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

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#141

Post by slg »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #140
slg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the first paragraph of Manson's Wikipedia page: >Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and musician who led the Manson Family, a cult based in California, in the late 1960s. Some of the members committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit mu…

The jury apparently believed otherwise. Besides, the history of the legal system is rife with instances of juries going along with prosecutorial bullshit.

>The jury apparently believed otherwise.

That isn't how that works. The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#142

Post by michaelmrose »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #86
michaelmrose wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have freedom to associate with whom you choose based on any reasonable criteria other than not hiring someone because of the color of their skin, where they come from, or whom they choose to love. The freedom of a tiny minority of employers cannot be extended further without abridging the freedom of the vast majority of folks. You have argued both for forcing people to associate with those whose views they find deplorable and for privileging the right of employers not to associate with protected classes. Which is it?

The only possible interpretation is that you are either vacillating between mutually incoherent positions arguing first one than the other with no attempt to reconcile them or you would like the government to privilege one group of people by allowing them to discriminate while forcing people to accept their "free expression" however odious it is.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#143

Post by 0xBDB »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #122
0xBDB wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus Torvalds is a U.S. citizen and Americans (or at least American companies) appear to contribute disproportionately to their population and even national GDP to at least the kernel (I realize the kernel isn't the OS, but I can't think of a better proxy value). https://news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-contribution/

He was certainly not a US citizen when the project started. Not even for the first 20 years of its existence. https://lwn.net/Articles/404729/

Oh, I know. But we got him now so we get all his prior accomplishments.

(I kid, I don't actually think Linux can be reasonably described as American, but I guess that is the argument for it.)

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#144

Post by michaelmrose »

ginngeo wrote: post #95
michaelmrose wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't even true now. There are all sorts of limits including but not limited to gag orders, no contact orders, defamation, harassment, malicious use of a telephone device, obscene phone calls and so forth. You imply that it is utterly impossible to draft a law forbidding some speech without handing the tools of oppression to the next fellow to hold office but we already deal with plenty of nuanced situations now…

Stochastic terrorism isn't really a thing though. It's just a vague accusation anyone can make, without proof of cause and effect. Purely rhetorical in nature.

How about when you emit a constant stream of lies about gay people claiming that they are pedophiles looking to "groom" your children as if "morally upright" straight white kids could somehow catch the gay and then in the same state an extremist shoots up a nightclub. Not specific enough? How about developing a nationwide network of conspiracy theorists to promote insane and often highly specific conspiracies that lead crazy people to invade a pizza joint to free imaginary children supposedly trafficked from an imaginary basement?

Specific lies leading to predictable dangers to individuals by a probabilistic vector like continually throwing rocks over an overpass knowing you are likely to hit SOMEONE without knowing who or when the damage will be done.

How is that "not a thing"?

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#145

Post by Turing_Machine »

slg wrote: post #141
Turing_Machine wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury apparently believed otherwise. Besides, the history of the legal system is rife with instances of juries going along with prosecutorial bullshit.

>The jury apparently believed otherwise. That isn't how that works. The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.

> The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.

No, but they can find someone guilty without reference to what the prosecution says.

Neither the jury, nor the prosecution, nor me, nor even (likely) you believes that Manson was convicted solely on the basis of hypothetical speech.

Tex Watson testified that Manson explicitly ordered the Tate killings.

Manson was physically present at the scene of the LaBianca killings, and actually entered the house (again, according to Watson).

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#146

Post by jquery »

laverya wrote: post #124
sofixa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, youre asserting that democracy works vest when disfavored minorities are suppressed Antisemites aren't a disfavored minority, the Jews they're hating on are. > How do you imagine the civil rights movement would have worked out if unfavorable positions of the time were suppressed? Hating on a group of people for who they are isn't an unfavourable position that merits being protected. Or compared to a civil right…

> Antisemites aren't a disfavored minority, the Jews they're hating on are. Are you saying that: 1. the majority of the population of are antisemites or 2. antisemites aren't disfavored because I would say that both of these are false. Few people are antisemites, and antisemites are strongly disfavored to the point of having their speech made illegal - and "punch a nazi" is a meme.

Punch a Nazi isn’t just a meme, it’s a rule to live by

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#147

Post by jquery »

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…

We already have illegal speech, and this slippery slope you’re so afraid of hasn’t appeared. The boundaries seems pretty well contained by social convention and contract. Stopping people from saying the n word online isn’t going to lead to the fall of democracy. In the upside down hypothetical future where we decide as a society that “akshually racism is good”, nobody will be getting arrested for saying the n word by then. Don’t worry so much about far future hypotheticals, worry more about concrete harms being caused today.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#148

Post by laverya »

jquery wrote: post #146
laverya wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Antisemites aren't a disfavored minority, the Jews they're hating on are. Are you saying that: 1. the majority of the population of are antisemites or 2. antisemites aren't disfavored because I would say that both of these are false. Few people are antisemites, and antisemites are strongly disfavored to the point of having their speech made illegal - and "punch a nazi" is a meme.

Punch a Nazi isn’t just a meme, it’s a rule to live by

Right, which would imply that Nazis are pretty damn strongly disfavored.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#149

Post by wonderwonder »

michaelmrose wrote: post #144
ginngeo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stochastic terrorism isn't really a thing though. It's just a vague accusation anyone can make, without proof of cause and effect. Purely rhetorical in nature.

How about when you emit a constant stream of lies about gay people claiming that they are pedophiles looking to "groom" your children as if "morally upright" straight white kids could somehow catch the gay and then in the same state an extremist shoots up a nightclub. Not specific enough? How about developing a nationwide network of conspiracy theorists to promote insane and often highly specific conspiracies that le…

People are responsible for their own actions. If I take what you just posted to heart and went and killed one of the "nationwide network of conspiracy theorists" to save the gays, are you responsible? If we start working on the basis that no one is smart enough to hear anything at all that may be controversial then who gets to decide what that is? Who do we give the power to be the decider of absolute truth too? What about when a new administration takes over that you don't like? Or are we no longer having elections either? We either assume that people have their own agency or we assume that humanity must grant the government control over all of our decisions. I'll go the free speech route every time. Physical actions like throwing stones are very different than words.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#150

Post by jquery »

laverya wrote: post #148
jquery wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punch a Nazi isn’t just a meme, it’s a rule to live by

Right, which would imply that Nazis are pretty damn strongly disfavored .

Being a Nazi isn't a protected characteristic, nor should it be. As commonly understood, a marginalized minority involves traits someone is born with and cannot change, that do not harm others. Being an asshole doesn't make you a marginalized minority, it just makes you an asshole. You're welcome to disagree with this take. Samuel Alito thought KKK members deserved protection in a recent hypothetical that had him laughing about black kkk kids.
Post reply on HN