The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

[sayak83]

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.

What crucial details do you need?

 

[columbus]

When was the last time BLM ran someone over or killed someone and I'm not talking about the miscreants that align themselves with BLM but actual members who participate....I'll wait.

I don't see any distinction between #BLM and the people aligned with them.
My point, however, was about speech. I disagree with both #BLM and Stormfront on some really fundamental levels. But I oppose silencing people on an even more fundamental level.
Tom

 

[columbus]

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

Say what?!
I am vehemently opposed to the violence, regardless of who is doing it. I don't condone ugly behavior, even if I support the principles.
Similarly I oppose silencing people, even if I think them idiotic nincompoops. Which includes both Stormfront and BLM.
Tom

 

[YmirGF]

You could all just adopt the Canadian Hate Speech laws. We won't even charge much.

The thing is that Canadian law was not written for people like me. I would never target a group and incite violence against them. Our hate speech laws do not affect me an iota. In other words, the law does not inhibit my thoughts or discussions and therefore do not infringe on my ability to express myself. So.... where is the problem with such laws other than the extent of which they cover.


If I am not wrong, @icehorse and the speaker in the video are concerned about the extent of coverage and that IS worrisome. Icehorsey?

 

[columbus]

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

The main problem I have with the laws is how commonly hate speech is in the eye of the beholder.
It's a lot like the problem with discussing "terrorism" . People often have rather self-serving meanings for the word. And regularly employ the "No true Scotsman " fallacy.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

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

I think it would depend largely on whether it creates a "clear and present danger," which I think is the most sensible way of looking at any kind of speech, however hateful or incendiary it might be.

Although I oppose any limitations on freedom of speech, I don't necessarily think it's "tyrannical" to want to limit hate speech. There are rational reasons a person might oppose hate speech even if they believe in individual liberty and freedom overall. But just as with any limitations on liberty, such steps should be taken carefully - with a mind on objectivity and government restraint.

 

[icehorse]

What crucial details do you need?

Smart rabble rousers have studied the limits of free speech and they know how to walk right up to the line but not cross the line. You have given a sort of outline of what a heinous bit of speech would be, but you haven't really shared a specific bit of language. So one way to move this conversation forward would be for you to create an example of some horrible, heinous, hateful speech (understanding that it's hypothetical), and I can give you my opinion as to whether it crosses the line or not.

But what I can say is that my opinion is that we should all understand and follow the existing guidelines on what is protected speech and what is not. The main purpose of this thread is to call out that what's happening a lot these days is that some groups of people - in an attempt to stifle views they don't like - are labeling some speakers or some speeches as "hate speech" when the speech in question is in fact protected.

 

[Nous]

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.

Where have you seen this? Provide your sources.

 

[Nous]

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.

There have been several prosecutions and convictions for willful promotion of hate. One of the first entailed a high school teacher in Alberta who was making anti-Semitic ideas in class to his students. Why the school board didn't deal with this before he was charged with a crime, I don't know. Nevertheless, there is no value in promoting such ideas.

And, as far as I know, there hasn't been any confusion about the difference between public speech and private conversation. Emails between individuals are private conversations; posting on boards such as RF is public speech.

 

[Nous]

Say what?!
I am vehemently opposed to the violence, regardless of who is doing it. I don't condone ugly behavior, even if I support the principles.
Similarly I oppose silencing people, even if I think them idiotic nincompoops. Which includes both Stormfront and BLM.

As the Canadian law makes clear, hate speech laws don't actually attempt to "silence" idiotic nincompoops. It is just the public broadcast of such hate speech that is prohibited. The idiotic nincompoops are free to express their hate speech in private conversaions.

 

[Nous]

The main problem I have with the laws is how commonly hate speech is in the eye of the beholder.

It seems to me the defenses that the statute provides would make it fairly clear as to what constitutes the willful promotion of hate:

(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.​

One only has to ensure that when one is publicly talking about an identifiable group (which I seem to hardly ever find reason to do), one can establish the truth of one's comments. If one is making derogatory statements about an identifiable group and one cannot establish that they are true, there really isn't any good reason for the statements. There is no value in such statements.

 

[Laika]

Smart rabble rousers have studied the limits of free speech and they know how to walk right up to the line but not cross the line. You have given a sort of outline of what a heinous bit of speech would be, but you haven't really shared a specific bit of language. So one way to move this conversation forward would be for you to create an example of some horrible, heinous, hateful speech (understanding that it's hypothetical), and I can give you my opinion as to whether it crosses the line or not.

Just as a suggestion, if you really want to go with that I'd suggest it would be done in a private message where it cannot be misinterpreted and is kept within the context of a discussion between two people based on mutual understanding. it may be unnecessarily cautious but doing so might save the moderators a real headache.

basically, If you're going to have fun, do it behind closed doors where no-one else can spoil it for you.

