‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.
48 replies, posted
BLM and the KKK in the modern day are two sides of the same coin. Surely since the KKK has a longer history they've done shittier stuff, but in the modern day they are a bunch of neo-Nazi white supremacists, whereas BLM are a bunch of neo-Stalinist black supremacists.
And European examples of "hate speech" legislation aren't exactly shining bastions to base law on either, like [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nazi-pug-man-arrested-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/]Count Dankula[/url] being charged with "hate speech" for teaching his girlfriend's pug to do a salute when he says "gas the Jews" as a joke. Even in Sweden, there has been self-censorship about the crimes committed by migrants because of the notion that it would be perceived as "racist" to talk about immigrants committing crimes. The government has a list of "hate speech twitter accounts" that define such in an incredibly vague fashion such that anyone who has talked about or been associated with GamerGate is considered a producer of "hate speech" by the Swedish government, and they encourage citizens not to follow such people.
Frankly, I don't see why being so voracious in supporting one's rights is a bad thing. Rights are something that are fought for, they are not something that are guaranteed, and if you do not remain vigilant in protecting them they will be stripped from you far more easily than they are awarded to you. Incursion upon the rights of American colonists to assemble and to publish was what led to the American revolution in the first place. Beyond just America, we have seen rights being trampled by religious extremist organizations in the middle-east, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, who have in the past used to have rather progressive, free societies before fundamentalist religious nuts took the country over, and you can see the same incursion on rights happening in Venezuela right now.
Frankly, I can't understand the mentality of someone who would so easily sacrifice a right of theirs. Governments are corruptible, police are corruptible, and governments, police, and other organizations with power are always looking to expand the power they have over people. Our rights are what keeps the government from exacting complete, dictatorial control over us, but the more you begin to flex on your rights, the more the government will push on them until eventually you've been convinced to surrender all of your rights in some false sense of progress, equality, or security.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52301238]Where do you get your news from? Half the things you described above are either incorrect or disingenious.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.thelocal.se/20170517/swedens-twitter-account-blocks-then-unblocks-14000-users-in-hate-speech-controversy[/url]
[url]http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=https://archive.is/19k3Q[/url]
[url]https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/[/url]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police-accused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival[/url]
Germany's not exactly above reproach on censorship either, [url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/german-cabinet-agrees-to-fine-social-networks-over-hate-speech/article34598373/]demanding that social networks around the world take down things that they deem "hate speech" and provide regular reports on the subject, in German, else they face hefty fines.[/url]
It was supported by the Swedish government after its creation though, until there was widespread backlash, and even then the list was still up and available, just not enforced as a block on the @sweden twitter account.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52301764]It was supported by the Swedish government after its creation though, until there was widespread backlash, and even then the list was still up and available, just not enforced as a block on the @sweden twitter account.[/QUOTE]
So apart from it existing, what was bad about it? There may be a few incidents where the legislation regarding hate speech are abused, it's not a perfect system, but it's far from common and when it does happen it usually doesn't go anywhere because court proceedings are very thourough, and in the end the national political climate is better off for it.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52301138]BLM and the KKK in the modern day are two sides of the same coin. Surely since the KKK has a longer history they've done shittier stuff, but in the modern day they are a bunch of neo-Nazi white supremacists, whereas BLM are a bunch of neo-Stalinist black supremacists.[/QUOTE]
Really? First of all, without praising BLM, you can't just ignore the core differences in the movements and the history behind both of them. While BLM is founded in the weary climate left behind post the great civil right movements of the 20th century, KKK started out as a cult dedicated to the idea of white supremacy. That's what the KKK always has been since, and while the BLM movement may not be what it set out to be it has at most only sometimes become what KKK has always been. While you can most definitely generalize the KKK as neo-nazi white supremacists - find me a member who isn't - the counter generalization you make on BLM cannot be nearly as accurate.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
Besides, in a society less tolerant toward hate-speech, there would be less reason for movements like BLM to exist, and the more extremist aspects of them wouldn't be as vocal and significant.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52301138]BLM and the KKK in the modern day are two sides of the same coin. Surely since the KKK has a longer history they've done shittier stuff, but in the modern day they are a bunch of neo-Nazi white supremacists, whereas BLM are a bunch of neo-Stalinist black supremacists.[/QUOTE]
Has the KKK in it's modern incarnation ever done anything constructive?
You talk about "giving away your rights" and shit as if your rights are more important than the well-being of those people and groups of people who are the targets of hate-speech.
Edit: I do not mean that your rights are less important cause they're not, what I'm saying is that harsher treatment of hate-speech won't infringe on your rights.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300107]I agree, it's disgusting I wish these people weren't allowed to do it. But his comments are nothing short of ignorant. The Westboro baptist church cock suckers have been around for years and I highly doubt he hasn't heard of them.[/QUOTE]
1A is in place so people like these cam actually have a voice. Sometimes it tends to be disgusting racists who utilize this voice, other times its civil rights protesters or Vietnam War protesters.
