance on the topic of hate-speech laws. Behaviour, or not, speech has an effect on people. The issue is: Should some of it be declared illegal? I have recently changed my mind about this. The main reason for opposing hate-speech legislation is that someone has to decide what we cannot say, and while such decisions are usually made in the best of faith, the decision-making is both haphazard and open to abuse.

[JimC]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

I do agree that speech is part of behaviour. I also think that the debate as to whether it is or isn't has zero relevance on the topic of hate-speech laws. Behaviour, or not, speech has an effect on people. The issue is: Should some of it be declared illegal? I have recently changed my mind about this. The main reason for opposing hate-speech legislation is that someone has to decide what we cannot say, and while such decisions are usually made in the best of faith, the decision-making is both haphazard and open to abuse.

As MM said, it's all in the framing of the legislation. I know it has to be interpreted, but if it were framed so that only hate-speech that clearly aims at promoting violence is actionable, we may be able to avoid serious infringements of freedom of speech.

[Trolldor]

I think that those who present this argument as a choice between total freedom and less freedom are kidding themselves. There is no such thing as total freedom. One man's total freedom reduces that of another. Total free speech means minorities losing some of their freedom to live in safety. Or to go out on their own, rather than in groups for security. Not to feel threatened.
Rights are just a balancing act. You give rights to some, you take from others. That's the reality.
Just out of interest, is there any country where it's legal to incite hatred of citizens of that country in public?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.
.

Bullshit. Freedom of Speech is the right to publically oppose what you agree with. If you don't want to hear it just walk away, put the paper down, move on. Everybody talks about it as if freedom of speech only ever leads down a dark path. Nonsense. Every totallitarian society in history has done its utmost best to censor and stifle free speech. Censoring free speech is saying 'you aren't allowed to have this idea'. It is also saying "Not only can you not have this idea, nobody else is capable of dealing with your idea".

Prohibition has never worked and it never will.

As MM said, it's all in the framing of the legislation. I know it has to be interpreted, but if it were framed so that only hate-speech that clearly aims at promoting violence is actionable, we may be able to avoid serious infringements of freedom of speech.

"Sometimes I wish someone would blow up Parliament House."

[JimC]

The Mad Hatter wrote:

"Sometimes I wish someone would blow up Parliament House."

Ah, the Guy Fawkes syndrome...

Usually strikes about your age...

[Hermit]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

I do agree that speech is part of behaviour. I also think that the debate as to whether it is or isn't has zero relevance on the topic of hate-speech laws. Behaviour, or not, speech has an effect on people. The issue is: Should some of it be declared illegal? I have recently changed my mind about this. The main reason for opposing hate-speech legislation is that someone has to decide what we cannot say, and while such decisions are usually made in the best of faith, the decision-making is both haphazard and open to abuse.

As MM said, it's all in the framing of the legislation. I know it has to be interpreted, but if it were framed so that only hate-speech that clearly aims at promoting violence is actionable, we may be able to avoid serious infringements of freedom of speech.

Cool, but then why call it "hate-speech" legislation? Wouldn't it be better to frame and label such laws as something like "incitement to commit violence" legislation? That way we can say that we really hate theists, communists, libertarians et cetera for the opinions they hold, provided we don't call for their extermination.

[Trolldor]

But legislation already exists to protect people from acts of violence - provided it can be established that they intended to carry out acts of violence.
A ban on free speech isn't about banning those who intend to carry out acts of violence, it would ban those who express views which could be linked to intention to organise acts of violence.
It presumes a guilt and intent.

[Trolldor]

Also, Cunt, about the '4chan' comment...

Having people identify themselves simply to share an opinion? Hardly perfect.

People will say waht they believe precisely when they can't be indentified.

[JimC]

Yes, I understand that and my example was making an entirely different point. I never intended to say that it was ONLY his skill as an orator resulted in his rise to power. It was instrumental, though, and my real point was that speech is behavior. Distinguishing between the two is arbitrary and merely rhetorical, and adds nothing significant to the discussion.

Edit: Never mind. I'm being pedantic. I'm not adding anything to the discussion.

I do agree that speech is part of behaviour. I also think that the debate as to whether it is or isn't has zero relevance on the topic of hate-speech laws. Behaviour, or not, speech has an effect on people. The issue is: Should some of it be declared illegal? I have recently changed my mind about this. The main reason for opposing hate-speech legislation is that someone has to decide what we cannot say, and while such decisions are usually made in the best of faith, the decision-making is both haphazard and open to abuse.

As MM said, it's all in the framing of the legislation. I know it has to be interpreted, but if it were framed so that only hate-speech that clearly aims at promoting violence is actionable, we may be able to avoid serious infringements of freedom of speech.

Cool, but then why call it "hate-speech" legislation? Wouldn't it be better to frame and label such laws as something like "incitement to commit violence" legislation? That way we can say that we really hate theists, communists, libertarians et cetera for the opinions they hold, provided we don't call for their extermination.

I agree, although in practice the incitement to violence would involve the usual suspects of Jew-hating, nigger-hating etc.

[Hermit]

But legislation already exists to protect people from acts of violence - provided it can be established that they intended to carry out acts of violence.

True. I left that out for the sake of brevity. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

[Robert_S]

Also, Cunt, about the '4chan' comment...

Having people identify themselves simply to share an opinion? Hardly perfect.

People will say waht they believe precisely when they can't be indentified.

I suspect that people say what they think will create more entertainment, dramas in particular, on 4chan.

[Trolldor]

Robert - Good with the bad.