| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly there are a number of 1st world democratic countries that do ban various forms of hate speech and that lack our pretense at absolute free speech.
Oddly they haven't gone charging wildly down that slippery slope towards government censorship and the silencing of all contrary political opinion. Some of them even seem to have a more robust public debate than the US, despite the theoretical lack of protections.
I was led to understand that in general, they've got fairly clear guidelines as to what can be banned, not just "anything that is likely to upset someone enough for them to commit violence." I could be mistaken, however. Maybe specific citations would be helpful...
You should probably read up on this. There is a world of difference between Scalia's interpretation of "fighting words" and Stewart's rubric for obscene content.
Remember, this is one of the reasons why we have a Supreme Court. So that when a line must be drawn, someone is in a position to actually draw it.
And yet, after repeatedly asking you for a definition, you've only been able to conjure up more vagueness.
I'm with you, in theory, that some speech shouldn't be protected. I'm under no illusion that there's absolute rights for anything, nor that there should be, and I'm not one who, as you say, believes the constitution to be sacrosanct.
However, one of the main purposes of having a code of laws is to make it clear what behaviors are not tolerable under that code. I just want an unambiguous definition of hate speech for this discussion, which no one has been able to present.
Examples of speech that is likely to incite violence: Mentioning muhammad in anything less than a glowing light, trolling on an internet messageboard, telling a cop to go fornicate with his sister, chanting "hell no we won't go" while holding a protest sign at the Wisconsin state capitol building, wearing a Yankees jersey in south Boston.
Your definition doesn't account for the inherent unreasonableness of those who would be incited to violence.
By way of counterexample, the KKK holds a rally/parade once a year or so in my town. There are usually about 10:1 counter protesters, peacefully assembling to denounce them. I'd rather hear the hateful message and be able to see it drowned out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone living in these mythical countries where there are laws about what is okay to say and not (racial hate speech), it is completely impossible to have any kind of public discussion about how our immigration laws should work. Governmental party reps will immediately tell you that you and your views are racist. Any questions?
|
As someone living in these mythical countries where there are laws about what is okay to say and not (racial hate speech), it is completely impossible to have any kind of public discussion about how our immigration laws should work. Governmental party reps will immediately tell you that you and your views are racist. Any questions?
THAT is exactly what some WANT here. if they can lock down the words themselves they know they can win.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why do people actively try to perceive everything said to them in the most offensive way? Why do they seek to get offended? I don't understand.
Almost everything nowadays is offensive. And I'm getting pretty sick and tired of political correctness enforcers, who go and get offended for other people. What the hell?
Bite me :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone living in these mythical countries where there are laws about what is okay to say and not (racial hate speech), it is completely impossible to have any kind of public discussion about how our immigration laws should work. Governmental party reps will immediately tell you that you and your views are racist. Any questions?THAT is exactly what some WANT here. if they can lock down the words themselves they know they can win.
Actually I view it as the opposite.
We aren't locking down the words, we are calling you out on the meaning behind the words.
You can still say whatever you want. We are just calling you out on what you say.
If what you are saying embarrasses you...you said it, not me.
Because sometimes your views are racist if you are saying people from other countries don't deserve things you do based on their race or ethnicity.
Which, you know, is racist.
While we kinda have free speech in the UK, it's with a lot of exceptions. Hate speech is the big one. You can't racial hatred, terrorism, say the Queen deserves to die (although that one might fall under treason, instead) and a bunch of other things.
We also have UKIP and the even worse BNP both political parties whose main goals is getting rid of all the dirty, dirty immigrants because that's all that's wrong with the country. Remember, it's illegal to incite racial hatred here (and a few other things - the Westboro Baptist Church has been banned from the UK) but we have one party that essentially blames being in Europe, and allowing EU immigrants, for all our problems and the BNP who...I dunno what they want, actually. Apparently they want a 'firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and there descendants to return home' despite that many of those people will have called Britain home for fifty, sixty, seventy years or longer. Mostly I just remember the scandals, like Nick Griffith (the BNP leader) trying to defend a hotel owner who wouldn't allow gay couples there by putting the couple's address on the Internet so people could send them...messages.
So yeah, even heavily restricted free speech is pretty free. Although no one I know things either the BNP or UKIP are anything but a racist joke. And I'm allowed to say that.
My states legislation in relation to hate speach/crimes.
In 1989, by an amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, New South Wales became the first state to make it unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group on the grounds of race. The amendment also created a criminal offence for inciting hatred, contempt or severe ridicule towards a person or group on the grounds of race by threatening physical harm (towards people or their property) or inciting others to threaten such harm. Prosecution of the offence of serious vilification requires consent from the Attorney-General and carries a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment for an individual—$100,000 for a corporation. An offence has not yet been prosecuted under this law.
