You can't keep a government from doing bad things by not letting it do good things.
You can make it hard. If the government has the ability to do X to Y, its much easier for them to do X to z than if they're not allowed to do x.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, we already have limits on free speech. Fraudulent claims, knowingly or not, that harm others can and will get you in trouble. It's not legal to call in a fake bomb threat (or a real one, but that's not really about speech).
Insulting someone to aggravate them to fight you is referred to so eloquently as "fighting words" in the US legal system and isn't allowed either. If you pester someone purposely and willfully to get them to start a fist fight with you, both of you are at fault, even if they threw the first punch.
The cats out of the bag on speech that isn't allowed and can get you in trouble.
The question isn't, "should we draw a line?"
The question is "where should we draw the line?"
What is the specific value of protecting speech that has long term harms, but no immediate harm? Is someone going to claim that there is specific value to hate speech and we need to have it around? Or is it just a slippery slope argument?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So allow actual harm to protect against theoretical harm?
yeah. I'm pretty sure we'd be safer if everyone had their tv monitoring them and sending information directly to the police. But that kind of power is abusable.
There's a line to set between safety and freedom. People have disagreements over where it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So allow actual harm to protect against theoretical harm?
The harm of hate speech isn't theoretical. It's effects are sometimes insidious and non-obvious to those who aren't targeted, but they are real. Racist language and behaviors have a very real impact on people and research/experimentation shows it has effects on children as young as 5 with very consistent results.
There's good research on both Bosnia and Rwanda that show how the changes in language in both regions precipitated the efforts at ethnic cleansing. We're all very familiar with how the acceptance of hate speech was a forerunner to the atrocities in Germany. Does this mean that every instance of hate speech will always lead to these kinds of situations? No, but we see a clear pattern of how the hate speech made it easier for these things to happen.
Two years ago in the US bomb threats to Jewish community centers were pretty rare. Now we've got a president who talks about how they control the media/banks (not often, but he does occasionally), which then gives implicit permission for other people to say the same or worse. This then leads to a feeling of normalcy for people who hate Jews and authorization or entitlement to act on those feelings. This is a pattern we see happen consistently and persistently.
Then there's just the problem of hate speech being used to stifle free speech. Targeted groups are less likely to feel safe and willing to speak up to protect themselves. If you're actually a proponent of free speech, you should want everyone to feel safe expressing themselves. Yet I see "free speech advocates" who are willing to defend speech that is intended to frighten and intimidate others into silence.
If you value free speech and you see two people, one is shouting and yelling, the other is silent and trying to avoid drawing attention... which of those two people actually needs your help?
Hate speech is essentially bullying. Giving bully's free reign to intimidate and frighten others is not how you defend free speech. It's actually saying that it's okay to silence others.
Ah, I see it more clearly now. No worries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So allow actual harm to protect against theoretical harm?yeah. I'm pretty sure we'd be safer if everyone had their tv monitoring them and sending information directly to the police. But that kind of power is abusable.
There's a line to set between safety and freedom. People have disagreements over where it is.
Would you consider the freedom to harm others as an essential freedom? Not the right to self defense, but the right to go out, pick a target and harm them for whatever justification you choose. Does my right to the pursuit of happiness include throwing molotov cocktails towards your house?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the future of the democratic party in pursuing hate speech legislation? Seems the left is already under fire for being too PC. Is it time to press forward or back off and rethink this topic?
The area that gives me pause is academics. There have been cases where professors have come under fire for merely bringing up "untouchable" topics of both left and right politics. How do you allow intellectual debate of value, while stopping long term harmful speech? I ask because I often see ideas decried because of a single word contained in the idea that excludes any context. How do you target ideas and not simply words themselves?
Again, we already have limits on free speech. Fraudulent claims, knowingly or not, that harm others can and will get you in trouble. It's not legal to call in a fake bomb threat (or a real one, but that's not really about speech).
Insulting someone to aggravate them to fight you is referred to so eloquently as "fighting words" in the US legal system and isn't allowed either. If you pester someone purposely and willfully to get them to start a fist fight with you, both of you are at fault, even if they threw the first punch.
The cats out of the bag on speech that isn't allowed and can get you in trouble.
The question isn't, "should we draw a line?"
The question is "where should we draw the line?"
