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

151–154 of 154 posts

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#151

Post by wonderwonder »

michaelmrose wrote: post #142
ohCh6zos wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Except you can hire based on the color of the applicants skin. You can openly favor black people over white and Asian applicants. Lots of companies do it. OP is simply stating he is against all favored status, hiring should be a meritocracy.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#152

Post by michaelmrose »

wonderwonder wrote: post #151
michaelmrose wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Except you can hire based on the color of the applicants skin. You can openly favor black people over white and Asian applicants. Lots of companies do it. OP is simply stating he is against all favored status, hiring should be a meritocracy.

Here are two quotes from the same fellow

> I believe that the existence of protected classes means you do not enjoy the freedom of association you rightfully should

>> 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.

He believes that employers ought to be forbidden from using your out of work communications to make hiring and firing decisions but wants to scrap the prohibition on using your membership in a protected class to make that same decision.

You absolutely can't make a hiring decision on race. If Joe White and Joe Black apply for the same position you are required to evaluate all applicants and cannot turn down Mr White for his skin color any more than Mr Black. What you CAN do if I understand correctly is make targeted attemps to advertise to and invite people based on characteristics. You can for instance advertise in what is traditionally a woman targeted magazine in order to inspire more women to apply for instance.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#153

Post by michaelmrose »

wonderwonder wrote: post #149
michaelmrose wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don't need an perfect and absolute arbiter of truth to identify malicious hateful lies the same way we don't need one for defamation laws. We have high standards high bars and a legal system.

The biggest difference between what they are doing and my statement is that my statement is carefully and actually researched truth, spoken with intent to inform, and furthermore although it pointed out how dangerous those lies were it called for a legislative solution to the problem not self help. If you took it upon yourself to take action it would be solely your action.

By contrast they pass on lies they either know are false or with reckless disregard for the truth of the matter often with vague implication of threats and calls to action.

I say the clear distinction in circumstances is sufficient for a court of law to address. I suggest that we don't need to wait until someone gets murdered we can just throw the folks promoting lies and hate in jail first. This is no more problematic than defamation as an exception to the first amendment.

Re: Is Hate Speech Legal?

#154

Post by raxxorraxor »

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

The German definition is crap and loaded with a lot of baggage. Some believe it is necessary to adhere to the first principles of the constitution of Germany, but that is false.

In reality this is a backward residue from monarchy and the laws are just as old. If Germans would have had more inclination to freedom, perhaps less authoritarian governments would have formed in the past.

So empirically hate speech legislation doesn't really seem to be effective either.

Post reply on HN