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

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#81

Post by adamredwoods »

scarmig wrote: post #53
croes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Didn't it help that is wasn't unacceptable to call a black person n**r and to call a homosexual f**t? Freedom of expression always goes in both directions. Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression.

> Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?

>> How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?

Fear, threat of property and physical harm.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#82

Post by sofixa »

_cenw wrote: post #77
bacchusracine wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic. But are they really? Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?

Can you claim to be democratic with a two party system, first past the post, gerrymandering, vote suppression... The US really isn't the model country for democratic participation.

Don't forget a law system that allows judges to basically legislate retrospectively because everything is vague and based on interpretations that can and do change - look at Roe v Wade for instance. Coupled with a deification of their Founding Fathers and Constitution and you have a recipe for a massive legal mess nobody can touch.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#83

Post by adamredwoods »

slg wrote: post #50
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…

Do you think this has happened while libel and defamation laws? If not, why are those laws different? I simply don't understand why I could be sued for saying "[individual X] is a pedophile" but it is fine to say "all [race/religion/gender/sexuality Y] individuals are pedophiles" even if that individual X is included in that group Y. Aren't you defaming individual X either way? Why does including other people in your…

Snyder vs Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church)

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

>> Finally, there was no pre-existing relationship between Westboro's speech and Snyder that might suggest that the speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the Phelps and his followers were "speaking" on matters of public concern on public property and thus, were entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#84

Post by adamredwoods »

_cenw wrote: post #77
bacchusracine wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic. But are they really? Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?

Can you claim to be democratic with a two party system, first past the post, gerrymandering, vote suppression... The US really isn't the model country for democratic participation.

Also, Citizens United decision has warped US democratic politics ever since. Essentially opens the flood gates for plutocracy and lobbyists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#85

Post by gmarx »

hvdijk wrote: post #57
oceanplexian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, the German constitution doesn’t guarantee an absolute right to freedom of speech. There is a clause to the effect of “These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws” In the USA, however, freedom of speech is an absolute right. There are some narrow limitations (Libel, Calls to Violence), however the legislature does not have the power to add limits without a constitutional amendment…

The US First Amendment does not say anything about libel or calls to violence. I am not aware of other amendments doing so either. What is the rationale for allowing these limitations on speech that cannot equally be applied to hate speech?

The right to free speech does not protect your right to commit crimes or civilly damage someone merely by speaking as part of the crime or tort. So if you and your friends plan to rob a bank together, the planning, or conspiracy, can be a separate charge in addition to the robbery. Libel is a tort because you lie (important) to damage someone's reputation and this could cost them money.

Hate speech is mostly just hurting peoples feelings. It neither helps cause physical damage nor costs the victims money. You cannot, in the US, ban the expression of a thought just because you think somewhere down the line it could result in damage to someone.

So three guys conspire to burn down a church- that could damage someone. A guy writing on the internet that churches are full of pedos and someone who reads that decides to burn down a church? The guy who burns the church only committed a crime.

There could be grey areas between those two situations and that is for law to decide. But the crime cannot be essentially the thoughts and ideas expressed

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#86

Post by ohCh6zos »

michaelmrose wrote: post #60
ohCh6zos wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should have all of those, but right now we have those asymmetrically depending on your cause.

If I believe that people whose name is ohCh6zos should be made into bacon ought the law force you to employ me or do you think adults should be able to choose who they associate with?

I believe that the existence of protected classes means you do not enjoy the freedom of association you rightfully should, and that either extreme would be preferable to the middle ground where only some expression overrides freedom of association.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#87

Post by yucky »

adamredwoods wrote: post #81
scarmig wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?

>> How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression? Fear, threat of property and physical harm.

So...eat the rich? Seize the means of production? ACAB? Things like that qualify?

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#88

Post by willnonya »

adamredwoods wrote: post #81
scarmig wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?

>> How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression? Fear, threat of property and physical harm.

That is not the same thing though is it. People today fear being socially ostracized or losing a career over crossing an undefined or subjective line.

Neither of these fears are the same as actually preventing someone from expressing their views.

When threats become actual violence there are already laws to address that. Trying to preemptively protect people from mean words invariably harms more people than it purports to protect.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#89

Post by version_five »

yongjik wrote: post #42
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…

As other comments said, this argument, while sounding superficially logical, does not agree with reality: most Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic.

What does democracy have to do with it? There are illiberal democracies, and within liberal democracy (the category into which western nations mostly fall into if you ignore covid behavior), there is a wide spectrum of how liberal they are. The democratic aspect has very little to do with free speech

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#90

Post by yucky »

sofixa wrote: post #79
bacchusracine wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic. But are they really? Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?

> Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot? Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak. Antisemites for instance contribute nothing of substance to any democracy. Same goes for people insisting on abusing fellow humans based on their sexual orientation or skin colour. H…

    > Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak.
This reads like it's straight out of a dystopian book.
Post reply on HN