What is the specific value of protecting speech that has long term harms, but no immediate harm? Is someone going to claim that there is specific value to hate speech and we need to have it around? Or is it just a slippery slope argument?
While it is true that there are limits to Free Speech in some form or another in many countries, it is also important to look at how and why such limits are imposed.
The general idea seems to be that speech can be limited, if it causes harm or offense to certain groups*, who are deemed in need of protection.
Where the problems arise are, that individual governments tend to use the above idea as a political tool to further their political vision, be they good or bad.
So you will get the Russian "LGBT propaganda law" on one hand, and the French law against the denial of crimes against humanity on the other.
* Ethnic, religious, sexuality and so on.
Again, we already have limits on free speech. Fraudulent claims, knowingly or not, that harm others can and will get you in trouble. It's not legal to call in a fake bomb threat (or a real one, but that's not really about speech).
Insulting someone to aggravate them to fight you is referred to so eloquently as "fighting words" in the US legal system and isn't allowed either. If you pester someone purposely and willfully to get them to start a fist fight with you, both of you are at fault, even if they threw the first punch.
The cats out of the bag on speech that isn't allowed and can get you in trouble.
The question isn't, "should we draw a line?"
The question is "where should we draw the line?"
What is the specific value of protecting speech that has long term harms, but no immediate harm? Is someone going to claim that there is specific value to hate speech and we need to have it around? Or is it just a slippery slope argument?
Supreme court has already said hateful speech is protected. "Fighting words" has a connotation that is very strictly interpreted. Likely far more strictly than whatever you're thinking right now. Also the "fire in a crowded theatre" supreme court decision was overturned by a later court, it isn't even an accurate claim any longer. If they dont have proof that it will incite imminent lawlessness in others (meaning you did it, and it actually incited lawlessness) its protected.
Supreme court has already said hateful speech is protected. "Fighting words" has a connotation that is very strictly interpreted. Likely far more strictly than whatever you're thinking right now. Also the "fire in a crowded theatre" supreme court decision was overturned by a later court, it isn't even an accurate claim any longer. If they dont have proof that it will incite imminent lawlessness in others (meaning you did it, and it actually incited lawlessness) its protected.Again, we already have limits on free speech. Fraudulent claims, knowingly or not, that harm others can and will get you in trouble. It's not legal to call in a fake bomb threat (or a real one, but that's not really about speech).
Insulting someone to aggravate them to fight you is referred to so eloquently as "fighting words" in the US legal system and isn't allowed either. If you pester someone purposely and willfully to get them to start a fist fight with you, both of you are at fault, even if they threw the first punch.
The cats out of the bag on speech that isn't allowed and can get you in trouble.
The question isn't, "should we draw a line?"
The question is "where should we draw the line?"
What is the specific value of protecting speech that has long term harms, but no immediate harm? Is someone going to claim that there is specific value to hate speech and we need to have it around? Or is it just a slippery slope argument?
I'm sorry if it was unclear.
I'm aware of these facts. I'm not ignorant of the SC's decisions the past coupe decades. I'm saying that I disagree with them.
I know that hate speech is protected. I'm saying it shouldn't be, because it does meet criteria of causing harm, that harm is just delayed and not immediately visible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes im just saying that the whole line "you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre" canard regarding free speech isn't even accurate and hasn't been since the fifties. And the word Imminent is pretty heavily sprinkled about regarding things like lawlessness and harm where speech is concerned. Your criteria drops that. A justice system that punishes people on maybe harm and maybe lawlessness isn't much different than complete autocracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm leery of government censorship in general, especially since so many censorship targets often have shades of gray, where different viewers may not be completely aware of all the context behind a statement/art/work. For every person who would want to use such censorship as a scalpel, someone else would use it as sledgehammer
If we use the protected groups, take for instance religious groups. There is no shortage of material out there that is offensive to followers of certain religious beliefs. The musical Book of Mormon? Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses? The Last Temptation of Christ?
For race, there is no shortage of fictional works which have not aged well. Someone using a hate speech laws as you have suggested could quite easily argue for a ban on most of the pulp authors whose works inspired Pathfinder, especially H.P. Lovecraft and Robert Howard.