You cant have one but not have the other. Having the government define hate speach and then ban it is a slippery slope that lands you in a totalitarian regime. I prefer having the occasional hateful protest if it means I can voice concerns for actual injustices.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52301972]You talk about "giving away your rights" and shit as if your rights are more important than the well-being of those people and groups of people who are the targets of hate-speech.
Edit: I do not mean that your rights are less important cause they're not, what I'm saying is that harsher treatment of hate-speech won't infringe on your rights.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to say that rights are far more important than a persons feelings.
What is hate speech? Is it something thats racist or just mean? Is it something thats disagreeable? Where do you draw the line? The line will eventually be drawn at government criticism. Might not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52301972]You talk about "giving away your rights" and shit as if your rights are more important than the well-being of those people and groups of people who are the targets of hate-speech.
Edit: I do not mean that your rights are less important cause they're not, what I'm saying is that harsher treatment of hate-speech won't infringe on your rights.[/QUOTE]
Well, it would infringe on some of them to some extent, but they'd gain others in exchange (that from my perspective are very much worth that price if a decent balance is struck. It's a solved problem in most of Europe, so there are safe versions can be copy-pasted if someone's concerned about a slippery slope).
[QUOTE=Tamschi;52302089]Well, it would infringe on some of them to some extent, but they'd gain others in exchange (that from my perspective are very much worth that price if a decent balance is struck).[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, you are right.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52302078]Sorry to say that rights are far more important than a persons feelings.
What is hate speech? Is it something thats racist or just mean? Is it something thats disagreeable? Where do you draw the line? The line will eventually be drawn at government criticism. Might not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.[/QUOTE]
It's about more than feelings though. Yes it would be something that's racist, sexist or what have you, no it wouldn't be something that's just mean or disagreeable. I've quite clearly drawn that line already, and I admit that it's not an immediately clear line but it's not as vague as you seem to put it. Criticism against the government won't inevitably be included under the definition of hate speech, so far it hasn't happened here and while I won't deny that it is a possibility, if that does actually happen it'll be because there are far greater underlying issues.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but yes, I do believe that my rights are more important than someone else's feelings. Hate speech legislation that is restrictive has a tendency to be easily abused. Comedians in Canada are facing fines for making jokes that people found "offensive" and "hate speech" because of the joke of a human rights tribunal we have in Ontario that basically convicts anyone who ends up in front of them.
For things like inciting violence against a group, that is an infringement upon another right of theirs, their right to life. Their life is threatened by an incitement of violence or a legitimate threat. Calling someone a name, or preaching an intolerant religious message, does not threaten a person, nor does it infringe upon their rights, and the problem with legislation like that is when people are arrested for making jokes, because the legislation doesn't ever contain a "humour clause," and if it did chances are it would either be used to undermine the purpose of the law, or it would be so hard to have something called "humour" that such a clause could never actually be used.
"Hate speech" is far too vague to be adequately defined in a way that appropriately protects free speech. Inciting violence against a group is an infringement upon their rights, and is therefore illegal, but offending someone is not. Frankly, the right to free speech exists to protect speech that is seen as controversial or offensive, because otherwise society would forever be trapped by the morals of the day, due to the fact that any dissenting speech that can bring about change would be illegal, and hateful, toxic institutions would be allowed to fester in their ignorance, spreading that message across society. In the past, the right to free speech was used to protect discussion that was critical of the church, and supportive of the civil rights movement. Today, it's necessary to stop the rise of extremism, both on the left and on the right, as groups like antifa and BLM attempt to shout down and censor people who are critical of the flaws in their groups, and as a rise on the alt-right seeks to have criticism of the president deemed illegal.
The most vocal proponents of "hate speech" legislation seem to want it to cover criticism and "offence." They want to make it illegal to be offensive, but offence is something that is taken, not given, so it is impossible to define accurately and is far too broad. Frankly, I'd hope that such legislation would be used against its supporters first and foremost to highlight the flaws in such over-reaching legislation. They also want to make criticism of any group they support illegal. This means criticism of feminism would be sexist hate speech, criticism of BLM would be racist hate speech, and criticism of Islam would be Islamophobic hate speech, no matter that the content or context of the criticism actually was. This is the problem with hate speech legislation as it's being presented, it ends up so over-reaching, that even criticism of a group is considered hateful to the people who want such legislation introduced.
There should be a system in place where people are allowed to say what they want. But the government should fund programs to combat misinformation and racism through education and etc. Of course you wont sway them all, but at the same time, it'll do more damage against misinformation and bigotry, instead of doing nothing.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52302094]Fair enough, you are right.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
It's about more than feelings though. Yes it would be something that's racist, sexist or what have you, no it wouldn't be something that's just mean or disagreeable. I've quite clearly drawn that line already, and I admit that it's not an immediately clear line but it's not as vague as you seem to put it. Criticism against the government won't inevitably be included under the definition of hate speech, so far it hasn't happened here and while I won't deny that it is a possibility, if that does actually happen it'll be because there are far greater underlying issues.[/QUOTE]
Can you elaborate how its not about feelings? Because thats literally the only thing hate speech hurts is feelings. The powerless words of a few racists dont have the ability to change a natiom that has been moving past racism for the last 60 years. "If you tell a lie enough, it becomes true" is no longer a valid expression in this day and age. Most humans in the modern world have complete and unregulated access to the sum of human knowledge in their pockets or in their home.
