MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Basically. The threat of lawsuits motivates a great deal in our society. Because while the courts can and do frequently get stuff wrong it'd be a start. Many, many people mistake legality for morality. For example, while striking down DOMA certainly didn't fix everything, I won't say it didn't help. Gay people became "legal" in some ways. Don't forget sodomy laws have been on the books and enforced in the not too distant past. Stonewall was in the 60's, DOMA struck down in the 2010's. Laws can create a fear of accountability even if they aren't always perfectly enforced. But legal standing to push for investigations is important. #Metoo showed pretry solidly that simply enforcing the laws properly can go a long way and that issues of standing matter.
Its not about censorship, its about equal protection. And I'd sooner buy a bridge from someone than buy that minorities get it right now. Sure, holding people accountable for threats is hard ahead of time. But law enforcement isn't there to stop crimes. Cops rarely stop crime in progress, what they do is investigate afterwords. I'd like general bigotry to be considered more strongly as evidence, and having standing to appeal to a higher court if someone gets off because their non-specific threats get repressed as evidence or similar miscarriages of justice seems to me like a nice moderate place to start.
Gotta watch out for that slippery slope and all I'd hate to argue too strenuously for my rights.
+14
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
Well, part of that problem is the silly court rulings saying police have no legal duty to protect anyone, so there's no consequences for blowing people off.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
Well clearly these laws fail your test on what laws are effective and needed so might as well throw them out.
But i was thinking more about laws against totally not threatening someone while saying how people like them should be gotten rid of while staring at them.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
What is this? what are you actually trying to say with this?
The only possible reason I can come up with is far too sinister to asume without clarification, so please, expand on this.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
What is this? what are you actually trying to say with this?
The only possible reason I can come up with is far too sinister to asume without clarification, so please, expand on this.
"Hate speechs laws can't work because police are terrible"
Is, i believe, the main thrust of the argument.
I could be wrong.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
Well clearly these laws fail your test on what laws are effective and needed so might as well throw them out.
But i was thinking more about laws against totally not threatening someone while saying how people like them should be gotten rid of while staring at them.
My standards for whether a law is worth implementing are not uniform across all subjects. My point was that you hadn't really answered AiC's question. If clear laws on the books just plain aren't enforced, then what good is done by making more laws? How will those laws change anything?
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
What is this? what are you actually trying to say with this?
The only possible reason I can come up with is far too sinister to asume without clarification, so please, expand on this.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
Well clearly these laws fail your test on what laws are effective and needed so might as well throw them out.
But i was thinking more about laws against totally not threatening someone while saying how people like them should be gotten rid of while staring at them.
My standards for whether a law is worth implementing are not uniform across all subjects. My point was that you hadn't really answered AiC's question. If clear laws on the books just plain aren't enforced, then what good is done by making more laws? How will those laws change anything?
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
What is this? what are you actually trying to say with this?
The only possible reason I can come up with is far too sinister to asume without clarification, so please, expand on this.
How will any laws change anything?
I mean, clearly the fact that these laws in this instance were not enforced, means that no laws ever would be.
/sarcasm
Having the option to start working with the police earlier, and having obvious laws to point at will not work always, but having them is better than not having them, even if only for the ofchange that you get a police officer who is not a complete pile of shit.
There's also civil lawsuits.
When Mark Meechan taught his girlfriend's dog to raise its right paw in response to "sieg heil" in an explicitly stated insincere fashion then it's probably not harmful in any measurable way and, if it is, is definitely not on the same level. Yet he fell afoul of speech laws and was sentenced to pay a fine of 800 euros for it.
You brought this up a few times, so I looked up the matter, wanting to better understand what happened. Wikipedia provides a good synopsis, so let's start there. First off, while his teaching the dog to do the Roman salute to "sieg Heil" is what is always brought up, it turns out that the video had more to it than that:
In April 2016, Meechan posted a video of his girlfriend's pet pug Buddha titled "M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi". At the start of the video, he says: "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi". In the video, the dog is seen raising his right paw in the manner of a Nazi salute (when prompted by the command "Sieg Heil"), watching a speech by Adolf Hitler and responding immediately when asked if he wanted to "gas the Jews". It ends with images of Adolf Hitler and Buddha depicted with a toothbrush moustache similar to the one Hitler sported.
So, here's the thing - he didn't just teach the dog the salute, but also taught the dog to respond positively to an antisemitic command, as well as then trying to rope Buddhism into the "joke", as it were. I would imagine that it was those latter two parts that prompted the prosecution under the Communications Act of 2003, specifically the malicious communications statute. The revised guidelines for prosecution in the law are worth noting:
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation. The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
*whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
*the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
*when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
*when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
*when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
This is worth noting because Meechan's initial defense was that the video was intended as a joke for his girlfriend - a claim the court rejected given he posted the video on a public YouTube channel that she did not subscribe to. Basically, he managed, through his own conduct, to hit all of the points above.