I have no problem with social shaming and economic pressures being put against people who employ hate speech. But I think that hate speech laws pose too great a risk to put into the hands of the government.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rawls's Veil of Ignorance is important to consider in these types of discussions. Of course I would approve of the government having laws to ban hate speech... if I'm the one deciding what is classified as hate speech. Considering it through the Veil of Ignorance though, we can't be certain whose definition of hate speech would be used, or if we would agree with it at all, therefore I think the more just answer is not to attempt to ban hate speech.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes im just saying that the whole line "you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre" canard regarding free speech isn't even accurate and hasn't been since the fifties. And the word Imminent is pretty heavily sprinkled about regarding things like lawlessness and harm where speech is concerned. Your criteria drops that. A justice system that punishes people on maybe harm and maybe lawlessness isn't much different than complete autocracy.Is it? Really?
Many European countries have less absolutist free speech laws than the US does, restricting at least some "hate speech" - bans on Nazi propaganda, most often. They don't seem to have descended into complete autocracy.
As I said above, it may be that the risk of hate speech leading a society into atrocity is higher than the risk of hate speech laws leading to autocracy. We can all name examples of the former happening. Are there examples of the latter?
All that said, I'm not really sure how practical this is. Democrats are in no position to push such laws through and they wouldn't survive challenge anyway.
Yes, it is, really. And we're about to see in america what being ok with laws that maybe pushed the boundaries of what rights it was ok to infringe on while someone we agreed with was in office gets us when its someone we don't agree with.
Incidentally we all know that the "fire in a crowded theatre" supreme court case was actually the supreme court saying it was ok to jail someone for printing flyers saying it was moral to resist conscription right? Resisting conscription may have caused danger to the country therefore inciting people to do it was jailable. So...theres one major example. Schenk vs United States.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No its an example of how people use a misunderstood downright tyrannical act of government to justify further eroding natural rights based off a nice sounding soundbyte.
And the principle behind hate speech laws (hate speech causes harm, maybe not immediately but down the road) is REALLY close to the legal justification of harm used in that decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it a bit humorous someone suggesting that you can't make a slippery slope argument (not all slippery slope arguments are in fact fallacies) and then goes on to say hate speech leads to genocide. Not really a slope there, more like a cliff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take the example you chose Irontruth: Religious groups. Scientology is a church, they consider their sect to be a religion. Is criticizing them, such as saying that their views on mental health have killed people, supposed to land you in prison for hate speech?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I was replying to BNW's claim that we have to allow hate speech lest the government declare political dissent as hate speech.
hate speech is not actual harm. Hate speech is something that can LEAD to harm.
Government control of what's said is... that kinda is actual harm. It can lead to real harm, including the same harm that hate speech laws are supposed to stop.
Plus there's the fact that being for hate speech legislation like europe has will be the political equivalent of breathing cyanide in america. The only demographic that likes that idea has pitiful voter turnout.
An election season of republicans comparing democrats to 1984 with that kind of legislation to point to, and political ads about how Representative bluetiemcdemocratpants hates the constitution is more than i could stomach.
Let's take the example you chose Irontruth: Religious groups. Scientology is a church, they consider their sect to be a religion. Is criticizing them, such as saying that their views on mental health have killed people, supposed to land you in prison for hate speech?
Hi! I won't disrupt the talk about how important the "legal threats, incitement, libel and harassment" interpretation of the first amendment is to our freedom, but I just thought I'd say: Oregon has specific laws saying you can't use religion as an excuse for denying your kid the treatment they need. Religious discrimination? Obviously not. You don't get to use your religion to justify letting a child die. Even the more extreme religions usually allow exceptions for children in the case of near-death, sort of like how Jewish people can eat non-kosher food if they're starving to death.
When your religion mandates harm through action or inaction, speaking out against that aspect of the religion is not hatespeech anymore than saying "I think racism is bad" is. Let's not muddy the waters with that particular facet.
I actually think that criticizing religion is fine, as long as you don't attack the people practicing it. "This religion is a scam" = okay. "This religion is a lie" = okay. "This religion is practiced by traitors who want to kill us"/"People who practice this religion are part of an evil conspiracy to make us lose the war" = not okay. That's where criticism turns into flat-out hatespeech. It's not actually that hard a distinction to make, regardless of what the snowboarders claim.
hate speech is not actual harm. Hate speech is something that can LEAD to harm.
