The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

[icehorse]

Again, why? What harm do hate speech law cause?

We already have a perfectly fine set of laws that provide a strong right to free speech. A new hate speech law would either be redundant, or would weaken our civil liberties.

Incitement often entails language that would meet the definition of hate speech that I quoted above. One can hardly disapprove of incitement while approving of the hate speech that is often the means to incite violence.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "incitement". Do you mean - specifically - incitement to imminent violence? If so, we've already gone over the fact that incitement to imminent violence is NOT protected speech. If not, what do you mean in this case when you say "incitement"?

 

[Nous]

This seems like an incomplete definition.

Then provide your own definition.

The label "hate speech" is often applied by people who disagree with a speaker's ideas, even if those ideas don't fall under the definition given above.

Just because someone may misuse the term "hate speech," it doesn't mean that the definition I quoted is "incomplete".

For example, some of the conservative speakers who have been struggling to speak at Berkeley have been accused of "hate speech" because they disagree with Black Lives Matter. In similar situations, speakers have been accused of hate speech when they are critical of Islam.

Cite your sources.

I have found RF to be refreshingly open to the legitimate criticism of ideas.

Obviously "the legitimate criticism of ideas" is not hate speech.

What Rule 1 forbids includes hate speech: RF Rules So, again I ask: What problems arise at RF due to the prohibition of expressions of hate speech?

 

[Nous]

#BLM has incited sniper murders, shut down political rallies, and held looting and vandalism events in more than one city.

And you're saying that you have no problem with that?

 

[Nous]

I''m simply against the erosion of our liberties.

Again, I ask: How does forbidding hate speech cause "the erosion of our liberties"?

Obviously no other right depends on people freely expressing hate speech.

Canada hasn't suffered any liberty erosion as a result of its laws criminalizing hate propagand, has it?

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.​

Criminal Code

 

[icehorse]

Just because someone may misuse the term "hate speech," it doesn't mean that the definition I quoted is "incomplete".

If it was just "someone", I would have no issue. The phrase is now frequently used in ways that are not covered by your definition, and it's rendering your definition incomplete. Language evolves like that. I gave several examples of this definition-widening usage earlier in the thread.

Obviously "the legitimate criticism of ideas" is not hate speech.

It's good that you and I agree on this point. Many people do not.

So, again I ask: What problems arise at RF due to the prohibition of expressions of hate speech?

You can ask this question all you want. I never said there were problems at RF.

 

[sayak83]

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O'Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of "hate speech". I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of "hate speech"
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

So, just to be clear, you would vociferously defend an Islamic Fundamentalist mullah's right to call for the murders of folks who have criticized Islam promising great rewards in heaven to any Muslim who does commit the murder along with cash rewards for the murderer and his family?

 

[icehorse]

Canada hasn't suffered any liberty erosion as a result of its laws criminalizing hate propagand, has it?

Many Canadians would disagree with you.

Again, I ask: How does forbidding hate speech cause "the erosion of our liberties"?

And I'll answer again:

Such laws are either redundant, in which case they would confuse and weaken existing laws - or -

such laws would put additional restrictions on speech, which means more censorship done by imperfect humans. I will give you one example. On this page from the SPLC they tie hate groups to extremists:

https://www.splcenter.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-OCaqr2c1gIVRLjACh0__Q9XEAAYASAAEgI5SPD_BwE

Earlier this year they labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali an extremist. It is this sort of misuse of phrases like "hate speech", "hate group", and "extremist" that I'm referring to. If so-called "hate speech" is forbidden, and it's definition has become so arbitrary, then stiflers can, have and will continue to attempt to stifle the speech of people who speak views they do not like.

 

[Nous]

We already have a perfectly fine set of laws that provide a strong right to free speech. A new hate speech law would either be redundant, or would weaken our civil liberties.

How would a "redundant" law "weaken our civil liberties" any more than the "redundant" law already does?

You said that you oppose laws that prohibit hate speech. Right? Yet, you recognize that laws already include prohibition of hate speech (though it merely isn't specified as "hate speech").

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "incitement". Do you mean - specifically - incitement to imminent violence? If so, we've already gone over the fact that incitement to imminent violence is NOT protected speech. If not, what do you mean in this case when you say "incitement"?

Yes, by "incitement" I mean exactly what Brandenburg v. Ohio held to be speech not protected by the First Amendment: speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

 

[icehorse]

So, just to be clear, you would vociferously defend an Islamic Fundamentalist mullah's right to call for the murders of folks who have criticized Islam promising great rewards in heaven to any Muslim who does commit the murder along with cash rewards for the murderer and his family?