Federal legislation is as thus:
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.[1]” An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court or through the Federal Magistrates Service.
In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.
Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence to use the Internet to disseminate material intentionally that results in a person being menaced or harassed. This offence includes material communicated by email. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.
As someone living in these mythical countries where there are laws about what is okay to say and not (racial hate speech), it is completely impossible to have any kind of public discussion about how our immigration laws should work. Governmental party reps will immediately tell you that you and your views are racist. Any questions?
And you think this isn't true in the US as well?
Obviously democracy and free speech are dead in Australia. </snark>
And, pursuant to my earlier post, a quotation shows us that the "hate speech" law posted is very much more limited than Scott Betts' desired ones. In particular, it limits "hate speech" to speech against race/color/ethinicity, not against anyone at all if it might cause violence.
In some instances Political Correctness has become a kind of a bizzare reverse stereotyping itself, in that it also paints groups with a very broad brush, dictating what they should find offensive based on whatever stereotypical group they fall into.
This just reinforces and perpetuates the problem, imho.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously democracy and free speech are dead in Australia. </snark>And, pursuant to my earlier post, a quotation shows us that the "hate speech" law posted is very much more limited than Scott Betts' desired ones. In particular, it limits "hate speech" to speech against race/color/ethinicity, not against anyone at all if it might cause violence.
I'm not in favor of laws that infringe free speech.
I am very much in favor of condemning people who say things, if you disagree with them.
I think the Westboro Baptist Church serves a purpose. It is what I can point to when people claim there are no extremists Christians.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I have stated before... If nuts of that caliber start screaming outside your funeral, your loved ones will know you were a good person.
If some d-bag wants to go around blaming the ___________s for all of society's ills, he should -- no must -- be allowed to do so. Likewise, if he wants to say that we should kick all the _______________s out of the country, or even kill them, he should be allowed to do so. However the moment he says "let's go do X" to actual people, then he's conspiring to commit a crime -- which is illegal anyway.
Hate speech laws seem to be a manifest slippery slope. Even if they haven't generally been abused, I can't see a way to craft them so that they couldn't be abused. No thanks.
Edit: Though admittedly, I've gone back and forth on this one. Maybe I'm just paranoid this morning. :)
I also think zealots are easier to identify when you can see them rather than when they have to hide in the shadows.
This was kinda my point.
Obviously democracy and free speech are dead in Australia. </snark>And, pursuant to my earlier post, a quotation shows us that the "hate speech" law posted is very much more limited than Scott Betts' desired ones. In particular, it limits "hate speech" to speech against race/color/ethinicity, not against anyone at all if it might cause violence.
I urged that people read up on how the Supreme Court views hate speech for a reason. The court holds that such speech is unprotected only when used against protected classes.
I urged that people read up on how the Supreme Court views hate speech for a reason. The court holds that such speech is unprotected only when used against protected classes.Obviously democracy and free speech are dead in Australia. </snark>And, pursuant to my earlier post, a quotation shows us that the "hate speech" law posted is very much more limited than Scott Betts' desired ones. In particular, it limits "hate speech" to speech against race/color/ethinicity, not against anyone at all if it might cause violence.
Citation? And don't give me that line about "if you knew anything about it you'd agree with me" - you can pull that drivel for any position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I urged that people read up on how the Supreme Court views hate speech for a reason.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
No organization has been more aggressively or justifiably pursued on grounds of hate speech than the Ku Klux Klan. But the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned in a ruling that has protected radicals of all political persuasions ever since. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice William Brennan argued that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
When the National Socialist Party of America was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers turned to the small, ethnically Jewish town of Skokie—where 1/6th of the Jewish population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march, but their efforts were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a terse ruling. After the ruling, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad.Virginia v. Black (2003)
11 years after the St. Paul case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of cross-burning after three people were arrested separately for violating a Virginia ban. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Westboro Baptist Church has made a career out of being reprehensible. The organization, which came to national prominence by gleefully picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, later moved on to celebrating the 9/11 attacks and picketing military funerals. The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006, sued Westboro—and its leader, Fred Phelps—for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro's right to picket. While acknowledging that Westboro's "contribution to public discourse may be negligible," Chief Justice John Roberts's ruling rested in existing U.S. hate speech precedent: "Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were."
It appears to me that the Supreme Court has consistently shot down the types of stuff you're claiming to advocate, unless you can provide a link to a specific ruling that shows otherwise.
I'm not trying to advocate prohibiting any of the examples listed. The reason a number of those statutes were struck down by the courts is for their being overly broad (Virginia v. Black, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) - the court did not take exception to laws prohibiting the use of hate speech to intimidate or incite violence, but rather took exception to laws that made no distinction between expressive speech and intimidating speech.