BNW, you're a progressive guy and you know the score. We all know hate speech does a whole lot of harm to those targeted by it, even beyond the constant incitements to violence and the implicit threat that all hatespeech carries.
Also how are people going to feel when states like alabama and kansas use the legal philosophy behind it to crack down on things like BLM, or Antifa, or "blm" and "antifa" based on the clear danger of civil unrest.
Historically thats where curbs on speech have been applied most ferociously, Lincoln and habeas corpus, jackson and mail tampering, schenk vs U.S. You going to be comfortable with that legal precedent with a Trump in office?
That at least one state of fifty has laws that specifically protect children from religious parents letting them die should not be comforting to you, KC. If nothing else, that fact shows such a law is necessary. Do ALL states have such laws? Likewise, that MOST religions allow exceptions to their rules in life or death situations is not good enough. There are enough examples of religions that do not. Scientology and mental health is a famous one, Jehova's witnesses and blood transfusion is another.
Second, what about criticizing people who are doing bad things specifically because they are religious? People who murder obstetricians comes to mind. It is utterly clear that those cases have been motivated by religious fanaticism, i.e. without those religions, those people would not have done the deed. Is it okay to say "So-and-so is a fanatic murderer, his congregation should have reported him"?
Third, what about people with an official role in a church, with responsibility and power in the organization? Say, covering up child molestation on a grand scale, by people who had the opportunity to do those things because they were in a church hierarchy? It is so easy to conflate faith (which is each person's individual sense of the divine), and religion (which is the organizational entity) - but it is also enormously dangerous. So, is it okay to say "church so-and-so is a monstrous entity because its leadership allows its ministers to molest children and helps them cover it up"?
Also how are people going to feel when states like alabama and kansas use the legal philosophy behind it to crack down on things like BLM, or Antifa, or "blm" and "antifa" based on the clear danger of civil unrest.
Historically thats where curbs on speech have been applied most ferociously, Lincoln and habeas corpus, jackson and mail tampering, schenk vs U.S. You going to be comfortable with that legal precedent with a Trump in office?
Minnesota anti-protesting law HB 322 proposed this session.
North Dakota's version, but it includes allowing people to run protestors over.
Washington, Michigan and Iowa are all considering variations on the theme. Especially any bill that targets people who block roads are specifically targeting BLM, since blocking traffic has become a common protest tactic.
Hate speech is protected, yet law makers are targeting these people in order to silence them. Your argument that if hate speech weren't protected, it might lead to governments targeting these groups for silencing seems a little bunk.
Oddly enough, aspects of racist speech common throughout US history are present when lawmakers describe why they need to implement these bills.
Your slippery slope argument is false and demonstrably so given current events. Right now we have protected hate speech AND these minority groups being targeted. Almost like there's some sort of correlation between the two.
|
More than hate speech I think we need to figure out what to do about false speech. In theory this should be covered by fraud, defamation, and libel laws... but the reality is that people usually not only face no consequences for spreading lies... they can become celebrities (or presidents) based on their willingness to do so.
Indeed, without fabrication most hate speech becomes just, 'I hate that group and you should too'. It is the lies told about other groups (e.g. 'they are rapists', cf. Trump and/or Roof) which are really damaging.
Misinformation is a cancer on democracy... it turns the institution against itself, causing portions of the populace to follow fiction based agendas while the country withers in reality.
Without a definition of truth, trying to do anything about false speech is an exercise in futility. So what definition of truth would you suggest, CBD?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also how are people going to feel when states like alabama and kansas use the legal philosophy behind it to crack down on things like BLM, or Antifa, or "blm" and "antifa" based on the clear danger of civil unrest.
Historically thats where curbs on speech have been applied most ferociously, Lincoln and habeas corpus, jackson and mail tampering, schenk vs U.S. You going to be comfortable with that legal precedent with a Trump in office?
Minnesota anti-protesting law HB 322 proposed this session.
North Dakota's version, but it includes allowing people to run protestors over.
Washington, Michigan and Iowa are all considering variations on the theme. Especially any bill that targets people who block roads are specifically targeting BLM, since blocking traffic has become a common protest tactic.
