Should hate speech be counted as free speech?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jolly good. **** fellow humanity just so long ay you can have your reached and amendable inherent rights

When people become so self centered its really disturbing to me.

It's about everyone's rights. When someone is bullying you, you confront them, not censor their speech.

That's fine for the French to worry more about hurt feelings but we actually take the idea of inherent rights seriously in the US, as damaged as this country is.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hate speech is an important right.
Why?
I don't trust government with the power to prevent it.
Just look at Trump....would you want him to have had
such power to silence opposition? Nah.

A president shouldn't have concentrated, unilateral power whether we're talking about speech laws or anything else.

Has the government in Sweden or the Netherlands used their laws against hate speech to silence and quash opposition? When was the last time that happened?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am for free speech.

What is considered hate speech can be very subjective. I'll error on the side of freedom.

A criminal law can be quite specific. You don't need to leave the term "hate speech" vague; it can be defined precisely in the law however we want to remove subjectivity of interpretation.

I think there are laws already about inciting violence and riots.

Are you sure?

In Canada, before the hate speech provisions were added to our Criminal Code, we had laws against inciting riots, and laws against inciting violence against a specific individual, but we didn't really have anything that spoke against inciting violence against any random person of a particular race/religion/etc.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's about everyone's rights. When someone is bullying you, you confront them, not censor their speech.

That doesn't always stop or prevent the harm done, especially when one party has more social or political reach than the other.

That's fine for the French to worry more about hurt feelings but we actually take the idea of inherent rights seriously in the US, as damaged as this country is.

France is one of the world's most robust secular democracies, if not the most robust. It didn't cave or change its laws even when terrorists killed people over "blasphemous" cartoons.

I think a lot of Americans seem to place undue importance on perceived uniqueness of the US. France is overall doing better than the US on multiple indices of freedom and quality of life. French voters also seem to me to value freedom quite highly considering that, unlike the US in 2016, they snubbed the authoritarian, far-right candidate in their last election.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, the government is already far, far too big and needs a massive pruning.

Slander and libel are civil issues, not criminal ones. You can talk **** about anyone all day, every day and they can't do anything more than just sue you and try to prove that it's caused them material harm, which is very hard. Most of those are probably thrown out.

Hate speech is not just a matter of slander and libel though. It can cause real suffering to those it is aimed at and can incite criminal behaviour.

And, by the way, recourse to the civil courts to obtain redress is a privilege of the rich. Civil actions are prohibitively costly for people of modest means. Furthermore the size of the damages awarded depends on the extent of the public reputation that is seen to have been damaged. So a non-entity, with little or no public reputation to lose, can expect little compensation. So actions for libel and slander are no answer at all.

Details of how the various defined categories of hate speech are treated in the UK are given here: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

[stvdv]

Do you think that hate speech should be protected in the US? Or do you believe there should be laws against hate speech?

I've always personally been a fan of criminalizing hate speech. It can incite to riot, lead to violence and murder, and creates a dangerous environment.

What do you all think?

Quite simple IMO

There are many misconceptions about these Freedoms:
1) Freedom of Religion: This does not mean "Freedom to belittle others using 'Freedom of Religions'."
2) Freedom of Speech: This does not mean "Freedom belittle others using 'Freedom of Speech'."

These Freedoms imply that others have these Freedoms also
These Freedoms don't imply Freedom to hurt others

If they would, then there would not have been laws restricting explicitly the part when you use them to hurt others
@stvdvRF

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another thing to be wary of when passing laws like this is to consider how such a law might be interpreted when and where one's political opponents are in charge.

The hate speech provisions in Canada's Criminal Code have been there since 1970. Since they were adopted, we've had federal governments covering most of the political spectrum.

It seems to me that 50+ years would be enough time that any problems would have come to light if they were there. Have they?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The hate speech provisions in Canada's Criminal Code have been there since 1970. Since they were adopted, we've had federal governments covering most of the political spectrum.

It seems to me that 50+ years would be enough time that any problems would have come to light if they were there. Have they?

I just asked a similar question about Sweden and the Netherlands.

As with gun laws, sometimes I think a variant of American exceptionalism is at play in discourse about such subjects, where what works and is evidenced to be useful in other developed countries is somehow assumed to be unsuitable for the US on arbitrary grounds.

 

[exchemist]

I ask because I'm curious...

What are the guidelines on what constitutes hate speech in those countries?

George I’ve posted a link to the UK laws. The criteria are quite specific.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The hate speech provisions in Canada's Criminal Code have been there since 1970. Since they were adopted, we've had federal governments covering most of the political spectrum.

It seems to me that 50+ years would be enough time that any problems would have come to light if they were there. Have they?

