Hate Speech Laws Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Actions yes, the expression of thoughts, no. You cannot violate someone's rights unless they violate someone else's rights. When you do that, you're a dictator.

because it aims to degrade swathes of humanity.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Aiming to degrade people does not justify the degrading of people. We don't sacrifice principals for practicality.

Probably the most popular counterargument to regulating speech is the slippery slope argument. If the U.S. became more willing to restrict hate speech, what would be the result? Would we head down a path towards totalitarianism?

Of course not. In practice, the U.S. already restricts speech in many ways — the courts have allowed limits on death threats, on libel, on slander on advocating violence. Many free speech advocates are willing to try to balance free speech harms and free speech goods — except, it seems when it comes to hate speech against marginalized communities and minorities. Stopping bullying degrades no one, neither does it sacrifice principles.

Yeah, it really depends what we define as "hate speech". I wouldn't make saying "mean things" illegal. But actively verbally bullying someone should obviously have consequences.

It depends on how you define hate speech. far too many people consider anything they disagree with to be hate speech I've heard people call using the wrong pronoun both hate speech and violence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
YouTube video

Best part is still when he mimes a nazi f*cking the Von Trapps.

And yes, the guy in the video was investigated over it lol.

No freedom should ever be absolute (IMO). A person's freedoms end when another person's rights begin.

However, hate speech is a bit of a contradiction to me. It is fairly established that speech can cause direct damage to another person. Slander/libel, bullying, harassment, indoctrination/brainwashing (especially to commit hard to self/others), spreading of false and dangerous information (hey kids! eat tide pods! YUM!), inciting riots, etc. can all cause real harm.

But hate speech seems to be strange. I always see prejudice/racism/hate to go more in line with motive, but not as a crime itself. A person who gets assaulted due to racism is another person assaulted. One can argue that the crime of assault is made worse by the racism, but the crime itself is the assault. But without direct, observable and quantifiable harm how does one even objectively, and without bias, identify the harm? And if an action does not inflict direct, observable and quantifiable harm (when looked at without biases) why would the motivations behind the action suddenly turn it from a legal act to an illegal one?

I also don't see why minorities should be protected over that of the majority. Always an inconsistent notion to me. I believe that minorities should be given the same opportunities. Maybe helped via assistances/charities/aid sure, but given special privileges mandated by law? I can't agree with it without feeling like a hypocrite (being a POC myself). Laws vs hate speech should not be made to simply protect minorities from hate. It should be used to protect everyone from hate. Because, believe it or not, minorities can hate, too.

It's why hate crime charges make no sense to me. Stabbing someone because they are a certain race isn't really any better than just stabbing someone because you felt like randomly stabbing someone.

As long as a person isn't inciting violence, people need to chill.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's why hate crime charges make no sense to me. Stabbing someone because they are a certain race isn't really any better than just stabbing someone because you felt like randomly stabbing someone.

As long as a person isn't inciting violence, people need to chill.

I will disagree here.

Like I said, hate falls in line with motive. Motive can greatly affect how vile a crime is.

Stabbing someone for self defense/fear for safety or due to mental illness can diminish the severity of the crime. Very different from stabbing someone in a crime of passion. Even worse if it was as an attack against a collective (due to the further fear and intimidation it can spread).

But something has to qualify as a crime first. Motivation would be one factor that determines severity.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I will disagree here.

Like I said, hate falls in line with motive. Motive can greatly affect how vile a crime is.

Stabbing someone for self defense/fear for safety or due to mental illness can diminish the severity of the crime. Very different from stabbing someone in a crime of passion. Even worse if it was as an attack against a collective (due to the further fear and intimidation it can spread).

But something has to qualify as a crime first. Motivation would be one factor that determines severity.

Yes stabbing someone in self defense I am fine with. But if you are in full control and choose to stab somebody...whether to rob them or for fun or because of their race...I think the punishment should be the same.

Also...damn:

YouTube video

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes stabbing someone in self defense I am fine with. But if you are in full control and choose to stab somebody...whether to rob them or for fun or because of their race...I think the punishment should be the same.

One can certainly categorize "for fun/for crime/hate" as equal in severity in terms of motivation and I'll have no problem with it. However, it can be argued that hate takes it one step further due to the fact that it can also spread fear/intimidation and incite similar/retaliatory actions against others. As with terrorism (which is also motivated by hate), hate motivated crimes can also cause harm that have a greater range than that of the immediately affected victim.

Also, reading my previous post:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
But hate speech seems to be strange. I always see prejudice/racism/hate to go more in line with motive, but not as a crime itself. A person who gets assaulted due to racism is another person assaulted. One can argue that the crime of assault is made worse by the racism, but the crime itself is the assault. But without direct, observable and quantifiable harm how does one even objectively, and without bias, identify the harm? And if an action does not inflict direct, observable and quantifiable harm (when looked at without biases) why would the motivations behind the action suddenly turn it from a legal act to an illegal one?

Where "crime itself is assault" was followed directly by "But without direct, observable.." almost looks like I meant assault has no "direct, observable and quantifiable harm". This is not the case.

Was supposed to be 2 separate paragraphs. Assault, of course, has obvious harm.

I find the idea of limiting free speech further and further to be a scary direction to take, even if it is done in the name of 'protecting people'. But it depends on the context.

If, say, a Neo-Fascist or Muslim extremist leader gets up in front of a group of acolytes and preaches to them about the immorality of homosexuality and implores them to go out and 'stop this gay plague', imo that's straight-up attempted murder and should be treated the same way as someone hiring a hitman. But being a homophobic piece of shit shouldn't be illegal in and of itself, as making something illegal doesn't make the problem go away, which is, really, what it should be all about.

Are the words being said with specific intention to harm, maim or kill, and is it clear enough that this was the intention? Then it goes beyond free speech – you're trying to have someone hurt or killed by using freedom of speech to bypass established laws that are put in place to prevent harm. But, as an example, there's a big difference between someone slowly and methodically engineering someone's suicide, and some kid on Call of Duty telling someone to 'kys'.

We have to make these distinctions, even if it takes longer, because one road takes us down (and is taking us down) a dark, authoritarian path, a path that I'm personally not comfortable going down.

Well that's not speech but a call to action. Like how you can be an accessory to a murder. It's not the speech. It's the call to action

Removing Hate speak is not degrading people nor is it sacrificing principles.

except, it seems when it comes to hate speech against marginalized communities and minorities.

Damn Rocky, this is some

I think free speech becomes hate speech when it incites physical violence against a particular group. For instance, there are laws against murder and theft so if the speech calls people to perform these illegal actions on specific people, it becomes hate speech and the speaker should be charged with being an accessory to anyone who performs these actions.

Originally posted by gauntlet o doom
I think free speech becomes hate speech when it incites physical violence against a particular group. For instance, there are laws against murder and theft so if the speech calls people to perform these illegal actions on specific people, it becomes hate speech and the speaker should be charged with being an accessory to anyone who performs these actions.

Then it's not speech you're indicting it's the call to action.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
To punish someone by seizing their private property or imprisoning them is "degrading" them.

Because hate speech does not signal the intent to ignore laws made to protect other people's rights. Hate speech isn't a violation of someone else's rights, hence to violate someone's rights because they use hate speech is to be a dictator.