Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Hate Speech Legal?

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 154 posts

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#31

Post by majormajor »

wonderwonder wrote: post #24
majormajor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk about how categories that "seem like sensible" ones get "spun around" too much for politics. So are you promoting no restrictions whatsoever ? How close to violence do you want to allow? How allowable is a specific threat before it is actionable? How much intimidation is allowed to influence "free" action in your mind in the name of preserving "free speech" before it has too high a cost of preventing "free a…

In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.

Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures?

I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control.

And if that's what the people want, that's fine.

But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue against "free speech absolutism" from. Would we then change our mind later, or put different regulations in place? Quite likely! But that's perfectly fine. The only way to not change is to die.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#32

Post by verisimi »

mbgerring wrote: post #4

Hate speech is not legal in many jurisdictions and it is perfectly possible to create a stable statutory definition of hate speech. See, for example, Germany: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

That 'hate speech' is not legal (or illegal) everywhere, in itself goes to show how poor the law is in reflecting the moral perspective. If law had anything to do with right or wrong, it would be the same everywhere, and would have been so from the beginning. Right and wrong haven't changed.

The real question imo is:

Is hate speech immoral?

The answer, imo, is no in most cases. If you are not harming another, there is nothing 'bad' occurring. (There will be exceptions to this.) Just like you ought to be free to indulge your vices (and you are free to choose to harm yourself if you like), you should also be able to say what you like. Words might be unpleasant, but they are not actually harmful.

If there are physical consequences to your behaviour, it is the consequences that are 'bad'. Eg, if you insult some group, and someone hears you and consequently physically harms someone in that group, the immoral act that has occurred is the violence that was inflicted, nor the initial words.

It's really pretty simple.

But no, the law does not (and cannot) reflect the moral reasoning.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#33

Post by ohCh6zos »

akerl_ wrote: post #27
wonderwonder wrote: post #3

All speech must be legal short of threats,fraud, etc. If one administration is given the power to outlaw speech you don't like, you may not like it when the next administration you didn't vote for does the same. Everyone should have the right to say what they want free of government repercussions. I would even go so far as to say what someone says and does on their free time is their business and not their employers…

Employers (unless you work for the government) are not bound by the first amendment, and can fire you or penalize you for expression outside of the workplace.

It seems like that is an oversight we should fix.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#34

Post by voxic11 »

mbgerring wrote: post #4

Hate speech is not legal in many jurisdictions and it is perfectly possible to create a stable statutory definition of hate speech. See, for example, Germany: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

I notice that definition doesn't include inciting hatred towards people because of their gender or sexual orientation. I think that kind of shows the limitations of these laws, you can't ban hate speech against any group because there are many groups that seem to "deserve" it. So instead you have to explicitly list out the groups which don't deserve it. This picking and choosing of specially protected groups can get pretty ugly, like in the USA the hate crime laws have been expended to include law enforcement as a protected group.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#36

Post by wonderwonder »

akerl_ wrote: post #27
wonderwonder wrote: post #3

All speech must be legal short of threats,fraud, etc. If one administration is given the power to outlaw speech you don't like, you may not like it when the next administration you didn't vote for does the same. Everyone should have the right to say what they want free of government repercussions. I would even go so far as to say what someone says and does on their free time is their business and not their employers…

Employers (unless you work for the government) are not bound by the first amendment, and can fire you or penalize you for expression outside of the workplace.

Right, I realize that, that's why I said we should go further. All of the amendments are about individuals relationship with the government.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#37

Post by wonderwonder »

majormajor wrote: post #31
wonderwonder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.

Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control. And if that's what the people want, that's fine. But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue ag…

I think so, all of the items you mentioned are illegal and punished by the law. Laws can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, not really sure what you are advocating for.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#38

Post by toast0 »

majormajor wrote: post #16
version_five wrote: post #11

Banning “hate speech” without restricting political speech is prohibitively difficult because of the target’s inherent subjectivity. That's the crux right. As soon as you decide that a certain kind of speech is "illegal", the goalposts shift to convincing others that speech you don't agree with falls in the illegal category. Even what seem like sensible categories like inciting to violence immediately get spun around…

You talk about how categories that "seem like sensible" ones get "spun around" too much for politics. So are you promoting no restrictions whatsoever ? How close to violence do you want to allow? How allowable is a specific threat before it is actionable? How much intimidation is allowed to influence "free" action in your mind in the name of preserving "free speech" before it has too high a cost of preventing "free a…

> We cannot be so paranoid about potential future government harms to us that we overlook the immediate dangers of current and ongoing harms done person-to-person.

We don't need to look at potential future government harms, we only need to look at past actual governments. If my past government has taken it on themselves to illegally and irresponsibly repress speech, and I believe they did, why would I want to give current governments the power to legally repress speech? The government is formed in the same structure, and is likely to repeat the same mistakes, and frankly is likely to illegally repress speech again in the future, but I'd at least like to have the courts to fall back on (although even that isn't always enough)

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#39

Post by majormajor »

kashkhan wrote: post #18
version_five wrote: post #11

Banning “hate speech” without restricting political speech is prohibitively difficult because of the target’s inherent subjectivity. That's the crux right. As soon as you decide that a certain kind of speech is "illegal", the goalposts shift to convincing others that speech you don't agree with falls in the illegal category. Even what seem like sensible categories like inciting to violence immediately get spun around…

Social discouragement is often more effective than legal. The 'n' word is mostly stopped by social means.

The recent "pro-free speech" crusades are explicitly targeting the rights of private individuals to have non-legal recourse, such as the ability of social media platforms to have editorial control over their platforms. So... fight back against that if you want to still have the right to push back in the future.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#40

Post by wonderwonder »

dbrueck wrote: post #30
wonderwonder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.

Slight correction: the baker refused to bake a cake celebrating a gay marriage (i.e. the refusal was not about who was asking for it but what was being asked for).

Yes, you are right. If I remember correctly he did offer to sell them a premade generic cake, he just did not want to create a custom one for the wedding. My memory may be faded though.
Post reply on HN