Afterwards, he became a right wing cause celebre:
Meechan was scrutinised for embracing support from right-wing figures Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson, to which he replied: "Imagine totally abandoning protecting human rights, just because someone you don't like is defending them too. Astounding". On 6 May 2018, Meechan spoke at the "Day for Freedom" rally, which was organized by Robinson, and was described as far-right by news media and observers.
United Kingdom Independence Party Member of the European Parliament for Scotland David Coburn released a two-page statement condemning the ruling as "an embarrassment". Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, brought up Meechan's case in the House of Commons and said: "Can we have a debate about freedom of speech in this country – something this country has long held dear and is in danger of throwing away needlessly?"
Ultimately, he wound up throwing his lot in with UKIP:
On 16 June 2018, Meechan announced that he had joined UKIP along with fellow YouTubers Carl Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson in what Watson describes as an attempted "soft coup".
So, a summary - a YouTuber with right wing leanings creates a video of "turning his girlfriend's dog into a Nazi" containing antisemitic and antiBuddhist content, and is prosecuted under British hate speech laws. Afterwards, he winds up supported by a number of known alt-right figures, and ultimately himself joins UKIP - a political party built on racial grievance. Furthermore, his prosecution (which, let's note, he provided little in the way of a defense for) resulted in him having to pay an £800 fine, with no jail time. This does not strike me as a miscarriage of justice, but instead reminds me of what happened around weev in the US - tech community rallied around a misogynistic bully who liked to say racist things "ironically", and wound up being surprised when it turned out the racism wasn't ironic, with weev becoming the site administrator for...the Daily Stormer, the very website whose owner was just held liable for using it to encourage his followers to harass and threaten.
By the way, nobody has ever come up to me and told me that Meechan's video delegitimized and harmed them. So feck off with that personal accusation of "creating a deception for myself" claptrap.
So, we just had one of our formers explain - in detail - how videos that normalize hate create an environment where abuse and violence towards them is then normalized. And there have been many other minority voices out there explaining the same thing. The problem is not that nobody has come up to you and told you, because they have. The problem is that you're not listening.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
When Mark Meechan taught his girlfriend's dog to raise its right paw in response to "sieg heil" in an explicitly stated insincere fashion then it's probably not harmful in any measurable way and, if it is, is definitely not on the same level. Yet he fell afoul of speech laws and was sentenced to pay a fine of 800 euros for it.
You brought this up a few times, so I looked up the matter, wanting to better understand what happened. Wikipedia provides a good synopsis, so let's start there. First off, while his teaching the dog to do the Roman salute to "sieg Heil" is what is always brought up, it turns out that the video had more to it than that:
In April 2016, Meechan posted a video of his girlfriend's pet pug Buddha titled "M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi". At the start of the video, he says: "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi". In the video, the dog is seen raising his right paw in the manner of a Nazi salute (when prompted by the command "Sieg Heil"), watching a speech by Adolf Hitler and responding immediately when asked if he wanted to "gas the Jews". It ends with images of Adolf Hitler and Buddha depicted with a toothbrush moustache similar to the one Hitler sported.
So, here's the thing - he didn't just teach the dog the salute, but also taught the dog to respond positively to an antisemitic command, as well as then trying to rope Buddhism into the "joke", as it were. I would imagine that it was those latter two parts that prompted the prosecution under the Communications Act of 2003, specifically the malicious communications statute. The revised guidelines for prosecution in the law are worth noting:
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation. The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
*whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
*the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
*when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
*when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
*when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
This is worth noting because Meechan's initial defense was that the video was intended as a joke for his girlfriend - a claim the court rejected given he posted the video on a public YouTube channel that she did not subscribe to. Basically, he managed, through his own conduct, to hit all of the points above.
Afterwards, he became a right wing cause celebre:
Meechan was scrutinised for embracing support from right-wing figures Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson, to which he replied: "Imagine totally abandoning protecting human rights, just because someone you don't like is defending them too. Astounding". On 6 May 2018, Meechan spoke at the "Day for Freedom" rally, which was organized by Robinson, and was described as far-right by news media and observers.
United Kingdom Independence Party Member of the European Parliament for Scotland David Coburn released a two-page statement condemning the ruling as "an embarrassment". Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, brought up Meechan's case in the House of Commons and said: "Can we have a debate about freedom of speech in this country – something this country has long held dear and is in danger of throwing away needlessly?"
