Should the United States Implement Hate Speech Laws?

[The Alexanderians]

That's what I've seen called for more often than not in these arguments. Vague and ambiguous. For instance I saw someone propose "Any speech that offends, inflames violence, commands others to spread hate speech or harm, or alienates another group".

I think that's actually the basic definition of hate speech in one country, but don't take my word for it.

Still, while hate speech laws can be abused, and there have been abuses, it doesn't seem like the sort of widespread problem that would justify, at least in my opinion, not having them at all.

Unless you are willfully and maliciously spreading lies about someone, or inciting violence, you should have the right to say or write anything you want, no matter how stupid.

What if that someone you are willfully and maliciously spreading lies about is a whole, clearly defined group of people?

That basically just makes any religious gathering such as Mass or Liturgy or any other one that says something to the effect of "only x group is the true believers etc etc" hate speech because it alienates a group of people. Not to mention lawyers and politicians make a living off of twisting words around, my original point would be with the right maneuvering you could potentially convince someone anything is hate speech.
A completely exaggerated example but one that gives you an idea of what I mean:

[Liriena]

What if that someone you are willfully and maliciously spreading lies about is a whole, clearly defined group of people?

I don't recall that slander and libel extended to vaguely defined masses. It is, and should entirely be a matter of individuals.

No argument there. I'm talking about willfully and maliciously spreading lies about a whole, clearly defined group of people. Disregarding what name you would give to that act, do you believe it should be penalized?

Let's say a person, willfully and with demonstrably malicious intent, published a pseudo-scientific book that claimed that us LGBT+ folk are inhuman, dumber than dogs, and should be treated like mentally incapable individuals, hospitalized for life and subjected to dangerous treatment. Let's say that person made the book circulate and promoted it as legitimate science.

In that case scenario, do you believe that the author of that book should not be penalized? That those who used that book and its claims on a public forum should not be penalized? Not even with a fine?

You don't defeat ignorance and bigotry by burying it, you do so by debunking it.

I am not arguing for censorship. I am not arguing for the government taking a bigot's microphone away before they even say something hateful. I am arguing for that person to be penalized if what they finally said could, in a court of law, be determined to be willfully and maliciously misleading the public for the purposes of encouraging human rights violations against an entire community.

I am not arguing for locking Marine Le Pen up because she hates open borders. I am arguing for penalizing Scott Lively for his efforts in radicalizing the already overwhelmingly anti-LGBT+ population of Uganda. I am arguing for penalizing the pastor who celebrated the Orlando massacre and wished there had been more dead. I am arguing for penalizing any imam who disparages Jews and encourages marital rape. I am arguing for penalizing the extremists who advocate for castrating all men in the world.

[Koninkrijk Zeeland]

No because the usa has freedom of speech.

[Greater Ziegenian Reich]

Supporting freedom, democracy, progressivism, and tolerance does not preclude supporting the penalization of harmful or dangerous forms of speech (such as defamation, intimidation and hate speech). I do not aim to "basically reduce and remove criticism" against my ideals. I believe that certain forms of expression must be deterred. Namely, expressions such as falsely and maliciously saying "x private citizen assaulted a toddler", threatening someone with death, encouraging others to commit a crime, and inciting hatred (and violent hatred in particular) against a group.

I am not advocating for you to be sent to jail for saying "I oppose progressivism". I am supporting you being penalized, if only with a small fine, if you happened to go around trying to rally people for an anti-LGBT+ hate crime, for instance. I am supporting you being penalized if you went on television and spent half an hour telling the millions of viewers that "black people are inhuman and should be treated like dogs".

So, if I go on a news television and I'm asked to elaborate on a view of mine and they happened to be "I don't like group X because I believe their [liars/thieves/backstabbers/etc] and should be kicked out (or something)" then I will get penalized? So now I'm going to be fucking penalized because I voice a "harmful" opinion? What fucking horsefuckery is this?

Who gets to sit around and determine what is the harmful and dangerous from the good and safe? how will this 'committee of speech experts' be chosen?

why is a quasi-fascist supporting the ideas of free speech more than you?

[Liriena]

I think that's actually the basic definition of hate speech in one country, but don't take my word for it.

Still, while hate speech laws can be abused, and there have been abuses, it doesn't seem like the sort of widespread problem that would justify, at least in my opinion, not having them at all.


What if that someone you are willfully and maliciously spreading lies about is a whole, clearly defined group of people?