Hate speech is protected, yet law makers are targeting these people in order to silence them. Your argument that if hate speech weren't protected, it might lead to governments targeting these groups for silencing seems a little bunk.
Oddly enough, aspects of racist speech common throughout US history are present when lawmakers describe why they need to implement these bills.
Your slippery slope argument is false and demonstrably so given current events. Right now we have protected hate speech AND these minority groups being targeted. Almost like there's some sort of correlation between the two.
And these are failing. They're proposing them, and they aren't actually getting passed, they're just getting in the news.
Once a hate speech law gets put on the books its easy enough to define hate speech how whoever is in control of the legislature wants it defined.
Edit: in fact if that isnt a blatant warning that restrictions on speech will be twisted to target those groups I don't know what is. Don't hand people the stick they're going to beat you with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without a definition of truth, trying to do anything about false speech is an exercise in futility. So what definition of truth would you suggest, CBD?
There are already lawsuits about falsehoods. Some laws differentiate between intentional and unintentional falsehoods, with differing consequences. Journalists get sued (and sometimes lose) for printing false information. Typically all they have to do to avoid being sued is offer a correction, ie. give the truth once they're confronted with it.
Also how are people going to feel when states like alabama and kansas use the legal philosophy behind it to crack down on things like BLM, or Antifa, or "blm" and "antifa" based on the clear danger of civil unrest.
Historically thats where curbs on speech have been applied most ferociously, Lincoln and habeas corpus, jackson and mail tampering, schenk vs U.S. You going to be comfortable with that legal precedent with a Trump in office?
Minnesota anti-protesting law HB 322 proposed this session.
North Dakota's version, but it includes allowing people to run protestors over.
Washington, Michigan and Iowa are all considering variations on the theme. Especially any bill that targets people who block roads are specifically targeting BLM, since blocking traffic has become a common protest tactic.
Hate speech is protected, yet law makers are targeting these people in order to silence them. Your argument that if hate speech weren't protected, it might lead to governments targeting these groups for silencing seems a little bunk.
Oddly enough, aspects of racist speech common throughout US history are present when lawmakers describe why they need to implement these bills.
Your slippery slope argument is false and demonstrably so given current events. Right now we have protected hate speech AND these minority groups being targeted. Almost like there's some sort of correlation between the two.
And these are failing. They're proposing them, and they aren't actually getting passed, they're just getting in the news.
Once a hate speech law gets put on the books its easy enough to define hate speech how whoever is in control of the legislature wants it defined.
Edit: in fact if that isnt a blatant warning that restrictions...
Again, your claiming a slippery slope. I'm pointing at the fact that things are going down the slope you claim to predict, but we haven't made the change. Therefore, your argument that this change would predicate that slope is false.
Your argument is that the government would engage in worse behavior if we stopped allowing hate speech, but right now the government is engaging in behavior influenced by that hate speech.
A corrupt government will always abuse people. Not tolerating hate speech as a society makes it harder for corrupt officials to normalize their atrocious behavior.
Would it also be criminal to claim that something is false when it isn't?
Do you know what perjury is?
Oh yes. Providing false information under oath, in official proceedings. Why?
Does the fact that perjury exists mean that it is illegal to lie at all times?
I'm saying there is no slope slippery or otherwise, they wont have to take a single step outside whatever legislation is proposed in order to use it to bludgeon political opponents into submission and its effectiveness will almost universally depend on location in the country.
I'm sure you can provide examples where countries had perfectly fine governments that weren't corrupt, but got a hold of anti-hate speech laws and turned bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a big really nice post and it got lost. So let me rephrase:
All aspects of government are inherently abusable—education, law enforcement, even mail delivery. That's why we have fair and accountable elections. It's why we have checks and balances. Moreover, we already impose limits on freedom of speech—incitement to commit crimes, threats, libel, etc. Frankly, America is pathetically behind the times with what few limitations we have. Many parts of Europe have more regulations on speech, and they aren't police states, so can we please drop the utterly blatant slippery slope arguments?
Of course there's risk. Government is risky. You're dealing with a lot of power, and in the wrong tiny orange hands, disaster can ensue. That doesn't mean government is an inherent slippery slope we need to abolish.
