You support speech restrictions, what a shock!
I support restrictions on hate speech, yes; especially if it aims to intimidate or threaten or directly incites violence. But it is not me 'setting myself up as an arbiter of anything', it is just me agreeing with the law (here and in the EU least) that some limits on extremes are justified. Perhaps you are blissfully aware but even the US has limits on speech btw, including:
Incitement: Speech that encourages immediate unlawful or violent action
Obscenity: Speech or materials that are considered obscene
True threats: Statements that communicate a serious intent to commit violence
Fighting words: Insults that are likely to provoke a physical fight
Child pornography: Material that depicts children engaging in sex or being naked in a sexually suggestive way
Defamation: Speech that harms someone's reputation
Fraud: Speech that is fraudulent
Intellectual property law: Speech that violates intellectual property law
False statements: Speech that is false
Commercial speech: Speech that is commercial in nature, such as advertising
Not protected either apparently is speech that disrupts schools, such as obscene speech at school-sponsored events or even speech that advocates illegal drug use.
What a shock! Trump and his SCOTUS will fix that, right?
You may wish to be reminded that right wing stalwart tvfan lately has also been wishing that
all pornography should be denied protection of the constitution too. Maybe have a word?
reply
share
maixiu (2842)
11 days ago
You've helpfully provided definitions, now tell us how you would define "hate" speech that wouldn't ultimately boil down to "speech that I personally feel is hateful".
Would you make punishable the use of the word "nigger"?
reply
share
filmflaneur (3014)
11 days ago
"speech that I personally feel is hateful".
Sorry to tell you this but, in the UK, how speech is felt by the victim is often a deciding factor in defining it. That is, if words or an action is perceived by a victim or witness to have been motivated by hostility towards the victim’s disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity, it can be recorded as a hate crime.
The guidance given to prosecutors however states that freedom of expression can only be restricted under very limited circumstances and prosecutions may only be undertaken when they are proven to be ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. However, as stated in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, evidence of hostility based on the ‘victim’s ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity’ will make it ‘more likely that prosecution is required’.
Would you make punishable the use of the word "nigger"?
It would depend on the intent, context and how it was viewed by the target. I hope that helps.
reply
share
maixiu (2842)
11 days ago
I'm well aware of the darkly dangerous path the U.K. has tread. It leaves the definition of "hate" open to the completely arbitrary opinion of those involved, from the plaintiff to the attending members of the legal system. This obliterates the concept of equality before the law, which was a bedrock principle of Anglo jurisprudence going back many centuries. In a normal criminal case, it's posited that a criminal act occurred, let's say the theft of jewelry, and that the person on the dock is responsible. Cases in which the act didn't actually occur are rare; most every case is merely a matter of adjudicating whether the accused is actually responsible. In other words, there's nothing subjective about whether a crime has actually occurred, only who's responsible for it. But in hate speech cases, the "crime" generally cannot be said to have occurred with any certainty. It's all subjective.
That's why I ask your opinion about the word "nigger". It often serves as a very good example of why the concept of hate speech is a very dangerous one. Because we know that if Barkevious uses it with D'Covidonte, even if it's said in the context of a violent assault, there won't be a hate speech charge brought up. But if Jim Bob says it in the presence of a touchy black person, even if he's merely quoting a third party, he could very easily find himself on the hot seat and quite possibly be found guilty by the hate speech regime you support. The scales of justice cannot remain blind in these circumstances. Using your system, the determination of "hate" requires one to first and foremost rely on immutable characteristics like skin color, age, or sex, and I thought that was anathema to you.
Equality before the law is a foundational concept of Western Civilization, one that hate speech laws overthrow completely, thus creating a scramble to use the law as a weapon. When instituted we no longer have laws, just tribal warfare.
reply
share
filmflaneur (3014)
11 days ago
in hate speech cases, the "crime" generally cannot be said to have occurred with any certainty. It's all subjective.
The same can be said of slander and libel. The principle is the same, namely that it is the opinion of any victim on the effect on them and theirs, which triggers the prosecution. One notes that libel and slander are two things excluded in the US from unlimited freedom of speech.
the word "nigger"...if Barkevious uses it with D'Covidonte, even if it's said in the context of a violent assault, there won't be a hate speech charge brought up. But if Jim Bob says it in the presence of a touchy black person...
Thank you for agreeing that it depends on intent, context and how it was viewed by the target.
Equality before the law is a foundational concept of Western Civilization, one that hate speech laws overthrow completely
Nonsense. If everyone is constrained and protected by hate speech laws the same then, ergo, everyone is treated equally under the law.
reply
share