The standard test is one of imminent violence. If such a call to murder was judged to be protected speech then - repugnant as such speech is - I would have to defend the right of that asshat to make that speech. I would hate that speech, and I would vilify the speaker, but I would have to defend the asshat's right to make that speech. Again - if it was judged to be protected. That's the price we pay for free speech, and horrible as it is, it's worth it.

Our job is not to stifle speech, our job is to expose horrible speech to sunlight and fight it with more speech.

 

[Laika]

Am I correct in interpreting your statement here as saying that you are against hate speech laws but not laws that criminalize incitement? (Of course, hate speech and incitement are not always easy to distinguish.)

Anyway, thanks for the historical information you provided. It is helpful to know.

You're welcome.

you would be right that I favour laws against incitement to violence. I think its the consequence that matters.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, by "incitement" I mean exactly what Brandenburg v. Ohio held to be speech not protected by the First Amendment: speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Fine. This thread is not about that category of speech. I believe we have no disagreement concerning that category of speech.

You said that you oppose laws that prohibit hate speech. Right? Yet, you recognize that laws already include prohibition of hate speech (though it merely isn't specified as "hate speech").

I have to say, I don't feel that this is an honest question. Several times I have proposed three categories of speech. Which categories are you referring to here?

 

[sayak83]

The standard test is one of imminent violence. If such a call to murder was judged to be protected speech then - repugnant as such speech is - I would have to defend the right of that asshat to make that speech. I would hate that speech, and I would vilify the speaker, but I would have to defend the asshat's right to make that speech. Again - if it was judged to be protected. That's the price we pay for free speech, and horrible as it is, it's worth it.

Our job is not to stifle speech, our job is to expose horrible speech to sunlight and fight it with more speech.

I completely disagree. Anybody who makes such a speech as I quoted above should be jailed. All publicly propagated speech that is seen to directly threaten the safety and security of other law abiding citizens should be classed as criminal conspiracy and the conspirators should be jailed. That will ensure that citizens feel safe and secure in voicing genuine dissent without feeling threatened by open calls for hatred and harm and violence and it is that which will truly protect free speech.

 

[Nous]

You're welcome.

I didn't know that about the Soviet Union and the UN.

you would be right that I favour laws against incitement to violence. I think its the consequence that matters.

Do you object to 2 Canadian laws I quoted in #44?

 

[icehorse]

I completely disagree. Anybody who makes such a speech as I quoted above should be jailed. All publicly propagated speech that is seen to directly threaten the safety and security of other law abiding citizens should be classed as criminal conspiracy and the conspirators should be jailed. That will ensure that citizens feel safe and secure in voicing genuine dissent without feeling threatened by open calls for hatred and harm and violence and it is that which will truly protect free speech.

I was simply stating that I would follow established law. Did you intend to discuss an example that you thought was clear cut under the law? Or did you intend for your example to walk the razor's edge of what's protected? I'm not claiming to be an expert in the fine edges of protected vs. unprotected speech.

If your example was meant as unprotected speech, then of course I would agree with you. I guess I can't tell what question you're really asking here? You could be asking:

1 - Do I know the fine limits of what's protected? No, I do not.
2 - Would I call for speakers of unprotected speech to be punished? Yes I would.

The thing is that there is common confusion about how far hateful speech can go and still be protected.

 

[sayak83]

Here is a simple mnemonic,

Hate speech is to free speech as slave labor and cartels are to free market.

Just to be clear the speech "I really hate Bob" is not hate speech. Neither is "Let us all say f***K Bob loudly to express our hatred for Bob" is also not hate speech. Hate speech is "I exhort all of you to hound Bob, stalk Bob, threaten Bob and his family, damage Bob's property, slander Bob everywhere...". This is hate speech. Saying "Bob is worse than a dog and should be treated by all of you as such" is hate speech. Calls for violence or those speeches that intend to dehumanize people or groups is hate speech. These should be criminalized to protect free speech itself and to protect people's basic rights to safety and human dignity.

 

[sayak83]

I was simply stating that I would follow established law. Did you intend to discuss an example that you thought was clear cut under the law? Or did you intend for your example to walk the razor's edge of what's protected? I'm not claiming to be an expert in the fine edges of protected vs. unprotected speech.