 

[icehorse]

You could all just adopt the Canadian Hate Speech laws. We won't even charge much.

The thing is that Canadian law was not written for people like me. I would never target a group and incite violence against them. Our hate speech laws do not affect me an iota. In other words, the law does not inhibit my thoughts or discussions and therefore do not infringe on my ability to express myself. So.... where is the problem with such laws other than the extent of which they cover.

If I am not wrong, @icehorse and the speaker in the video are concerned about the extent of coverage and that IS worrisome. Icehorsey?

I believe you've caught my drift

 

[icehorse]

Where have you seen this? Provide your sources.

The SPLC, CAIR, Canadian Muslim groups, students who stifle speech by drowning out speakers, groups who dis-invite speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Majid Nawaz, the arrest of Kevin Johnston, the introduction of laws with the explicit intent to combat the made-up crime of "Islamophobia", and so on.

 

[icehorse]

There have been several prosecutions and convictions for willful promotion of hate. One of the first entailed a high school teacher in Alberta who was making anti-Semitic ideas in class to his students. Why the school board didn't deal with this before he was charged with a crime, I don't know. Nevertheless, there is no value in promoting such ideas.

And, as far as I know, there hasn't been any confusion about the difference between public speech and private conversation. Emails between individuals are private conversations; posting on boards such as RF is public speech.

Much as I hate anti-semitic speech, in the commons it's probably protected, which is distinct from what a teacher can say in class.

 

[icehorse]

As the Canadian law makes clear, hate speech laws don't actually attempt to "silence" idiotic nincompoops. It is just the public broadcast of such hate speech that is prohibited. The idiotic nincompoops are free to express their hate speech in private conversaions.

Is Kevin Johnston's public concern over turning public schools into mosques considered by you to be hate speech?

 

[icehorse]

There is no value in such statements.

O M G - who will be the arbiter of "value" ??????

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I don't see any distinction between #BLM and the people aligned with them.
My point, however, was about speech. I disagree with both #BLM and Stormfront on some really fundamental levels. But I oppose silencing people on an even more fundamental level.
Tom

Fine and that is your opinion, but BLM and Stormfront are not on the same plane. One is multi-ethnic, the other is a white nationalist haven that hates anything non-white, the other espouses police accountability in accepting that black lives matter as well. People often take the miscreants of a grassroots organization as if that encompasses the entire organization, however, that is another story. Hate speech is not a dialogue it is simply what it is. Chanting "white power" does nothing for discussion but express an ideology, something that historically has been harmful for those who are non-white. That type of speech and those that espouse it, is dangerous:

***Language Disclaimer***

I find this scene poignant of how hate speech and hate ideology can effect people and in rare occasions change them

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it would depend largely on whether it creates a "clear and present danger," which I think is the most sensible way of looking at any kind of speech, however hateful or incendiary it might be.

Although I oppose any limitations on freedom of speech, I don't necessarily think it's "tyrannical" to want to limit hate speech. There are rational reasons a person might oppose hate speech even if they believe in individual liberty and freedom overall. But just as with any limitations on liberty, such steps should be taken carefully - with a mind on objectivity and government restraint.

I can see hate speech applicable within a riled-up group of already irate and unruly people to prompt them to violence.

It's another entirely when it's just a bunch of people in a room venting away their personal hatred through derogatory and demeaning remarks.

What is hate speech anyways? Is it the objective to simply find report and lock up anyone just for saying or spewing vile words?

I can just imagine police raids rounding up people in sting operations and putting them in jail as speech violators.

 

[sayak83]

Smart rabble rousers have studied the limits of free speech and they know how to walk right up to the line but not cross the line. You have given a sort of outline of what a heinous bit of speech would be, but you haven't really shared a specific bit of language. So one way to move this conversation forward would be for you to create an example of some horrible, heinous, hateful speech (understanding that it's hypothetical), and I can give you my opinion as to whether it crosses the line or not.

But what I can say is that my opinion is that we should all understand and follow the existing guidelines on what is protected speech and what is not. The main purpose of this thread is to call out that what's happening a lot these days is that some groups of people - in an attempt to stifle views they don't like - are labeling some speakers or some speeches as "hate speech" when the speech in question is in fact protected.

This is an international forum, thus saying everyone should follow the law on hate speech is not very useful advice.
Next, a group saying something is a form of hate speech is simply voicing their opinion under free speech rights. Are they also saying these kinds of speech should be criminalized? If so we can discuss this. Or , if specific legal prohibitions have been installed for certain kinds of speech that you consider should be protected, then we have something to discuss. Otherwise what's the issue here?