NationStates Jolt Archive

In almost all Western countries, hatespeech laws have been cropping up over the past couple of decades. The British Parliament tried to pass a Religious Hatred bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006) that would have applied very vague prohibitions on doing something which no one was quite sure of the meaning of. France fined Bridgitte Bardot (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_5_06_JL.html) for "insulting Islam" (which seems to me something you'd find Pakistan doing). But then a lot of people would say that there are positive sides to hatespeech laws, like prosecuting dangerous people who might rabble-rouse.

I feel that it should be legal to say anything - or insult anything - as long as it's not an actual incitement to violence. Mohammed cartoons? Do it. Piss Christ? Yep. Ethnic nationalist publications? All good. Calling for the shooting of Muslims? No, not good at all.

Which is why I agree with Nick Griffin on his assertion that his failed conviction was a "victory for free speech", and disagree with Gordon Brown's proposed tightening of free speech laws to protect against views that might offend "mainstream opinion". Since when does mainstream opinion need protecting?

I wonder if politicians in western nations would be willing to pass a law that "incites hatred" against people of different political backgrounds.

Should saying "I fucking hate black people" carry more legal consequences than saying "I fucking hate communists"?

I think neither should carry any legal consequences. Especially when they can lead to ridiculous situations like that Lonny Rae guy.

If a person is not making an active call to violence, I don't think the speech should be illegal. It may be reprehensible, but it shouldn't be illegal.

I can't believe such a law would even crop up among such a modern age by such "liberal" people.

One would think freedom of speech should trump everything else as long as the speech isn't calling for actual violence. Anything else would just be that disgusting policy known as censorship.

I can't believe such a law would even crop up among such a modern age by such "liberal" people.

Labour haven't been liberal in a long time

The First Ammendement in the US doesn't protect the following: Defamation/Libel, Causing panic, Fighting words, Incitement to crime, Sedition, Obscenity.

I think they are pretty reasonable limitations.

I'd be very unhappy if hatespeech laws were enacted in the US. Censorship is dangerous.

Inherently idiotic laws that where snuck in when no one was looking

We already have laws that stop you from ranting about whatever the government doesn’t like in front of the said people (since it tends to be threatening) however what this does is give the government a free hand to arrest whoever they damn well please

Consequently when does the revolt begin?

We can't have a revolt. We don't have guns. You need guns to start a revolt, just ask Roger Casement.

So do you think BNP members should be allowed to be policemen?

I feel that it should be legal to say anything - or insult anything - as long as it's not an actual incitement to violence.

I disagree. When one claims that one is stating facts I believe it reasonable to demand that they show their backing, or can be forced to shut up.

So - anyone stating that all purple people are inferior to the green will need to present studies showing that.

To make it extra clear:
If they can back up their statements, they should be allowed to make them. Regardless of the feelings their claims may hurt. But if they are just talking gibberish and lies ... byebye.

I estimate this will stop most racism, as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;)

I disagree. When one claims that one is stating facts I believe it reasonable to demand that they show their backing, or can be forced to shut up.

So - anyone stating that all purple people are inferior to the green will need to present studies showing that.

To make it extra clear:
If they can back up their statements, they should be allowed to make them. Regardless of the feelings their claims may hurt. But if they are just talking gibberish and lies ... byebye.

I estimate this will stop most racism, as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;)

So you are against freedom of speech? Are you sure you're not talking about indoctination by teachers? Thats a different matter.

I disagree. When one claims that one is stating facts I believe it reasonable to demand that they show their backing, or can be forced to shut up.

So - anyone stating that all purple people are inferior to the green will need to present studies showing that.

To make it extra clear:
If they can back up their statements, they should be allowed to make them. Regardless of the feelings their claims may hurt. But if they are just talking gibberish and lies ... byebye.

I estimate this will stop most racism, as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;)

So if me and some guy are having a talk in a bar and he says something that can't be backed up with studies. I can have him arrested?

I estimate this will stop most racism, as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;) So… you're for Philip Rushton, but against David Duke?

I disagree. When one claims that one is stating facts I believe it reasonable to demand that they show their backing, or can be forced to shut up.

So - anyone stating that all purple people are inferior to the green will need to present studies showing that.

To make it extra clear:
If they can back up their statements, they should be allowed to make them. Regardless of the feelings their claims may hurt. But if they are just talking gibberish and lies ... byebye.

I estimate this will stop most racism, as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;)

If it falls into the catagory of defamation, I'd agree with you.

However, everyone has the right to voice their opinion. Banning racist statements just buries the problem, it really doesn't solve anything. Education will end racism, not supresison.