Scalia's opinion in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is instructive in understanding how the court views hate speech - all the more so because he is writing for the entirety of the court.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scalia's opinion in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is instructive
Now that I've actually got you to name the case, I can provide a link to the actual relevant documents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this bit: "so also with fighting words: the government may not regulate use based on hostility -- or favoritism -- towards the underlying message expressed." And, further, "As explained earlier, see supra at 386, the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."
In other words, the government can suppress actual, specific threats of violence, or (in the case of the president only) more general calls for violence on a specific person, but it cannot go beyond that. Importantly, this says to me that "being mean to Muslims will make them kill people" is not in any way sufficient grounds for the government to censor speech against Muslims, for example; indeed, the latter is protected by the 1st Amendment (on the basis of non-censoring due to content) unless it calls for specific acts of violence against specific Muslims.
As to why the St. Paul hate speech law was struck down:
St. Paul has not singled out an especially offensive mode of expression -- it has not, for example, selected for prohibition only those fighting words that communicate ideas in a threatening (as opposed to a merely obnoxious) manner. Rather, it has proscribed fighting [p394] words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance.
And they're not allowed to do that, constitutionally-speaking. In short, only physical threats can be banned, not "hate speech" against specific groups, and not speech that might cause violence as a side-effect of that speech being hateful.
hate speech is unprotected when it is delivered in a fashion that stands a high likelihood of inciting violence by its continued use.Therefore, the craziest group of people gets to use the government to enforce censorship.
Consider: If me and my gang of Kirthites burn buildings every time someone disagrees with me, then disagreeing with me has a high likelihood of inciting violence -- especially with continued use. Therefore disagreeing with me would legally fit the definition of "hate speech," and you would therefore call on the government to use the force of law to censor it? That works powerfully contrary to maintaining any sort of free society.
Wouldn't that run afoul of some sort of reasonable person test when the court comes along to apply the hate speech law to this particular case?
It seems to me that the courts would be unlikely to decide that a reasonable person would expect a simple disagreement with another such citizen to incite arson - and that therefore the Kirthites in question would be unlikely to win out even under what seems to me to be itself a somewhat unreasonably broad interpretation of Scott's post there (since the scenario totally ignores the "hate speech" aspect).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't that run afoul of some sort of reasonable person test when the court comes along to apply the hate speech law to this particular case?
Do you actually know any "reasonable people"? I don't. Everyone on earth has at least one or two topics about which he/she is incapable of thinking rationally. Hell, many of my acquaintances in Texas thought it was totally reasonable that atheism should be illegal, since they're obviously "against God" (and never mind the separation of Church and State) -- the very definition of what's "reasonable" varies so wildly between individuals, towns, and regions, that I don't see how it would be possible to have a national "reasonable person" test.
We also run into the issue of the shifting Overton Window, by which a prolonged-enough publicity campaign can easily shift something totally outrageous into being considered "reasonable" -- and vice-versa.
But Scott's favorite case illustrates that the Supreme Court has specifically ruled "hate speech" (as opposed to actual threats of violence) as constitutionally-protected. Therefore, speech that is demeaning and obnoxious towards Kirthites is, as things stand now, A-OK. I would not like to change that (despite being the leader of the Kirthites!)
|
|
As someone living in these mythical countries where there are laws about what is okay to say and not (racial hate speech), it is completely impossible to have any kind of public discussion about how our immigration laws should work. Governmental party reps will immediately tell you that you and your views are racist. Any questions?THAT is exactly what some WANT here. if they can lock down the words themselves they know they can win.Actually I view it as the opposite.
We aren't locking down the words, we are calling you out on the meaning behind the words.
You can still say whatever you want. We are just calling you out on what you say.
If what you are saying embarrasses you...you said it, not me.
Because sometimes your views are racist if you are saying people from other countries don't deserve things you do based on their race or ethnicity.
Which, you know, is racist.
Illegal immigration.
Not race or ethnic based. do not care where they are from. I am told that is racist because i really just hate mexicans. And that the term illegal is wrong because it is derogatory. no, it is accurate, they immigrated here illegally. but if we can just change the wording enough.....|
|
In some instances Political Correctness has become a kind of a bizzare reverse stereotyping itself, in that it also paints groups with a very broad brush, dictating what they should find offensive based on whatever stereotypical group they fall into.
This just reinforces and perpetuates the problem, imho.
