Hate speech vs Blasphemy are they different?

[danieldemol]

Hate speech vs Blasphemy are they different?

My answer to that question would be yes - they are different.

Although the dictionary definition of hate speech includes attempts to insult, when it comes to formulating law against hate speech, I believe that we should only define hate speech by attempts to threaten or endanger others, and would diffrentiate this from mere blasphemy - things such as drawing satirical cartoons of a religious figure, or naming your dog after a Prophet or burning of religious books or otherwise insulting a religion.

So I would say that hate speech and blasphemy are differrent, and we should not legislate against blasphemy for a few reasons.

1) Blasphemy laws have historically proven to be a tool for the bashing of minoritys and rarely if ever used to curb blasphemy by the mainstream against minority views
2) Blasphemy laws may be used to stifle legitimate criticism
3) When one is blasphemed it gives us a chance to develop and exercise maturity and patience, and people should not be so wrapped in cotton wool that they can't handle being insulted.

So what do you think are they the same or are they different?

 

[Sir Doom]

We shouldn't legislate against hate speech either. People should be allowed to hate whatever they want and allowed to say whatever they want.

 

[SomeRandom]

We shouldn't legislate against hate speech either. People should be allowed to hate whatever they want and allowed to say whatever they want.

Well hate speech can breach other existing laws. Like inciting violence and disturbing the peace. But perhaps if we allowed quarantined zones for hate speech. Like they do with the WBC. They get to picket funerals, shouting at the beareved about hell and celebrating the death, so long as they keep an appropriate distance.
I'm all for free speech, but I understand that there should be limitations. Like picketing abortion clinics and harassing women who go there, even if it's just for a check up. Surely that should at least be kept to its own "safe space" as it were. Speech is powerful and I don't agree with curbing the right to say whatever one pleases. But there are times and places for everything.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm against speech that incites people to violence against others, or against the property of others, or that jeopardizes public safety. But I have issues with criminalizing mere hate speech -- unless it does those things. And I think blasphemy is between someone and their deity, assuming their deity exists.

 

[Estro Felino]

The law of my country is very clear.
You can criticize or even bash religions (for ex. saying that Christianity is a disgusting religion).
You can express negative criticism\satire towards religious characters or deities of that religion.
The fact that a religion is professed by a minority, is irrelevant.

What you cannot do is to target determined people (who belong to a religious community) and express hate towards them. That is incitement to religious hatred ex lege law n'205\93

 

[bobhikes]

We shouldn't legislate against hate speech either. People should be allowed to hate whatever they want and allowed to say whatever they want.

Disagree, you should not be allowed to harm another ever and forcibly speaking at someone is an attack that causes harm. Instilling hatred in others to the point of them causing harm does not get you off the hook, you should be held accountable. Words cause harm to others lives and if you spoke them wanting to cause the harm you should be held accountable.

 

[Mox]

Are hate speech and blasphemy the same?

Was the poll question.

My answer to that question would be yes - they are different.

Is a confusing response.

Just saying.

 

[Mox]

So what do you think are they the same or are they different?

Blasphemy is essentially ''the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk'' so here the target is God and notions of sacredness. Not a group of innocent people.

Hate speech, conversely, is always directed at a group, be it homosexuals, muslims, black people, mexican immigrants etc.

Therefore, in blasphemy the identifiable victim is God. In hate speech the identifiable victim is a group of human beings whereby violence and or inequitable treatment is advocated against them.

Those who take offence to blasphemy, do so vicariously, indirectly. They are offended on behalf of God.

Facts.
1. God has no legal person in law and so if there is no victim, there is no crime.
2. Victims of hate speech, are exposed to tangible harm, the vicarious victims of blasphemy, are not exposed to any harm or loss.
3. The rule of law is only valid & functional if there is common consensus among the populace that mandates it's authority.
4. Blasphemy is only blasphemy to believers in that particular faith, the only logical recourse for blasphemy among members of a faith is to settle their matter internally, such as within a religious court, like a beth din or sharia court, so long as all parties agree to be judged and sanctioned, so long as any sanction does not violate secular law.
5. Secular law cannot permit blasphemy law, it would be undemocratic and illiberal.

 

[Stevicus]

Hate speech vs Blasphemy are they different?

My answer to that question would be yes - they are different.

Although the dictionary definition of hate speech includes attempts to insult, when it comes to formulating law against hate speech, I believe that we should only define hate speech by attempts to threaten or endanger others, and would diffrentiate this from mere blasphemy - things such as drawing satirical cartoons of a religious figure, or naming your dog after a Prophet or burning of religious books or otherwise insulting a religion.

So I would say that hate speech and blasphemy are differrent, and we should not legislate against blasphemy for a few reasons.

1) Blasphemy laws have historically proven to be a tool for the bashing of minoritys and rarely if ever used to curb blasphemy by the mainstream against minority views
2) Blasphemy laws may be used to stifle legitimate criticism
3) When one is blasphemed it gives us a chance to develop and exercise maturity and patience, and people should not be so wrapped in cotton wool that they can't handle being insulted.

So what do you think are they the same or are they different?

I voted "no." I think hate speech would have to create a clear and present danger, whereas blasphemy does not cross that threshold.