That basically just makes any religious gathering such as Mass or Liturgy or any other one that says something to the effect of "only x group is the true believers etc etc" hate speech because it alienates a group of people. Not to mention lawyers and politicians make a living off of twisting words around, my original point would be with the right maneuvering you could potentially convince someone anything is hate speech.
A completely exaggerated example but one that gives you an idea of what I mean:

It's a fair point... but has there been a case that was somewhere in the vicinity of that? Where someone was convicted for hate speech for saying something "only x group is the true believers"?

I mean, at the end of the day, even with super-vague or ambiguous hate speech laws, it would still be in the hands of the judiciary to have the final say on what is and isn't hate speech. And as far as I can tell, the judiciary in countries with hate speech laws has handled itself overwhelmingly well. It could be a problem in countries without an independent judiciary, of course.

[Kanaria]

why not. we're screwed either way, ain't we?

[Liriena]

No because the usa has freedom of speech.

Well, yeah, the United States have freedom of speech... but are you saying countries with hate speech laws like Germany don't? Because Reporters Without Borders rate Germany pretty high in their ranking... and far above the United States.

[New haven america]

Nope.

Censorship will just cause them to become more creative in their tactics.

[Kanaria]

No because the usa has freedom of speech.

Well, yeah, the United States have freedom of speech... but are you saying countries with hate speech laws like Germany don't? Because Reporters Without Borders rate Germany pretty high in their ranking... and far above the United States.

It's a boolean with odd qualifications!

[Liriena]

Supporting freedom, democracy, progressivism, and tolerance does not preclude supporting the penalization of harmful or dangerous forms of speech (such as defamation, intimidation and hate speech). I do not aim to "basically reduce and remove criticism" against my ideals. I believe that certain forms of expression must be deterred. Namely, expressions such as falsely and maliciously saying "x private citizen assaulted a toddler", threatening someone with death, encouraging others to commit a crime, and inciting hatred (and violent hatred in particular) against a group.

I am not advocating for you to be sent to jail for saying "I oppose progressivism". I am supporting you being penalized, if only with a small fine, if you happened to go around trying to rally people for an anti-LGBT+ hate crime, for instance. I am supporting you being penalized if you went on television and spent half an hour telling the millions of viewers that "black people are inhuman and should be treated like dogs".

So, if I go on a news television and I'm asked to elaborate on a view of mine and they happened to be "I don't like group X because I believe their [liars/thieves/backstabbers/etc] and should be kicked out (or something)" then I will get penalized? So now I'm going to be fucking penalized because I voice a "harmful" opinion? What fucking horsefuckery is this?

If you word it like that? Yes, you should be penalized, because you are incurring in hate speech.

Who gets to sit around and determine what is the harmful and dangerous from the good and safe? how will this 'committee of speech experts' be chosen?

Hopefully, the same independent judiciary that, on a regular basis, decides whether people are guilty or not of far more horrible, and far more harshly penalized crimes than hate speech. The same independent judiciary that lets both sides of a case present their own evidence and their own experts, and then makes a ruling based on the available information.

If you trust the judiciary to handle murder, why not hate speech? What are you afraid of?

why is a quasi-fascist supporting the ideas of free speech more than you?

Loaded question.

You are not supporting "the ideas of free speech". You are supporting anomie.
I am supporting not just the ideas of free speech, but also the practices of it. What I am not supporting, however, is consequence-free speech.

[Koninkrijk Zeeland]

No because the usa has freedom of speech.

Well, yeah, the United States have freedom of speech... but are you saying countries with hate speech laws like Germany don't? Because Reporters Without Borders rate Germany pretty high in their ranking... and far above the United States.

No Germany has limited free speech , if you can't say what you like there is no freedom of speech.

[Liriena]

Nope.

Censorship will just cause them to become more creative in their tactics.

Well, yeah, the United States have freedom of speech... but are you saying countries with hate speech laws like Germany don't? Because Reporters Without Borders rate Germany pretty high in their ranking... and far above the United States.

No Germany has limited free speech , if you can't say what you like there is no freedom of speech.

Are you saying that death threats and defamation should be legal, otherwise there is no freedom of speech? Because, if you do, then I'm sorry to inform you that the United States have no freedom of speech either.

Also, your statement is self-contradictory.