You mean like anyone that dares question illegal immigration must be white, probably southern backwater hick?
|
|
I urged that people read up on how the Supreme Court views hate speech for a reason. The court holds that such speech is unprotected only when used against protected classes.Obviously democracy and free speech are dead in Australia. </snark>And, pursuant to my earlier post, a quotation shows us that the "hate speech" law posted is very much more limited than Scott Betts' desired ones. In particular, it limits "hate speech" to speech against race/color/ethinicity, not against anyone at all if it might cause violence.
So hate speech laws are bigoted by deciding who "deserves" protection
I like this bit: "so also with fighting words: the government may not regulate use based on hostility -- or favoritism -- towards the underlying message expressed." And, further, "As explained earlier, see supra at 386, the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."
In other words, the government can suppress actual, specific threats of violence, or (in the case of the president only) more general calls for violence on a specific person, but it cannot go beyond that. Importantly, this says to me that "being mean to Muslims will make them kill people" is not in any way sufficient grounds for the government to censor speech against Muslims, for example; indeed, the latter is protected by the 1st Amendment (on the basis of non-censoring due to content) unless it calls for specific acts of violence against specific Muslims.
I believe that you are misreading Scalia. First, incitement to violence isn't simply about the concern that offensive speech might incite the offended to violence - it also is concerned with whether the speech in question could incite others to violence against the offended. Second, when Scalia discusses an "intolerable mode" of expression, he isn't merely referring to direct threats of physical violence, his is referring more broadly to imminently threatening language, which is a broader concept. As you've noted, direct threats of physical violence are illegal irrespective of protected class status. There is an area beyond that but before speech becomes simply hateful (instead of "hate speech") that is - and ought to be - unprotected.
It's also worth noting that there have been repeated examples of Supreme Court justices writing dissenting opinions that suggest they would prefer (or not overturn, at a minimum) more stringent anti-hate-speech legislation than we already employ (Thomas and Alito, among others). Accordingly, I'm inclined to believe that the criteria for unprotected speech I'm highlighting is a relatively moderate stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that you are misreading Scalia. First, incitement to violence isn't simply about the concern that offensive speech might incite the offended to violence - it also is concerned with whether the speech in question could incite others to violence against the offended.
With respect, Scott, "could" isn't anywhere in there. Anything "could" incite a whacko to violence against anyone. The definition is necessarily far more strict than you're willing to see -- there has to be an imminent threat of violence against the target of the "hate speech," and specifically, it has nothing to do with what person or group that target is, and everything to do with the "mode" (overtly threatening or "merely obnoxious").
Scott, really not seeing anything about protected classes in there, at all. That kind of falls into the equal protection under the law bit.
Also, why do people actively try to perceive everything said to them in the most offensive way? Why do they seek to get offended? I don't understand.
Almost everything nowadays is offensive. And I'm getting pretty sick and tired of political correctness enforcers, who go and get offended for other people. What the hell?
In response to the original subject:
With regards to the internet, people respond with offense more often generally because you don't have the benefit of controlling your word emphasis or tone of voice. People are going to read it in whatever tone of voice they will, which may very well be a tone of voice that makes it sound worse.
In response to using "trigger word" like the aforementioned "bundle-of-sticks":
Many gays didn't have the benefit of growing up in a progressive, safe community. For many of them, whenever they hear that F-word, it brings to mind every time someone shouted that at them on the street, or yelled it in their faces as they were beaten, or worse. It isn't just a matter of using a word in a way they don't think you should. The same be said for other words, but really this one in particular.
It's nice that you and your friend can joke around and not have any traumatizing memories come up. Not everyone has that luxury.
Anyone ever think that it's less a case of people being easily offended and more a case of people no longer being afraid to say they're offended? Maybe people aren't actually any more easy to offend but are now just more likely to speak up when they are offended?
I've had plenty of situations in the past where I've heard someone making a few off color jokes or using some less than family-friendly terms at a gathering, and afterword other people would complain about how offensive the person was being, but they didn't want to cause a scene or be offensive in turn. In other words, they were afraid to speak up.
It's best to just not talk like that in a room full of people you don't know everything about.
Dude, every society has had complex rules to avoid offending others.
It's just that nowadays, you don't try and murder every person that offends you.
Wait a minute... you mean I shouldn't murder those who offend me? Damn, I must have missed the memo.
<Puts her hand over the microphone> Igor! Start clearing out the leftovers in the freezer now! Before the FBI gets here...
|
|
It is not that people are more offended, it is that, thanks to the internet, they interact with people outside their usual social circles and are thus exposed to opinions that can be dramatically different to what they are used to, and that in fact offend them.
In other words, a proponent of equal rights and an active member of the KKK would probably never meet and talk together IRL. Now, thanks to the miracle of instant communication, they can :-)
People are offended because they allow themselves to be.
People are offended because they allow themselves to be.
No, its not a switch you just throw off.