Hate speech on Ratz. Should we tolerate it?

[Svartalf]

Gawd is bashing the Jews all he can, and he's not yet banned is he?

Methinks the OP is moot.

FBM's asking if the members think we should change the rules to ban hate speech though.

Edit: I see he beat me to it... ^^^

Myself, I'm all for hate speech being permitted... then again, I also love watching flame wars.

[Rum]

Gawd is bashing the Jews all he can, and he's not yet banned is he?

Methinks the OP is moot.

FBM's asking if the members think we should change the rules to ban hate speech though.

Edit: I see he beat me to it... ^^^

Myself, I'm all for hate speech being permitted... then again, I also love watching flame wars.

Your avatar kind of suggests that...

[Coito ergo sum]

Just read through all the thoughtful contributions to this topic.


On just about any other forum this discussion, whether to ban 'hate speech', would cause contention, offense and ill feeling among the participants (I've seen it a few times) ... Here it is thoughtful, respectful, peaceful ... and generously spiced with good humour.


Not only have many of you explained why we shouldn't, but all of you have demonstrated why we don't need to ban 'hate speech'.



I ♥ Rationalia

[Coito ergo sum]

dupe

[Coito ergo sum]

I object to my criticism of Israel and Jewish-supremacy as "hate speech".

You are misstating what people are calling hate speech. Nobody that I have heard has called criticism of Israel or Jewish supremacy as "hate speech." They've called what YOU say, sometimes, as hate speech, because what you say evinces hatred. Only you know if you truly do harbor that feeling. However, I read your posts and they do come across as written/posted by someone who hates Jews.

This is a classic tactic by pro-Israel supporters to slander their critics. What exactly have I said that is "hate speech"?

That Jews are murderous, corrupt and greedy, essentially. You've also referred to Americans as "Americunts" and other such abusive and hateful vernacular. That part about Americunts is not about Israel, but it is hate speech against Americans.

Mind you, I think you should be free to say it all you want. Whatever slimy group of monkeys you spewed from is, I'm sure, worlds beneath the "Americunts" you vilely slander, so I'm sure your hate speech comes out of some cultural low self-esteem or genetic defect. Don't complain now. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you want the privilege of calling my people Americunts, then you need to be able to handle a favor returned.

Every one of my threads related to Israel has been a valid and specific criticism of their demonstrated actions.

Not every one. You do a lot of mischaractization and you play fast and loose with the facts. Like, your thread on now Israel will "blow anyone up who tries to bring aid to the Palestinians." That is total and complete fucking bullshit. They didn't even blow up that stupid flotilla that caused the whole row in the first place. They boarded the boat and were attacked by the douchebags on the boat. Ultimately, the flotilla was released. And, Israel has allowed all non-military aid through, as long as the blockade is honored.

Nobody is "blowing up" anybody that tries to bring in aid. So, that's one example where your post is not valid, because it's a flat out untruth.

For my most recent thread, it was a criticism of Israel explicitly stating that they will blow up any ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Israel never said that.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is a consideration that hasn't been raised in this thread yet as far as I can see.

This forum is hosted in the UK and is subject to the laws of that country. In particular, it is subject to the laws regarding incitement to racial hatred - this from Wikipedia...

Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
• distributing racist material to the public
• making inflammatory public speeches
• creating racist websites on the Internet
• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

Holocaust denial is not covered under this legislation, but laws against incitement to hatred against religions were later established under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement ... ial_hatred

In much the same manner as "extreme" pornography is not permitted here due to its illegal nature in the UK, anything that could be considered to fall foul of this legislation should also be removed in order to protect the site from being prosecuted or closed down.

Personally, I think that Gawd keeps within these boundaries currently - if he steps over them, he may lose toes.

Well, I couldn't really fault Rationalia for wanting to stay within the law, if that is the applicable law.

I can merely shake my head in disbelief that such a law could exist in a civilized western country.

I mean....my holy Flying Spaghetti Monster....it's illegal to "make inflammatory speeches in public?" Really? That is, in my view, pure and utter fucking bullshit, and law that simply allows the State to shut down speech that it doesn't like. Whatever gets people riled up can be deemed "inflammatory." Even truthful speech can be inflammatory, like a speaker exposing the government's illegal or immoral behavior. It might very well inflame people's passions.

Distributing racist materials in public? What? Like a library distributing Mein Kampf? Are they fucking mad?