[Kanaria]

Well, yeah, the United States have freedom of speech... but are you saying countries with hate speech laws like Germany don't? Because Reporters Without Borders rate Germany pretty high in their ranking... and far above the United States.

No Germany has limited free speech , if you can't say what you like there is no freedom of speech.

Shame. There's a lot I'd like to say in America, but I'd get arrested.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I agree, but definitions of "demonstrably dangerous" differ, and boy, was that overly alliterative on my part. Point is, I know where I draw the line, and that's at threats, incitement to riot, and conspiracy to commit various crimes (though I'm even a bit shaky on that if it doesn't go through). There's a few other similar ones. Where do you draw that line?

I'd stretch the line a bit further to cover the particularly toxic stuff, like people who celebrated the Orlando massacre, or public figures who go on dehumanizing rants (of the "they are biologically inferior" or "lower than animals" variety) about one minority or other, and leave the door slightly ajar for purposefully and maliciously misleading the public against an entire group (such as by spreading pseudo-science with the clear objective of promoting hatred and discriminatory policies) being liable for fines or civil lawsuits.

See, I wouldn't, because they're not putting other people directly in danger. That's where we see a slippery slope effect happening. So you outlaw people celebrating the Orlando massacre. What about celebrating the death of the shooter? What about celebrating the deaths of people you disagree with politically? The deaths of, say, people in a possible terrorist cell who hadn't yet committed a crime?

And okay, I get not wanting people to say that a certain race or ethnicity is inferior. That sort of thing is anathema to me. But again, where do we draw the line? What about standup comedians like Dave Chappelle or Louis CK, both of whom play with racial stereotypes? What about South Park? Can we study, observe, and discuss certain common traits among specific groups, including ones that might be seen as negative? Can we say that single white men are more likely to be mass shooters than black people? Can we talk about why that might be, even if it means having to out-argue racists who try to use this information to justify their horrible beliefs?

More than either of these points, though, what bothers me about this is that it's so counterproductive. The moment that you suppress any idea, any belief system, any speech short of that which directly inspires or causes significant risk of immediate physical harm, you've essentially stated that you do not have an actual argument against that idea, belief, or statement, and must instead resort to silencing those with that belief system. Bad ideas have never in history been beaten by outlawing them and driving them into the darkness. Instead, they have been overcome by dragging them out into the clear light of reason and humanity, exposing them for the shams that they are, and discarding them afterwards.

[The Merchant Republics]

The reality is for the people saying "I don't want to criminalize criticism, just 'hate speech' that is dangerous" is that when you allow for the government to decide whether or not speech is dangerous you hand them a significant deal of power to supress opposition.

Sure what you say now is "you should be allowed to speak against gay marriage, but not against gays themselves because they might self-harm" but when you allow for banning speech on the grounds of potential victims not real victims you have utterly eroded the right to free speech entirely.

Has one single gay person been demonstably harmed for all the talk of the WBC? They are a hate group of a couple hundred members that the entire world hates for their disgusting practices. But they almost certainly have never directly caused anyone harm. You can't ban their speech simply because someone somewhere at sometime might take it to heart and harm themselves or others. Hell should we have banned "Helter Skelter" by the Beatles for inciting race war? Or do we rightfully acknowledge that it was the action and interpretation of a looney that led to Charles Manson's crimes.

People have said "well there are laws against slander, that is comparable." And yes you are right slander laws technically prohibit some forms of speech, the difference is slander and defamation require proof on the part of the plaintiff that harm to their reputation was done and that the claims are disingenous. You see the fundamental difference don't you? The crime is not slander, the crime is the harm the slander has as the court will decide done.

In comparison hate speech has no obvious form of harm, maybe you by your hate speech incite someone to commit a hate crime. It may be arguable that you are responsible for inciting that crime, and in that regard you might and probably should be held accountable, but your crime was inciting violence. The speech itself did no harm.

The dangerous boundary crossed by hate speech laws is that criminalizes the potential of crime rather than actual crime. This is not similar to a credible threat, wherein a person has a reasonable fear for danger at the hands of another person, the harm there is obvious. No one is directly harmed by speech and indirect links are usually tenuous at best.

[Faustin Land]

Absolutely not. I want to know up front who would prefer me dead. Hate speech laws would, among other and even more despicable things, make this impossible.

Not everyone wants people at their loved ones' funerals telling them how horrible they are and how they deserve to die. That's not something most people want to hear. Also, this could encourage someone to actually take people's lives.