Heres the thing about drawing the line, its not up to you or me. Its up to a government body to decide, and we all know how their judgment typically pans out.
And it has happened in the past, not specifically under the guise of hate speech, (gonna go ahead and godwin this) Nazi Germany tossed thousands into prison over defeatism and criticizing the government. Not to mention the mass censorship and speech suppression in Soviet states.
Censorship and governed speech is [i]never [/i] a good thing in any scenario. Giving any government the power to control the speech of its people historically leads to disaster.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300170]Not trying to protect him or anything, but what has he done to change or revoke the first amendment? (honest question)[/QUOTE]
He wants to open up libel laws specifically so he can sue newspapers.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/v7dndAy.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52301972]You talk about "giving away your rights" and shit as if your rights are more important than the well-being of those people and groups of people who are the targets of hate-speech.
Edit: I do not mean that your rights are less important cause they're not, what I'm saying is that harsher treatment of hate-speech won't infringe on your rights.[/QUOTE]
That's quite an emotional argument. I would say that those rights are more important, though, yeah.
The big problem here is that unlike other limitations on free speech, hate speech laws target [I]opinions[/I]. You can't use your free speech to tell people to kill other people. You also can't use your free speech to send journalists you don't like epileptic seizure inducing gifs in a deliberate attempt to cause them harm. Those aren't really opinions(unless you want to be excessively pedantic about this), they're commands and assault, respectively. The line is fairly easy to draw.
Where the line isn't easy to draw is [I]opinion[/I]. How do you quantify which opinions are harmful to express? Harmful to who? At what point does the supposed harm involved warrant censorship, fines, or jail time? Laws dealing with abstract concepts like this are incredibly easy to expand and abuse just by their very nature. This is the main reason why we're opposed to putting laws like this in place. The concerns about this are akin to concerns about nuclear proliferation. We've managed to not blow ourselves up yet, and for quite a while now, too! That's great, but the massive presence of nuclear weapons always presents a looming threat of annihilation, and the longer we sit on these ridiculous stockpiles, the more the chances of such an event edge closer to one. Outside of the ramifications stated before, I couldn't give a damn what happens to some neo-nazi dickhead. I'd dare say that applies to everyone else in this thread.
As for the other reason: At least here in the US, the fight for civil rights, women's suffrage, and gay rights didn't require the government to step in and silence the racists, the sexists, or the homophobes(in fact, more underhanded and covert tactics were often used in the opposite direction, and as progress has shown, ultimately failed). Shutting people up with opinion police doesn't make them any less racist and is a band-aid solution at best. These people are still people, and most aren't so hopeless to need this kind of solution in the first place. The main reason the alt-right is even as prolific as it is now is pretty damn simple if you take a look at their news and social media networks: Major portions of the left would rather control the conversation at this point than participate in it. The alt-right's main marketing strategy involves playing on people's fear of authoritarian control. Every time you get a case like Count Dankula or Germany trying to force the hand of social media to censorship, you legitimize this narrative. If you push hard for this and it fails, or if you enact it but they get their people in regardless, [I]it will backfire.[/I]
I understand that there are real problems that still face minority communities. Hate speech laws are a cheap shortcut that undermines the free exchange of ideas in an attempt to force progress. I would rather we do this the right way. That means a lot of time and work, but it also means less risks, lasting change, and preserving the integrity of our democracy itself.
[quote]but he is completely off-base in trying to block the planned rallies and dangerously wrong in his reading of the U.S. Constitution.[/quote]
but this argument is wrong.
[url]https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215[/url]
the supreme court has ruled over and over again, speech calling for violence or intimidating groups of people is not protected by the first amendment. the article deliberately cherry picks around the times the court has ruled against hate speech to pick out specific examples. They are right, you can't blanket ban a rally on the basis that it may be hate speech, but you could shut it down if the speakers called for say, killing of all the jews once it got started. at least if i'm reading these court cases correctly. 1977 stokie is probably the most relevant case to back this up
2003 virginia v black does establish "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm." so they could argue that the rally after this stabbing incident is meant to inspire more bodily harm, however it entirely depends on how state is used in this context.
[editline]1st June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paramud;52302260]He wants to open up libel laws specifically so he can sue newspapers.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/v7dndAy.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
funny thing though is that in the US he has to prove its libel so...... basically prove he's not full of shit which makes it not as horrible as it sounds, even though the whole thing is fucking insane.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52300725]I think USA needs stricter policying and/or enforcement regarding hate speech than any other first world country.[/QUOTE]
I made a paper what consists of abusive speech. A person who verbally beats down his wife, a Nazi who beats down a Jew using hate speech and someone who uses political correctness to gain control over a debate all use the same tactics. They all use abuse. So any ideal which promotes verbal abuse ought to be banned.
Under my definition of banning verbal abuse, social justice and Nazism would get banned for causing psychological damage to society.
.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52301925]So apart from it existing, what was bad about it?[/QUOTE]
Lol what
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.