We do not need to be protected from this shit.

I know this is not a thread to discuss the propriety of the law. But, it just chaps my ass. It is paternalistic and condescending to suggest that individuals need to be protected from this stuff. I will never submit to these laws, and I hope that everyone does something to oppose them, if only make it clear by vehement expressions of opinion that such laws are flat out big hairy bollocks and that such laws are deserving only of contempt, ridicule and derision and that any politician who defends such laws does not deserve a vote.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

I view it as derogatory as Christian or Muslim. It's someone who believes a load of fucking bullshit without any proof or reason.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

One other of the reasons I think you hate Jews is because you only criticize Israel, and you refrain from criticizing the Muslim monstrosities that surround it. You also claim that Israel has no right to exist, but that someone Lebanon does or Jordan does. And, you never suggest that it is improper that countries like Lebanon and Jordan are Muslim countries, but you do find it improper that Israel is Jewish. And, you don't seem to find any issue in the fact that Lebanon was created as a Christian country, and was overrun by Muslims who turned it into a Muslim country by driving out the Christians (for the most part). So, overall, you come across that you aren't really against the arbitrary formation of countries in the region (because you don't seem to mind Muslim countries being created there), and you don't seem to be against immigration to that region in general, just Jewish immigration (since the facts show that since 1890, hundreds of thousands of Muslims immigrated to what is now Israel. You seem to think that merely being Muslim gives someone a primary right to live in that region.

[Pappa]

I can merely shake my head in disbelief that such a law could exist in a civilized western country.

It gets worse... we have a "religious harassment" law here too.

[Coito ergo sum]

I can merely shake my head in disbelief that such a law could exist in a civilized western country.

It gets worse... we have a "religious harassment" law here too.

I know. Such a law feels alien to me. I know there are forces at work to bring such contrivances to the US. I can only hope that the will to resist such tripe remains strong.

[Pappa]

I can merely shake my head in disbelief that such a law could exist in a civilized western country.

It gets worse... we have a "religious harassment" law here too.

I know. Such a law feels alien to me. I know there are forces at work to bring such contrivances to the US. I can only hope that the will to resist such tripe remains strong.

We've had many such laws, plus anti-terrorism laws, brought in in the past 10 years. All without much fuss from the public. They're more interested in watching Big Brother.

There's irony in there somewhere, I'm sure.

[Svartalf]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

I view it as derogatory as Christian or Muslim. It's someone who believes a load of fucking bullshit without any proof or reason.

Except when it's used to denote ethnic origin rather than actual religious belief and practice (remember the bunch of "atheist Jews" that were blamed with everything from zionism to the NEP faminies in Ukraine when Stalin was boss?)

[Coito ergo sum]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

I view it as derogatory as Christian or Muslim. It's someone who believes a load of fucking bullshit without any proof or reason.

Except when it's used to denote ethnic origin rather than actual religious belief and practice (remember the bunch of "atheist Jews" that were blamed with everything from zionism to the NEP faminies in Ukraine when Stalin was boss?)

They weren't full Jew. They were just Jew-ish.

[Rum]

We've had many such laws, plus anti-terrorism laws, brought in in the past 10 years. All without much fuss from the public. They're more interested in watching Big Brother.

There's irony in there somewhere, I'm sure.

Quite. We are the most watched country in Europe, possibly the western world. We have 4.2 million CCTV cameras and people appear on them up to 300 times a day. Shockingly true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm

[charlou]

However, perhaps there are some clear historical precedents that show that hate speech can have an extremely negative impact. For instance, I would argue that Der Sturmer, the Nazi newspaper published between 1923 and 1945, was a prime example of "hate speech". Certain ethnic groups, especially the Jews, were villified week in and week out, As Albert Forster, the gauleiter of Danzig wrote in the 1930s:

With pleasure I say that the Stürmer, more than any other daily or weekly newspaper, has made clear to the people in simple ways the danger of Jewry.

An entire race was negatively stereotyped for years, the end result being catastrophic beyond belief. Was it enough to laugh it off? Was it enough to ignore the propaganda, to ridicule it, to sweep it under the carpet of one's sensibilities? Clearly not.

Addressing the part I've bolded, regarding laughing it off and ignoring the propaganda: Did this happen at all, and if it did, how many did so and for how long? What other factors were in play to coerce people into accepting the propaganda and eventually acting on it?