I'm a bit late to the party, but that has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church are disturbing the peace in front of a private funeral. The most common way to deal with that is to arrest and fine them.

[Kanaria]

The reality is for the people saying "I don't want to criminalize criticism, just 'hate speech' that is dangerous" is that when you allow for the government to decide whether or not speech is dangerous you hand them a significant deal of power to supress opposition.

Sure what you say now is "you should be allowed to speak against gay marriage, but not against gays themselves because they might self-harm" but when you allow for banning speech on the grounds of potential victims not real victims you have utterly eroded the right to free speech entirely.

Has one single gay person been demonstably harmed for all the talk of the WBC? They are a hate group of a couple hundred members that the entire world hates for their disgusting practices. But they almost certainly have never directly caused anyone harm. You can't ban their speech simply because someone somewhere at sometime might take it to heart and harm themselves or others. Hell should we have banned "Helter Skelter" by the Beatles for inciting race war? Or do we rightfully acknowledge that it was the action and interpretation of a looney that led to Charles Manson's crimes.

People have said "well there are laws against slander, that is comparable." And yes you are right slander laws technically prohibit some forms of speech, the difference is slander and defamation require proof on the part of the plaintiff that harm to their reputation was done and that the claims are disingenous. You see the fundamental difference don't you? The crime is not slander, the crime is the harm the slander has as the court will decide done.

In comparison hate speech has no obvious form of harm, maybe you by your hate speech incite someone to commit a hate crime. It may be arguable that you are responsible for inciting that crime, and in that regard you might and probably should be held accountable, but your crime was inciting violence. The speech itself did no harm.

The dangerous boundary crossed by hate speech laws is that criminalizes the potential of crime rather than actual crime. This is not similar to a credible threat, wherein a person has a reasonable fear for danger at the hands of another person, the harm there is obvious. No one is directly harmed by speech and indirect links are usually tenuous at best.

I like that rebuttal
thumbsup.jpg

[New haven america]

Nope.

Censorship will just cause them to become more creative in their tactics.

No Germany has limited free speech , if you can't say what you like there is no freedom of speech.

Are you saying that death threats and defamation should be legal, otherwise there is no freedom of speech? Because, if you do, then I'm sorry to inform you that the United States have no freedom of speech either.

Also, your statement is self-contradictory.

Are they actually hurting people though?

Sure, the example used in the OP is fucking idiotic and ridiculous, however, they haven't hurt anyone. Censoring them will just make them more hostile, most conservative Christian groups/organizations already believe the left is out to get them, censoring them will only further this belief. Same goes for most other hate groups in the US, they'll just use it as a reason to keep spreading their beliefs.

Does it suck we shouldn't censor them? Yep. However, their numbers are already shrinking, they'll fizzle out eventually.

[Stormwrath]

No, because that would mean regulating a subjective thing.

[Martemos]

Yes, it needs. Primarly for comment senction like in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtCyepuLt8Q

It even got more dislikes than likes.

So, you're saying, because someone dislikes and comments negatively on a youtube video supporting a certain type of people, they should be held lawfully accountable?

[Astarina]

No. Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes the US the best country in the world.

This is coming from an Australian who can be fined/arrested for saying something that offends someone.

Don't follow our legal system, trust me...

[Martemos]

So, you're saying, because someone dislikes and comments negatively on a youtube video supporting a certain type of people, they should be held lawfully accountable?

Yes, hate needs to be stopped where ever is possible.

That would be gutting the first amendment, pulling away civil rights, enforcing what appears to be severe censorship. Anything can ft the definition of hate. I could go and dislike a video posted by a person who comes from some sort of minority, and with your logic, I would be held lawfully accountable for hate speech.

[Dagashi Shojo]

It would not accomplish anything, and might possibly worsen the situation by making people resentful towards minority groups as perceived "protected classes."

[Martemos]

That would be gutting the first amendment, pulling away civil rights, enforcing what appears to be severe censorship. Anything can ft the definition of hate. I could go and dislike a video posted by a person who comes from some sort of minority, and with your logic, I would be held lawfully accountable for hate speech.

If you do this, it will mean you are racist. Sweden should be a rule model for every democratic country.

I never stated what minority I could actually be talking about. Perhaps I could just be on a personal vendetta against people with green eyes. And where did Sweden come into this?

[Gisnegamesh]

Hate speech laws are an infringement on civil liberties; no.