 

[Sir Doom]

Disagree, you should not be allowed to harm another ever and forcibly speaking at someone is an attack that causes harm. Instilling hatred in others to the point of them causing harm does not get you off the hook, you should be held accountable. Words cause harm to others lives and if you spoke them wanting to cause the harm you should be held accountable.

What I don't like is that no one bats an eye at a threat of harm. Believe me I hear a dozen people describe horrible things they are going to do to someone else by means of intimidation. But drop a racial slur somewhere in there and somehow this transforms what you are doing into something evil and wrong. As if intimidating people isn't plenty.

It's thought police and we should knock it off.

 

[Estro Felino]

5. Secular law cannot permit blasphemy law, it would be undemocratic and illiberal.

I do agree...and in fact, the banning of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Lauren Southern shows UK is not a secular country.

I voted "no." I think hate speech would have to create a clear and present danger, whereas blasphemy does not cross that threshold.

The case of UK has showed us Europeans that the definition of hate speech can be very arbitrary.

In Italy a party like this

Spoiler

will always be protected by strong constitutional principles (art. 10 and 18 Const, freedom of speech, freedom of association)

In UK it is very probable that the very same party would be accused of hate speech by the law.

 

[bobhikes]

What I don't like is that no one bats an eye at a threat of harm. Believe me I hear a dozen people describe horrible things they are going to do to someone else by means of intimidation. But drop a racial slur somewhere in there and somehow this transforms what you are doing into something evil and wrong. As if intimidating people isn't plenty.

It's thought police and we should knock it off.

It has nothing to do with a racial slur. Racial slur's are typically used in hate speech but not always. I stepped between a dumped guy and the ex and he said no racial slur's a female dog's name was used a lot. The point is how long does a person have to take it before they can react or the police can stop it. If everyday walking home from school a person constantly verbally attacks another person. Does that person just have to take the abuse everyday even if its not physical. It happened to me and on a bad day I turned and Knocked the person out. Should I have been sent to jail. I physically abused a person that was just verbally abusing me.

 

[Sir Doom]

It has nothing to do with a racial slur. Racial slur's are typically used in hate speech but not always. I stepped between a dumped guy and the ex and he said no racial slur's a female dog's name was used a lot. The point is how long does a person have to take it before they can react or the police can stop it. If everyday walking home from school a person constantly verbally attacks another person. Does that person just have to take the abuse everyday even if its not physical. It happened to me and on a bad day I turned and Knocked the person out. Should I have been sent to jail. I physically abused a person that was just verbally abusing me.

Harassment is a crime. Hate-harrassment is the same crime. Do you really think there is a difference?

I mean, I'm certainly not advocating a reversal of fortune here, but examine the motivation. In many cases a person who holds prejudicial hatred does so because of indoctrination during their upbringing. Compare that to the person in your example who is angry over being dumped. Don't you think the first person is in less control of their actions than the first? They've been systematically bombarded by misinformation from what should be a trusted source. The second person is just throwing a basic tantrum and crossing a big line to do it.

I don't excuse either case but I sure don't think the 'hate' version is a worse crime or even a different crime.

 

[bobhikes]

Harassment is a crime. Hate-harrassment is the same crime. Do you really think there is a difference?

I mean, I'm certainly not advocating a reversal of fortune here, but examine the motivation. In many cases a person who holds prejudicial hatred does so because of indoctrination during their upbringing. Compare that to the person in your example who is angry over being dumped. Don't you think the first person is in less control of their actions than the first? They've been systematically bombarded by misinformation from what should be a trusted source. The second person is just throwing a basic tantrum and crossing a big line to do it.

I don't excuse either case but I sure don't think the 'hate' version is a worse crime or even a different crime.

I think you are tying hate crimes to a racial slur. All hate crimes do not include racial slurs, hate crimes are also usually violent not just spoken(see definition). You want to claim harassment as different, how many times can a person call you a racial slur before it is harassment.

Hate crime definition is - any of various crimes (such as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (such as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Not sure how to vote. Hate speech offends the humans involved. Blasphemy supposedly injures the deity(ies) in question.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think you are tying hate crimes to a racial slur. All hate crimes do not include racial slurs, hate crimes are also usually violent not just spoken(see definition). You want to claim harassment as different, how many times can a person call you a racial slur before it is harassment.

Hate crime definition is - any of various crimes (such as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (such as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).

No, I disagree with the distinction of hate-crime altogether. If a person is guilty if assault then they are guilty of assault. Their motive for it can and will be used to convict them regardless of what that motive is. The crime (whatever crime it is) is not the motive. It's the action. I cannot be convicted of assault just for thinking about it, nor does my thinking about it change whether or not I've committed assault. So why does my thought process matter to how bad the crime is?

"Your honor I'd like to ask for lenience for my client all he did was stab a man in the throat for his wallet. It's not like he stabbed him for being an abirtion doctor or something horrible like that. He's just a basic sociopath, your honor not a bigotted one."

 

[danieldemol]

Not sure how to vote. Hate speech offends the humans involved. Blasphemy supposedly injures the deity(ies) in question.

It sounds to me like you believe they are different too