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

111–120 of 154 posts

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#111

Post by sofixa »

willnonya wrote: post #93
sofixa wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So, youre asserting that democracy works vest when disfavored minorities are suppressed? How do you imagine the civil rights movement would have worked out if unfavorable positions of the time were suppressed? How would that work for LGBQ rights? There is no value in suppressing bad views. Exposing them let's them be recognized for what they are. Suppressing them causes them to grow and fester in the shadows. What pe…

> 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 rights movement.

> Exposing them let's them be recognized for what they are

> What people really fear is that people will not be intelligent enough to discern these bad opinions, that is an entirely different issue.

How did that work, historically? It didn't, and still doesn't today - see Trump, Brexit, Orbán. It's not an entirely different issue, it's the same problem - not only is a group of people directly hurt by allowing those who abuse them keep doing so, but others might get impressed for whatever reason and join the hating group's ranks.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#112

Post by batmansmom1 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #102
Barrin92 wrote: post #21

>In other words, the First Amendment recognizes that the government cannot regulate “hate speech” without inevitably silencing the dissent and dialogue that democracy requires While I'm all for debates about the pros and cons of more or less permissive speech policies, sentences like this always betray the quasi religious nature of American speech attitudes. Many of the oldest democracies in the world work perfectly…

Agreed. From the outside of the United States, it truly seems surreal, the way this is often framed in almost theological, fundamentalist, language. Free speech as the right to dissent in a democracy, almost every reasonable person in the western world can get behind this. Free speech as the right to march in the streets demanding the destruction of democracy and the physical harassment and denial of rights to minori…

I think most of the world can agree that Jan 6th was evidence of a problem in need of a solution. I wonder if there is another solution that doesn't involve censorship/intervening in free speech. Perhaps there are societal efforts we should be taking that prevent the need for these groups to form in the first place. I think most in the free speech camp would say that intervening to prevent these groups from organizing just kicks the can down the street a bit and isn't a solution to the problems that cause riots like Jan 6th from occurring

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#113

Post by pyuser583 »

ginngeo wrote: post #96
pyuser583 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was book written a while back that criticized aspects of trans rights movement. Many Americans called it hate-speech, yet the book was freely published in many countries with anti hate speech laws. Publishers and distributors were more willing to sell the book in countries where hate speech is illegal. After all, it’s not like it’s hate speech. One downside of having hate speech undefined is that anyone can cla…

Which book is this? I'd be interested to read it.

The title is Irreversible Damage.

It’s of uneven quality, and tries to take on too many topics.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#114

Post by SllX »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #29
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…

Why is it that Americans don't use Germany as an example of a country sliding into authoritarian censorship, but would argue such if the same restrictions were applied to the US?

Live and let live is the order of the day between the United States and Germany.

We are separate sovereign nations, allies, do not present as threats to each other, we each have our own values but Germany’s values are close enough to ours to be basically compatible and isn’t trying to export its censorship regime to the United States. Why would we rock that boat absent a reason?

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#115

Post by ohCh6zos »

wonderwonder wrote: post #101
krapp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "asymmetrically" mean other than freedom of speech not implying freedom from consequences?

He likely means you can be openly anti white without consequences but not anti black. Openly anti Christian but not anti Jewish.

I believe we would be better off as a society if we either decided it was ok, or not ok and not situational.

In a perfect world we'd just all decide to be better people and not racist without external pressure, but that seems like a pipe dream.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#116

Post by BlueDingo »

croes wrote: post #100
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?

Ever heard of bullying? You don't need physical force for that.

Bullying is an additional level of action, right? If you're using a different verb it probably also means additional actions that aren't simply speech.

I dislike bad stuff too. Bullying is wrong and should be stopped. Hate speech is also wrong but I'll defend people's right to speak.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#117

Post by version_five »

croes wrote: post #100
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?

Ever heard of bullying? You don't need physical force for that.

"Bullying" is actually a great example of something that once we decide the concept is bad, there is a rush from people to frame everything they don't like along those lines. I'd suggest that under the blanket and nebulous headline of "bullying" are actions that are already illegal like harassment and assault.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#118

Post by 0xBDB »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #29
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…

Why is it that Americans don't use Germany as an example of a country sliding into authoritarian censorship, but would argue such if the same restrictions were applied to the US?

German speech policies are absolutely not without critics in the United States. I take no position on whether these criticisms are correct; just supplying information.

https://reason.com/2022/09/23/germanys-criminalization-of-on...

As a practical matter I'd guess that even civil-libertarian Americans don't spend a lot of time criticizing Germany and France for several reasons:

     1) They're allies.
     2) Some of us don't know where they are.
     3) For the most part, they're obviously free countries. There's simply going to be cultural variation on some things - free speech, the death penalty, etc. - for historical and cultural reasons.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#119

Post by 0xBDB »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #99
torstenvl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is on an American website running as a service of an American startup accelerator running out of America's tech hub, running on an American operating system based on a research project at an American university, and links to a post from an American organization concerned with American free speech law and policy. I feel like the applicable context is easily inferred. https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission

Perhaps this is nitpicking around your main point, but ... " running on an American operating system " What operating system? I'd imagine this site is running on Linux, like almost everything else on the Internet, and I struggle to understand how you could define Linux as an American operating system .

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/

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#120

Post by kelseyfrog »

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #75
kelseyfrog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that Americans don't use Germany as an example of a country sliding into authoritarian censorship, but would argue such if the same restrictions were applied to the US?

Because German society is very different from American society due to historical factors. The modern German state and people must grapple with their country's role in WW2 and the Holocaust. They have chosen to limit free speech for the sake of preventing future catastrophes, and that seems quite sensible to me. America's history isn't pristine by a long shot, but we don't have a legacy comparable to the Germans to gr…

That makes sense. Most of the time it comes across as an absolute: there is no such thing as a clear and compelling reason and none could ever exist.
Post reply on HN