As a Canadian myself, I rather like our laws on the topic. In the first place, the speech must be public (private conversation can never result in charges of hate speech), and we have some obvious exceptions -- like, are the statements true? (Here's the Code.)

And, speaking only for myself, I do not feel like I am being muzzled by not being allowed to stand up in the public square and, using my bullhorn, urging my listeners to kill all --- pick your target, gays, Jews, Muslims, gingers, people with fat bottoms, whatever.

Nope, not being allowed to do that does not feel like a violation of my freedom of expression -- at least not to me. Maybe it's because I've never wanted to say anything of the kind.

 

[Stevicus]

The hate speech provisions in Canada's Criminal Code have been there since 1970. Since they were adopted, we've had federal governments covering most of the political spectrum.

It seems to me that 50+ years would be enough time that any problems would have come to light if they were there. Have they?

Did they ever have any problems before? Has any party similar to the current version of the GOP gained power in Canada?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Free speech should mean free speech. "Hate speech" is a terribly Orweilian concept. The government should never be allowed to restrict the speech of its citizens. That's terrifying, or should be. The government is there to uphold our rights and represent us, we are not subjects.

I'm sure that virtually all governments have laws against attempting to incite a riot. Sounds pretty common sense to me and not at all Orwellian.

 

[sun rise]

In some states if hate speech were not allowed, saying nasty things about Trump would be labeled hate speech. That is enough for me to want to allow that kind of speech as long as it's not incitement to action.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did they ever have any problems before? Has any party similar to the current version of the GOP gained power in Canada?

In a lot of ways, the Canadian Prime Minister has more legal power than your President. We don't have the division of powers that you do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Did they ever have any problems before? Has any party similar to the current version of the GOP gained power in Canada?

In a lot of ways, the Canadian Prime Minister has more legal power than your President. We don't have the division of powers that you do.

@9-10ths_Penguin is quite right, a Canadian PM does have a lot of power. On the other hand, we don't need to resort to impeachment proceedings to get rid of one -- we can do that over tea with a non-confidence motion in the House.

@Stevicus, I am not aware of any party having tried to overturn the norms and standards of this nation. But we're so boring: our biggest precept for making Canada a nice place is POGG (Peace, Order and Good Government). I'm told our favourite colour is grey (don't want to offend). But do you know what the capital of Canada is? Mostly American!

No, we are really a very different entity up here. Not surprising, since it's colder, I guess (you should try growing up in our actual Capital, Ottawa -- I did). With a multi-party system, and a parliamentary government, we mostly have enough opposition to, if not stop government overreach, at least slow it down.

Now, admittedly, this depends a lot on the personalities. Right now, a minority party (New Democratic Party) is supporting our minority Liberal government so that basically they can do what they want. However, should they do something egregious, any supporting party wanting to stay in the business of government would act accordingly, and since the Liberals hold only 157 of the 338 seats in the Commons, well, as I said, defeat can happen over tea-time. (If the governing party in Canada loses a vote declared to be a "confidence motion" in the House, the government is defeated and the Governor General can call an election.)

 

[sun rise]

Hate speech is an important right.
Why?
I don't trust government with the power to prevent it.
Just look at Trump....would you want him to have had
such power to silence opposition? Nah.

Hate speech in China? Challenging that Xi has the Mandate of Heaven. Hate speech in Russia? Challenging Putin or his war with Ukraine.

Restricting speech in the USA? Look at Florida and elsewhere for laws restricting speech.

 

[Polymath257]

Free speech has never been absolute. For example, you don't get to publicly make false statements about a private citizen. You don't get to make a speech that foments a riot. There have always been 'fighting words' exclusions.

I see hate speech as falling under the 'fighting words' exemption.

 

[icehorse]

So you think it's ok for a black, transgender invalid to be taunted to badly they commit suicide?

Its ok for an extreme group to incite a riot in which people are injury and killed?

The simplified rule in the US is that any speech that provokes IMMINENT violence is not protected.

As for taunting, free speech rules have traditionally been focused on making it legal to express unpopular ideas. I would guess that extreme taunting might break some other law, like perhaps harassment?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is another area where I think America is just stupid in believing having freedom means freedom from the consequences and being held responsible for your own actions. Like with guns and covid. America is stupid, reckless, and entirely unconcerned about who gets hurt or killed in the process and just can't be arsed to consider for one second a death toll involves real people who had real lives and real families and are far more than a number in a statistic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's about everyone's rights. When someone is bullying you, you confront them, not censor their speech.

That's fine for the French to worry more about hurt feelings but we actually take the idea of inherent rights seriously in the US, as damaged as this country is.

Is being an ******* really worth fighting over as a right in light of the abuse, destruction and death it can cause (as has been pointed out)?