There will always be risk. But, y'know, there's also a s#&*ton of risk in allowing Nazis to hold public marches calling for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing. Go ask Canada. F$#!, go ask Germany.
I'm sure you can provide examples where countries had perfectly fine governments that weren't corrupt, but got a hold of anti-hate speech laws and turned bad.
Your stance is that we have a perfectly fine government that isn't corrupt? Especially in places like kansas and mississippi, or missouri where they'll get to write their own laws against "hateful and dangerous" speech?
I wrote a big really nice post and it got lost. So let me rephrase:
All aspects of government are inherently abusable—education, law enforcement, even mail delivery. That's why we have fair and accountable elections. It's why we have checks and balances. Moreover, we already impose limits on freedom of speech—incitement to commit crimes, threats, libel, etc. Frankly, America is pathetically behind the times with what few limitations we have. Many parts of Europe have more regulations on speech, and they aren't police states, so can we please drop the utterly blatant slippery slope arguments?
Of course there's risk. Government is risky. You're dealing with a lot of power, and in the wrong tiny orange hands, disaster can ensue. That doesn't mean government is an inherent slippery slope we need to abolish.
There will always be risk. But, y'know, there's also a s&*~ton of risk in allowing Nazis to hold public marches calling for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing. Go ask Canada. F&+@, go ask Germany.
We aren't remotely comparable to nations in europe man.
Good thing we have checks and balances that prevent drastic change from lingering if the overall system rejects it. Putting aside the obvious (and repeatedly ignored) fact that this is all purely theoretical because voters would never support any major free speech reforms one way or another: The majority of voters would oppose a "hatespeech" law that really just broke down to "You can't criticize the president". Moreover, if the Constitutional amendment allowing such major limitations was written specifically to target hatespeech and misinformation, any functioning Supreme Court would be perfectly capable of striking state laws down that abused the amendment beyond its stated intent.
And I will remind you that as long as Kennedy and the left-leaning judges remain on the Court, we do have a functioning Supreme Court. Even if we don't, the kind of voter outrage that would surface at that kind of abuse would catapult the abusers out—possibly even during primaries, since other Republicans would shy away from endorsing the rogue agents' efforts.
Basically, yeah. It's a risk. We've always had risk. But America is actually really good at resisting radical change, and any free speech change would be subject to an insane level of scrutiny and outrage no matter what it said. It's risky, but so is the status quo.
Also, this conversation is actually getting impossible to carry on without both sides just repeatedly screaming "THE VOTERS WOULD NEVER..." in each other's ears, so I recommend we drop it. It's too hypothetical for us. This is a thread about the near future, not a hundred years from now.
I'm sure you can provide examples where countries had perfectly fine governments that weren't corrupt, but got a hold of anti-hate speech laws and turned bad.Your stance is that we have a perfectly fine government that isn't corrupt? Especially in places like kansas and mississippi, or missouri where they'll get to write their own laws against "hateful and dangerous" speech?
My stance is that if the government is corrupt, than the anti-hate speech law is irrelevant, the corrupt government will abuse you regardless.
You're asserting that if given this specific tool the government will abuse us. Even though I haven't actually outlined specifics on it, just that I think the threshold for harm should be moved.
Also, this conversation is actually getting impossible to carry on without both sides just repeatedly screaming "THE VOTERS WOULD NEVER..." in each other's ears, so I recommend we drop it. It's too hypothetical for us. This is a thread about the near future, not a hundred years from now.
Moving forward, we either have to find better ways to combat lies, or we have to use the same tactics they used. I don't think either of us would advocate moving further and further into a realm of fantasy as a good path. That leaves combating lies.
The geek-based events of 2014 (not naming purposely) actually laid out a blueprint for how the election would transpire in 2015-16. A lot of liberals in geek culture dismissed it as internet trolls who would become irrelevant, but the similarities to the alt-right and their impact on the anti-PC blowback is pretty obvious IMO.
Trump beat Clinton by saying b&!~%!%*, and people heard what they wanted to hear. It was all b$$@$%#% though and to some people it's pretty obvious. Do we respond by just saying our own b%@+%&&+? Or do we figure out a better way to cut through it so that people see it for what it is?
Cutting through the lies seems the better path to me, because it also means that it will be easier to hold democratic leaders responsible when they don't follow through on important promises (or when they promise crap).
