Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality

[PureX]

Not in the least. There are costs associated with living in a free society.


As I understand it, it goes something like this. Let's say a bad actor is making a speech in the town square:

1 - If he says "All Jews should be exterminated", that's protected. He's talking about some undisclosed time in the future.
2 - If he says "Bob over there is a Jew, hang him now", that's illegal, that's an IMMINENT threat.


This OP is about a particular law, one that gives citizens the right to accuse others of hate speech with no evidence necessary. That's a new addition to whatever hate speech laws they already have on the books.

Isn’t the accusation also free speech, then?

 

[icehorse]

There’s a weird kind of cultural psychosis going on in the U. S. that has a significant portion of the population really excited by the idea of seeing other people insulted and humiliated. Not to get too political about it but it seems to be a bit of a neo-conservative obsession this wanting to see people they perceive as being ‘liberals’ or ‘woke’ or ‘snowflakes’ insulted and humiliated publicly. And they flock to anyone that they see acting as their verbal gladiators. Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, … they really like watching these people insult and anger and humiliate the people that they think are loathsome and deserving of it.

It’s weird and very mean-spirited and it’s been going on for a number of decades, now. And right wing politicians seem to have no qualms at all in engaging in it because they know they will be touted as heroes by their constituents.

A lot of the worship of “freedom of speech” in the U. S. is really just these same people trying to protect their desire to see people they loathe being treated and spoken of badly in public. Free speech to them is the freedom to insult and humiliate your lessers for all the world to see and appreciate.

Do you really think this psychosis is one sided?

No doubt the far right is a horror show. But sad to say, the far left is not far behind. For example who's far more likely to bleat that someone is "X-phobic"?

 

[ChristineM]

Some interesting information those "flourishing" countries....

France is not the free-speech champion it says it is

The horrific murder of Samuel Paty, the French teacher who showed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a class on freedom of expression, sent shockwaves throughout France. It also forced a difficult conversation about freedom of speech and who has the right to exercise it. President Emmanuel...

www.amnesty.org

Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is free speech? One of the most important human rights explained.

Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong.

www.amnesty.org.uk

Yes, and? The question was about societies which are are flourishing despite censorship..

 

[PureX]

Do you really think this psychosis is one sided?

No doubt the far right is a horror show. But sad to say, the far left is not far behind. For example who's far more likely to bleat that someone is "X-phobic"?

Do you really think pointing a finger like a five year old and saying, “but they do it too!” Is a reasonable response, here?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you really think pointing a finger like a five year old and saying, “but they do it too!” Is a reasonable response, here?

Consider another inference...
One can't blame only the right.
It should be addressed on the
left too.

 

[PureX]

Consider another inference...
One can't blame only the right.
It should be addressed on the
left too.

The really weird thing is that you think this matters.

 

[Revoltingest]

The really weird thing is that you think this matters.

Well, you think my opinion
matters enuf to respond to it.

 

[icehorse]

Do you really think pointing a finger like a five year old and saying, “but they do it too!” Is a reasonable response, here?

That's quite a mischaracterization!

Let me rephrase: Extremists of all stripes are guilty of trying to publicly shame or humiliate others.

And yes, I think that that is an extremely reasonable, non-partisan response here.

 

[PureX]

There is a strange and persistent strain of mean-spirited willful ignorance in the U. S. national mindset that I do not see as much in other nationalities. And it is fueling a LOT of our problems with gun violence and greed and general stupidity pretending to be intelligence. And this foolish idea that free speech means we’re all free to insult and humiliate and abuse each verbally es we please is a part of it. Just like any gun control is an invasion of our freedom To play with guns. Or any form of price control is strangling our god given right to price gouge everyone else for every penny we can get from them. And on and on this idiocy goes.

We Americans have deep-seated affinity for this kind of absurdly selfish and stupid thinking. To the point that it must reasonably mystify the rest of the educated world’s people.

 

[icehorse]

Isn’t the accusation also free speech, then?

There are two steps in these situations:

1 - A citizen accuses another of "hate speech" - that step is free speech
2 - Officials RECORD the accusation without evidence. This record is then accessible, e.g. by possible employers.

Do you think the idea of "chilling effects" is a real thing? I do.

The existence of step 2 produces a chilling effect, which can result in self-censorship where none is actually appropriate.

 

[PureX]

There are two steps in these situations:

1 - A citizen accuses another of "hate speech" - that step is free speech
2 - Officials RECORD the accusation without evidence. This record is then accessible, e.g. by possible employers.

Do you think the idea of "chilling effects" is a real thing? I do.

The existence of step 2 produces a chilling effect, which can result in self-censorship where none is actually appropriate.

Why does the record of the accusation bother you? Rush Limbaugh recorded false and spurious accusations every single day on his radio show, for years, for all the world to access and respond to in whatever stupid or unfair ways they chose. And yet I never hear you or anyone complain about it, or about the possible damage he was doing to the people he routinely accused without any evidence whatever.

Limbaugh is dead, now, but the airwaves are still full of similar mean-spirited and bad intentioned liars accusing people of all sorts of nefarious things with no evidence, for all the world to acces. So why do they get to do it in the name of free speech but a single citizen cannot?