In almost all Western countries, hatespeech laws have been cropping up over the past couple of decades. The British Parliament tried to pass a Religious Hatred bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006) that would have applied very vague prohibitions on doing something which no one was quite sure of the meaning of. France fined Bridgitte Bardot (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_5_06_JL.html) for "insulting Islam" (which seems to me something you'd find Pakistan doing). But then a lot of people would say that there are positive sides to hatespeech laws, like prosecuting dangerous people who might rabble-rouse.

I feel that it should be legal to say anything - or insult anything - as long as it's not an actual incitement to violence. Mohammed cartoons? Do it. Piss Christ? Yep. Ethnic nationalist publications? All good. Calling for the shooting of Muslims? No, not good at all.

Which is why I agree with Nick Griffin on his assertion that his failed conviction was a "victory for free speech", and disagree with Gordon Brown's proposed tightening of free speech laws to protect against views that might offend "mainstream opinion". Since when does mainstream opinion need protecting?
Most of these laws end up alienating communities anyway, and should be scrapped.

However, everyone has the right to voice their opinion. Banning racist statements just buries the problem, it really doesn't solve anything. Education will end racism, not supresison.

I am not asking to ban racist utterings. As I said: if you can convincingly back up your claim that all the purpleskinned people are repulsive and inferior to the greens I have no problem with it.

snip

you can skew facts to show anything for example I can say English people hate Muslims and despite the various flaws if you did a poll at a UKIP meeting I’m sure the results would be helpful

I disagree. When one claims that one is stating facts I believe it reasonable to demand that they show their backing, or can be forced to shut up.

So - anyone stating that all purple people are inferior to the green will need to present studies showing that.

To make it extra clear:
If they can back up their statements, they should be allowed to make them. Regardless of the feelings their claims may hurt. But if they are just talking gibberish and lies ... byebye.

I estimate this will stop most racism, as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;)

I think Voltaire said it best: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

I much prefer a society where people can say pretty much anything they want even if it is racist or down right ludicris than a society that only allows speech that is "factual". The problem in a society like that is it would be too easy to stifle new ideas since it would be hard to prove them to be true.

I do not agree on anything but the most fundamental of limitations on speech (such as not yelling fire in a crowd)

I think Voltaire said it best: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

Voltaire did not say that ;) The phrase is from "the friends of Voltaire".

I much prefer a society where people can say pretty much anything they want even if it is racist or down right ludicris than a society that only allows speech that is "factual". The problem in a society like that is it would be too easy to stifle new ideas since it would be hard to prove them to be true.

You would still be allowed to say it - you are just not allowed to pretend it is fact or proven beyond reasonable doubt.
A guy saying "it is my opinion that all purpleskins are foul and should be slaughtered" - fine.
A guy saying "it is a fact that all purpleskins are foul and should be slaughtered" - not without proof.

So if me and some guy are having a talk in a bar and he says something that can't be backed up with studies. I can have him arrested?

Apparently.

We live in a world run by gossip and also hate speech. No way to get around that. But everyone has the freedom to say it. People just need to live with that instead of choosing what is "appropriate" for people to say in public.

I do not agree on anything but the most fundamental of limitations on speech (such as not yelling fire in a crowd)

why such limitations if you yell fire all the time odds are someone will get pissed off and hurt you thus the system controls itself without the need for hiring someone to hurt you

Apparently.

Nope ;)

We live in a world run by gossip and also hate speech. No way to get around that. But everyone has the freedom to say it.

Fully agreed. But that does not conflict with my proposal ;)

Nope ;)



Fully agreed. But that does not conflict with my proposal ;)

Didn't you propose that the gossip and hate speech would have to have a foundation of proof? That you can't say anything that can be viewed as offensive without evidence? How does this not conflict?

It's religion which should be banned and treated, not hate speech.

Didn't you propose that the gossip and hate speech would have to have a foundation of proof? That you can't say anything that can be viewed as offensive without evidence? How does this not conflict?

See my earlier post. And I most empatically do NOT care if statements are offensive or not. Everything can be offensive after all.

Of course, "hate speech" doesn't apply to animals like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=&v=8E4rMJVHyeg

Voltaire did not say that ;) The phrase is from "the friends of Voltaire".


But I looked it up on the Internet. The Internet can be wrong? :eek:

But seriously, the problem with your idea is that who decides what is fact? Certain government leaders could use that to stop criticism of their policies. ("There really are WMDs in Iraq and that is a fact. So all you liberal news organizations have to stop saying otherwise!")

See my earlier post. And I most empatically do NOT care if statements are offensive or not. Everything can be offensive after all.

It's not like we can stop people from lying or just being a blowhard who don't even know what the hell they are talking about. Still can't stop them from doing it though. Might as well try to outlaw stupidity.

If i was to say, Aliens exist: Fact. Should I be arrested because I cannot proove this?