Back on topic, I've been keeping an eye on the Justice Democrats I posted about earlier. Interestingly, a constant theme from comments on videos related to them is either concern about "SJWs" taking over, or how "Justice" was a bad choice of name because of association with said same. There's also frequent rehash of "corrupt DNC cheated Bernie" and "Hilary would have bombed Russia by now". Discussions about the actual platform are almost non-existent.
Whatever else they might be, I don't think they're the future of the party.
|
|
Without a definition of truth, trying to do anything about false speech is an exercise in futility. So what definition of truth would you suggest, CBD?
US law recognizes several levels of standards of proof for factual claims. I see no reason we could not keep those long settled standards while introducing new laws against speech which cannot meet them.
For example, right now it is difficult to make a case for defamation because you need to prove not only that the information was false... but that the person providing it knew, or should have known, it was false. The more ignorant and/or delusional you can show yourself to be, the better your defense against charges of defamation. Hence the absurd levels of idiocy affected by right wing talk radio hosts. The complainant also has to show that they personally were materially harmed by the false information... which can get abstract when the false speech is about general information rather than a specific person.
What I am saying is that we could largely leave those requirements in place for defamation, but create another category relating ONLY to false speech. As in... if a news source published information later proven to be false in court then, regardless of whether it was also defamatory or not, they would be required to publish equally prominent retractions. Repeated instances of spreading false information could be subject to escalating fines or evidence that the news source was willfully spreading information without concern for its accuracy... potentially making it easier to meet the standard needed for defamation.
In short, I believe there needs to be a mechanism whereby news sources which provide a steady stream of misinformation can be shut down while allowing those that adhere to basic journalistic standards and/or random citizens to not be greatly punished for the occasional mistake.
So, fines for publishing false facts in media. Wouldn't this make the media just ignore facts and state opinions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I am saying is that we could largely leave those requirements in place for defamation, but create another category relating ONLY to false speech. As in... if a news source published information later proven to be false in court then, regardless of whether it was also defamatory or not, they would be required to publish equally prominent retractions. Repeated instances of spreading false information could be subject to escalating fines or evidence that the news source was willfully spreading information without concern for its accuracy... potentially making it easier to meet the standard needed for defamation.
In short, I believe there needs to be a mechanism whereby news sources which provide a steady stream of misinformation can be shut down while allowing those that adhere to basic journalistic standards and/or random citizens to not be greatly punished for the occasional mistake.
The problem here is that the people who would be ultimately making the call on what is "true" or not, may themselves not be informed. This again has been the problem over and over with censorship. In theory such a law would be useful, but just look at how Trump has taken the term "fake news" and applied it to anything he disagreed with.
Really...putting a halt to "fake news" has to come from civil lawsuits and self policing of companies that provide platforms for this nonsense. Expecting government, especially a government that is largely dominated by politicians who have been helped by fake news, to get aboard on these sort of measures is just not realistic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, you're a progressive guy and you know the score. We all know hate speech does a whole lot of harm to those targeted by it
I get real conservative real quick when it comes to feelings. Same with using the power of the state against anyone.
even beyond the constant incitements to violence and the implicit threat that all hatespeech carries.
That's a pretty fuzzy line to cross.
If you have a government office of hate speech, the subjective nature of hate speech makes it incredibly easy for that office to be turned on anyone they don't like, ie, fake news. There might be governments you could trust to only use that power judiciously, mine isn't one of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At any rate this whole hate speech thing seems very topical for me, as I just watched a series of documentaries on the "Video Nasties" ban that was enforced in the UK in the 80's and 90's.
The goal was to keep "violent and sadistic" movies out of the hands of children, and led to widespread banning or extreme editing of various horror movies and similar topics. At one point it got even so extreme that there were serious calls to ban all 18+ movies in total (at the time this was proposed this would have included such films as Schindler's List).
Of course...all of this was done with only subjective criteria and vague thoughts on how it could harm children, which meant complete ban on films like the Exorcist (Because kids would want to see it since it had a child actor), and heavy censorship of any movie with throwing stars or Nunchuks (yes...including TMNT movies), for fear kids would hurt themselves imitating things. It ultimately was seen as so subjective that for the most part the ban fell apart in 1999.