It ALL produces a “chilling effect”. Yet for some reason you only seem to want the paid professional liars to have a license to accuse people based on nothing but their personal opinions, while the individual with an actual peeve should be forbidden. Why?

 

[icehorse]

Why does the record of the accusation bother you?

It makes every citizen the judge and jury. It totally side steps the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Does that make sense?

==

As for the Rush Limbaugh types, they should be sued if they commit slander or libel and otherwise they should be met with strong speech revealing their bad logic and bad intentions.

I believe in the adage: "The best remedy for bad speech is sunlight". Bad actors need to be exposed, not censored.

 

[Secret Chief]

The list is long so im only giving you 6 that are at the top of my head.

China
North Korea
Russia (USSR)
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia

They're obvious ones but I imagine your long list has some rather unexpected countries on it given you've said you no longer consider the UK to be "an open and free society" - the marks of a totalitarian state yes?

 

[danieldemol]

My wife was the victim of misogynistic threats so violent that we left our home and moved 1500 miles away.

Again, I support the long standing test of IMMINENT VIOLENCE.

Perhaps you can point to societies in which censorship is rife AND the society is flourishing? To my knowledge, censorship always goes hand in hand with totalitarianism.

Why does the violence have to be imminent, and how did you manage to decide that your example of words to the effect of "all Jews should be exterminated" was not imminent just because the time at which it is supposed to happen remains undisclosed?

 

[PureX]

It makes every citizen the judge and jury. It totally side steps the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Does that make sense?

Sure, but that’s ‘free speech’, isn’t it. Where we all get to be the judge and jury over all we survey and then announce our judgments to all the world. Fox Network opinionators and slanderers have been making millions doing it for decades.

As for the Rush Limbaugh types, they should be sued if they commit slander or libel and otherwise they should be met with strong speech revealing their bad logic and bad intentions.

But that’s what free speech is … blind opinion. Good, bad, and indifferent. I thought this is what you wanted to protect. Now you say you want it punished if it hurts someone else. Which is it?

I believe in the adage: "The best remedy for bad speech is sunlight". Bad actors need to be exposed, not censored.

But you can’t “expose” them because everyone believes what they want. We couldn’t expose Rush Limbaugh to anyone that believed his lies, could we. They just assumed we are the liars. Or Tucker Carlson, or any of them. All we can do is sue them for damages, if we can prove they knew they were lying. But that does us no good at all then they believer their own lies. As many liars do.

 

[icehorse]

Why does the violence have to be imminent, and how did you manage to decide that your example of words to the effect of "all Jews should be exterminated" was not imminent just because the time at which it is supposed to happen remains undisclosed?

I'm just reporting my understanding of how current free speech laws work in the U.S.

 

[icehorse]

Sure, but that’s ‘free speech’, isn’t it. Where we all get to be the judge and jury over all we survey and then announce our judgments to all the world. Fox Network opinionators and slanderers have been making millions doing it for decades.

it's one thing to make an announcement, it's quite another to have that announcement entered into a person's permanent police record, accessible by 3rd parties.

But that’s what free speech is … blind opinion. Good, bad, and indifferent. I thought this is what you wanted to protect. Now you say you want it punished if it hurts someone else. Which is it?

Really? Is this question in good faith? You really don't know the answer? This is sort of free speech 101 stuff..

But you can’t “expose” them because everyone believes what they want. We couldn’t expose Rush Limbaugh to anyone that believed his lies, could we. They just assumed we are the liars. Or Tucker Carlson, or any of them. All we can do is sue them for damages, if we can prove they knew they were lying. But that does us no good at all then they believer their own lies. As many liars do.

We have an enormous problem with famous, bad faith actors like Limbaugh and Carlson, I think we're agreed.

So the question is, what to do about it?

My answer is: Anything but create some sort of "censorship police". That way leads to totalitarianism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They're obvious ones but I imagine your long list has some rather unexpected countries on it given you've said you no longer consider the UK to be "an open and free society" - the marks of a totalitarian state yes?

I'll say it's in the early stages as well as the US. The ongoing decline in free countries is undisputable.

 

[PureX]

it's one thing to make an announcement, it's quite another to have that announcement entered into a person's permanent police record, accessible by 3rd parties.

As opposed broadcasting it on radio and tv? And don’t we want police knowing about people that are potentially problematic?

We have an enormous problem with famous, bad faith actors like Limbaugh and Carlson, I think we're agreed.

So the question is, what to do about it?

Yes, that is the question. And whatever the solution is, you will most likely call it censorship. Because that’s what it would be. It would involve stopping people from spouting off any slanderous idiotic unfounded opinion that crosses their mind or titillates the social misfits and haters.

I think what you need to face is the fact that this is actually worth doing. Because even free speech cannot be absolute, or it’s useless.

My answer is: Anything but create some sort of "censorship police". That way leads to totalitarianism.

Sorry, but some kind of censorship is the only answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

it's one thing to make an announcement, it's quite another to have that announcement entered into a person's permanent police record, accessible by 3rd parties.

I don't know how universal it is, but even
if someone makes contact with a cop that
results in no ticket or arrest, they often make
an electronic record of someone being loud,
angry, insulting, or otherwise disliked. This
is sometimes used to harass the person later.
It's a target on one's back.
That's too much power for a government that's
too unaccountable, too inept, & too corrupt.