Of course, "hate speech" doesn't apply to animals like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=&v=8E4rMJVHyeg

youtubers?

Education will end racism, not supresison. I would start a debate with you about this, but I might get arrested. ;)

If a person is not making an active call to violence, I don't think the speech should be illegal. It may be reprehensible, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Agreed.

With that said, however, I also think that part of every Freshman Civics class should be a lesson about how "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "you get to say whatever the fuck you want with no consequences whatsoever."

Lesson 1: If you say something asshole-ish, it is not a violation of your rights when other people say, "Shut up, asshole."

I'm so goddam sick of people whining because they think that their freedom of speech means that nobody ever gets to criticize them or have opinions about what they say. :P

I have no objection to them in principle, but the precedent they set is too dangerous.

things like
"I hate blacks." or even N word should have no legal consequences.

things like
"Ni****s are animals, so its ok to shoot them, steal from them and hurt them, and rape their women." SHOULD have consequences.

If you are expressing personal hatred, its your right. Hell I hate mcdonalds people myself. Especially since I worked there.

But if you are calling for acctually doing them harm then you are out of free speech area and into incitement to crime.

I am not asking to ban racist utterings. As I said: if you can convincingly back up your claim that all the purpleskinned people are repulsive and inferior to the greens I have no problem with it.

It ceases to be racist when it becomes fact. It's not racist to say more African Americans have heart attacks that white people.

Banning racist utterings puts a bandaid on the problem. It doesn't change people's thought process.

Keeping racist speech legal also has its advantages. It makes racists easier to identify. It can help identify problems that can be fixed before racist speech becomes racist actions.

If i was to say, Aliens exist: Fact. Should I be arrested because I cannot proove this?

Nope. But you could be asked to share your backing or the reasoning behind your statement with the nation. No backing should require you to publically admit you were just expressing an opinion or a belief.

Have that done to important figures often enough and the liars and senseless hatemongerers will lose credibility quickly, while the ones who may have a point - no matter how hard to swallow that point is - will gain it. And in the process the people will learn the value of critical thinking skills.

youtubers?

No, Islamic extremists.

Nope. But you could be asked to share your backing or the reasoning behind your statement with the nation. No backing should require you to publically admit you were just expressing an opinion or a belief.


And if I refuse/ fail?

There is no reason to outlaw any speech, regardless of how stupid or bigoted it is.

Nope. But you could be asked to share your backing or the reasoning behind your statement with the nation. No backing should require you to publically admit you were just expressing an opinion or a belief.

Have that done to important figures often enough and the liars and senseless hatemongerers will lose credibility quickly, while the ones who may have a point - no matter how hard to swallow that point is - will gain it. And in the process the people will learn the value of critical thinking skills.

Like I said previously we can't get rid of stupidity and only the idiots will listen to the hatemongers in the first place. Regardless, we still can't force people to offer proof even if they claim their spiel is a fact. It is still protected under freedom of speech.

Nope. But you could be asked to share your backing or the reasoning behind your statement with the nation. No backing should require you to publically admit you were just expressing an opinion or a belief.

Have that done to important figures often enough and the liars and senseless hatemongerers will lose credibility quickly, while the ones who may have a point - no matter how hard to swallow that point is - will gain it. And in the process the people will learn the value of critical thinking skills.

You can design a study to prove anything. For example:
Professor Smith, of Cambridge University, has submitted a systematic review of parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge. He found that there was no experimental, evidence based support for their use. (Smith & Pell, British Medical Journal 2003;327:1459-1461). (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1459)

So that means I have caveat to tell every skydiver they're an idiot if they jump out of a plane wearing a parachute?

as well as attempts to pretend creationism is science ;)

I didn't know that many theists even considered creationism a science.

I wonder if politicians in western nations would be willing to pass a law that "incites hatred" against people of different political backgrounds.

Should saying "I fucking hate black people" carry more legal consequences than saying "I fucking hate communists"?

Yes, because one chooses to be a communist or chooses to be of any "background" politically. One doesn't choose to be born.

Yes, because one chooses to be a communist or chooses to be of any "background" politically. One doesn't choose to be born.

Then where does that leave homosexuals? Some people believe that's a choice.

Then where does that leave homosexuals? Some people believe that's a choice.

The question is still up for them, but it isn't for political and racial backgrounds.

Frankly, they can suck my big hairy schlong.

Surely, if bigotry, racism and discrimination is as bereft of allure and illogical as is contended, its own shortcomings ought to defeat it.

I think neither should carry any legal consequences. Especially when they can lead to ridiculous situations like that Lonny Rae guy.

Who?

Yes, because one chooses to be a communist or chooses to be of any "background" politically. One doesn't choose to be born.

So extreme hatred should be punished in only certain circumstances.