And yes, I know many will argument that this is slipery slope, but I disagree on this, many countries have hate speech laws that aren’t intrusive and in places like Singapore they were necessary due to past religious animosity and race riots.
I think inciting discrimination and hatred towards any group (like race, skin colour, religion and ethnicity) is a serious issue in the world, and one that could lead to violence.
25 comments
Because that’s not the role of the state. But to answer your question about violence, while speech isn’t directly illegal, inciting a riot is if that makes sense.
Because *anything* can be defined as hate speech, and laws against “hate speech” can be used to silence opposition to the people in power. There are already laws against inciting violence and there is no need to give the authoritarian-minded another tool to oppress the country’s citizens.
[Don’t make me tap the sign](https://imgflip.com/i/73ffmh)
Who gets decide what is and is not hate speech? how can we 100% make sure that it won’t be abused in a way that could someday hurt the people it originally was trying to protect?
Because the definition of hate is constantly changing, and declaring speech as hate is simply a way of shutting down legitimate debate with those you disagree with.
My question is what constitutes hate speech and how would the law be enforced? If a book or movie contains a racist character that uses the n word, would they be subject to the same penalty as some idiot in a Klan robe who actually means it? I mean it’s easy to say no, but would a judge interpret it that way? If a gay person just posted an angry blog online about how straight people annoy them and they all suck, would that constitute hate speech? Some right wing judge might think so.
It’s better to ostracize these people than to criminally charge them, I think.
Why shouldn’t we be? Why do you think it’s a good thing to limit your opinion? It’s one thing to limit promoting violence for example, it’s another to say that my opinion and wrong and I should be jailed for it.
> I think inciting discrimination and hatred towards any group (like race, skin colour, religion and ethnicity) is a serious issue in the world, and one that could lead to violence.
You’ll learn that limiting speech of this kind does nothing but make those people hide instead of letting people see exactly who is promoting such hate. Sure, make those opinions illegal, that doesn’t take away the opinion though, or the hate.
Inciting riots [is against the law](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter102&edition=prelim). There is a difference between that and just saying hateful things.
A society that cannot freely exchange ideas without persecution by the government can never truly be free.
Since I hate everyone, anything I say can be construed as hate speech.
… bitch.
Because we have a history of government crackdown on protest and speech, starting from The founding, so we’re extra wary of attempts to restrict it
Who decides what is hate speech? Politicians? People directly? Can anyone decide for themselves?
Because we don’t trust the people who would define what “hate speech” is
Because it’s a slippery slope. We strongly value freedom of speech – including that speech we don’t like. There’s a huge potential for government abuse and enforcement that’s biased depending on who’s in political office. And once you open that can of worms, it’s just grow and grow.
> but I disagree on this, many countries have hate speech laws that aren’t intrusive
Germany tried a comedian for making fun of Erdogan, the UK convicted a guy whose dog did something vaguely like a Nazi salute.
Hate speech cannot be put into a well defined law which leave it up to interpretation and leaving laws up for interpretation opens them up for abuse. Perhaps you trust the people in power not to abuse this, but what happens with the people in power do abuse this?
No one has ever tried to ban people from saying that a warm cup of tea on a rainy day is pleasant, or that kittens are cute. The only type of speech people ever try to ban is speech they find hateful.
A highly religious person might feel that heretical teachings are “hate speech.” A political zealot might feel that opposing points of view constitute “hate speech.” It’s easy to think that you will achieve something good by banning speech that you consider harmful or wrong-headed. But the only time anyone attempts to ban speech is when that speech is considered harmful and wrong-headed.
Singapore also banned chewing gum, so I don’t think that’s exactly a country we should emulate. If Singapore’s government exists to protect it’s citizen’s ears, so be it. Ours doesn’t.
Why should I want insane and broad reaching government control of speech? I’ve already seen the resulting garbage. Go live in Germany if you want the government to arrest dissenters.
By our standards they are intrusive. *You* get to decide what I’m allowed to say. That’s intrusive. “But it’s based on a rigorous, objective standard. Right? Right?” “Well, no. It’s based on whatever people in power decide is ‘obvious’.”
Perhaps where you’re from that’s an issue, but here we all get along pretty well.
At one point, giving us brown and black people our rights was considered hateful, inciting violence, and society-unbalancing by the majority. We should have just stayed home and not spoken out, right?
>Singapore
Lmao. Singapore? That’s what you go with? Singapore?
Singapore is so absurdly fucking authoritarian.
>many countries have hate speech laws that aren’t intrusive
They’re all intrusive.
Hate speech is subjective. What I find hate speech, you may not. I don’t consider say, friends, who call me “pajeet” in jest hateful. You might.
>I think inciting discrimination and hatred towards any group (like race, skin colour, religion and ethnicity) is a serious issue
Sure.
It’s still not good enough of an excuse to curb free speech. The entire point is that you can say shitty things freely.
In words of Sam Alito,
>>[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
—-
Authoritarians always want the other people to be like them. You should look inwards.
Because the freedom of speech is one of the principles our country was founded upon. The moment you start to give the government back your rights, they will think they can take all of them.
>but I disagree on this
Alright, I disagree with your disagreement.
>many countries have hate speech laws that aren’t intrusive
No.
> in places like Singapore they were necessary due to past religious animosity and race riots.
Singapore is an authoritarian country.
>I think inciting discrimination and hatred towards any group (like race, skin colour, religion and ethnicity) is a serious issue in the world, and one that could lead to violence.
Alright. We’re probably going to remain the country with the greatest free speech protections in the world if it’s all the same to you.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
Free speech is more important than words that hurt.
I don’t America to be like other countries. Let us be unique damn it.