If your example was meant as unprotected speech, then of course I would agree with you. I guess I can't tell what question you're really asking here? You could be asking:

1 - Do I know the fine limits of what's protected? No, I do not.
2 - Would I call for speakers of unprotected speech to be punished? Yes I would.

The thing is that there is common confusion about how far hateful speech can go and still be protected.

Dear ice horse, you as a citizen of a democratic country vote for or against the laws you want and hence are the joint authors of the laws along with other citizens. So in the example below, would you or would not have a law that criminalizes the example of speech below?

So, just to be clear, you would vociferously defend an Islamic Fundamentalist mullah's right to call for the murders of folks who have criticized Islam promising great rewards in heaven to any Muslim who does commit the murder along with cash rewards for the murderer and his family?

 

[Nous]

Fine. This thread is not about that category of speech.

But the category of speech that is directed to inciting imminent lawless actions and is likely to produce such actions definitely includes (but is not limited to) hate speech.

You said that you oppose laws that prohibit hate speech. Right? Yet, you recognize that laws already include prohibition of hate speech (though it merely isn't specified as "hate speech").

I have to say, I don't feel that this is an honest question. Several times I have proposed three categories of speech. Which categories are you referring to here?

1 - protected speech which doesn't fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
2 - protected speech which WOULD fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
3 - actual illegal speech.​

This is like a puzzle. When I said: "You said that you oppose laws that prohibit hate speech. Right?", I meant "hate speech" that was both included and not included in various laws.

 

[Laika]

I didn't know that about the Soviet Union and the UN.

Niether did I. That was news to me.

Do you object to 2 Canadian laws I quoted in #44?

The first bit I am sympathetic to because it uses "incitement to a breach of the peace". I can understand that but this should already be covered by existing legislation. However, even this has to be treated on a case by case basis and should done based on the evidence presented at a specific trial. Many of these positions are "rules of thumb" that work 90% of the time but may not cover extreme or unusual combination of circumstances.

The rest of it makes me very uncomfortable. The third section on defences raises more questions than it answers because it relies on defining "good faith", "public interest" and "matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred to an identifiable group". There is also no clear definition of the distinction between "public place" and "private conversation" which- given the extent to which social media has blurred the distinction- is likely to be difficult to enforce. It would appear to be dangerously arbitrary and subjective because it hinges on identifying intent rather than on an observable outcome which can be substantiated by evidence.

In western, liberal traditions it would strike me as a badly written law which leaves too much scope of interpretation to the government (or the courts) at the expense of individual autonomy. It creates a great deal of uncertainty as to the application of the law and may produce a climate that suppresses controversial statements. Sadly, Most people conform even when it is not in their interests too (as the Milgram Experiment and Stanford University Prison experiment show). If someone were to explicitly make a case for totalitarian infringement of free speech to engineer a "new man" and "new woman" with the values of a new society, I would give it a fair hearing, but that represents a clear breach with legal traditions in the West and would at least be treated as such.

 

[icehorse]

Dear ice horse, you as a citizen of a democratic country vote for or against the laws you want and hence are the joint authors of the laws along with other citizens. So in the example below, would you or would not have a law that criminalizes the example of speech below?

So, just to be clear, you would vociferously defend an Islamic Fundamentalist mullah's right to call for the murders of folks who have criticized Islam promising great rewards in heaven to any Muslim who does commit the murder along with cash rewards for the murderer and his family?

Dear sayak83,

I take our civil liberties very seriously. I would need you to be more specific in your example before I could answer. Your example speech is a bit vague in crucial details.

I also give a lot of credence to the accumulated wisdom that has come before me. In this case, I wouldn't be so quick to think that I know better than over 200 years of thinking done by a collection of lawyers whose job it is to understand these matters deeply. That's not to say that we don't sometimes get bad laws, of course we do.

 

[icehorse]

This is like a puzzle. When I said: "You said that you oppose laws that prohibit hate speech. Right?", I meant "hate speech" that was both included and not included in various laws.

I promise I'm not trying to make this like a puzzle, although I must confess to having moments in this thread when I suspect you're trying to trick me. That said:

1 - protected speech which doesn't fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
2 - protected speech which WOULD fall under Nous's definition of hate speech
3 - actual illegal speech.

I would oppose laws that attempt to make categories 1 and/or 2 illegal.

But remember, I think it's appropriate to vilify category 2 speakers.

What I'm seeing these days is lots of people who don't like category 1 speech, mislabel it as "hate speech" and attempt to stifle it.