Ultimately, he wound up throwing his lot in with UKIP:
On 16 June 2018, Meechan announced that he had joined UKIP along with fellow YouTubers Carl Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson in what Watson describes as an attempted "soft coup".
So, a summary - a YouTuber with right wing leanings creates a video of "turning his girlfriend's dog into a Nazi" containing antisemitic and antiBuddhist content, and is prosecuted under British hate speech laws. Afterwards, he winds up supported by a number of known alt-right figures, and ultimately himself joins UKIP - a political party built on racial grievance. Furthermore, his prosecution (which, let's note, he provided little in the way of a defense for) resulted in him having to pay an £800 fine, with no jail time. This does not strike me as a miscarriage of justice, but instead reminds me of what happened around weev in the US - tech community rallied around a misogynistic bully who liked to say racist things "ironically", and wound up being surprised when it turned out the racism wasn't ironic, with weev becoming the site administrator for...the Daily Stormer, the very website whose owner was just held liable for using it to encourage his followers to harass and threaten.
By the way, nobody has ever come up to me and told me that Meechan's video delegitimized and harmed them. So feck off with that personal accusation of "creating a deception for myself" claptrap.
So, we just had one of our formers explain - in detail - how videos that normalize hate create an environment where abuse and violence towards them is then normalized. And there have been many other minority voices out there explaining the same thing. The problem is not that nobody has come up to you and told you, because they have. The problem is that you're not listening.
While I don't like using his actions after the case to justify the verdict, I can absolutely agree that knowing the full content of the video and where it was posted that this wasn't a case of the law being misapplied.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
For the purposes of research, it's generally better to stagger interventions so you can assess their effectiveness independently. That's if your goal is research though
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's a great question, and thank you for asking. You have no idea how rarely a conversation about these gets to this point.
All I want is protection under the law like I had before I came out as queer. You see, I passed for years. I'm a big athletic middle class white presenting dude-like person with a partner who can pass as female. I know what the inside of privelege is. I would call the cops if/when a crime would occur, they would be kind and take what happened seriously. They'd investigate, gather info, and if they had enough they'd arrest the person who broke in and send it to trial. Yay! The system works, and in one incident they even got my property back after it was stolen.
Being visibly Other changes all that. Almost all my above anecdotes came from times and places I dared to actually be myself. And it's not like its a subtle shift. I can wear my hair conventionally out and be invisible. Dare I put a simple braid in my hair and venture out in public I will 100% of the time get public commentary. About 50/50 positive to negative. Ranging from a simple mutter of "faggot" to "Somebody ought to put you down". Anyhow. Drifting off topic.
You see, if/when someone gives offense to me when I presented non-queer, my speech was taken seriously. When people threatened me or harmed me, I was treated like a person. I could go to the cops and say "I think this crime was comitted by this person, they've made comments towards me, maybe they're who did it?" (Home invasion by the neighbor's kid) and they went out, checked with parents, got permission to search his stuff, and lo and behold I have my stuff back within the month.
In times and place I've not conformed thats not how it goes. I don't get some snark from neighbor kids, I get death threats. I get followed. I get assaulted, on two occasions by someone who I knew by name. When talking to the cops then I spent the interview answering questions about where I moved from. About why I chose to dress so weird. Did I do anything to put a target on my back? And then when I mention wanting to talk about the assault that I was a victim of, from someone who called me a fag for years and told me he was going to put me down, when I bring that up I'm told it's just speech. That they can't do anything about it. That maybe I should move.
And legally? The cops don't have to do anything. Legally I don't have a leg to stand to make the cops look into anything. And its my fault you see. I chose to say what the people involved actually said. Bigots aren't necessarily idiots, at least the ones who are smart enough to stay out of jail. They won't threaten you directly. Its not "I'm coming for you", its "Somebody oughta go round and shut those mouthy faggots up for good" while not breaking hard eye contact.
And when I try to get my investigation reopened, I get told that they can't do anything because yeah, they went and talked to the person who assaulted me, and while he expressed wishing all queers would sent to prison so at least there they can get properly fucked, he denied threatening me personally and since I said he wanted all faggots to go away that wasn't a threat to me personally, and that he was no longer a person of interest.
Because its just speech.
What I want is a moderate expansion to the definitions of incitement and death threats to consider context. Thats it. Context. I don't want some dumbass kid who calls other kids gay to go to jail. I want that when I'm next threatened by someone I can go to the cops and say "This person, specifically, is issuing threats to all queer people. As a quewr person in proximity to that, could you look into that? And have a legal leg to stand on.
You know, like regular middle class white Americans do. I should know, I used to look like one.
I'm just going to focus on the legal part. I am not understanding your desires. To clarify, this is one of the first google results I found explaining a criminal threat law (in this case california):
The elements that the prosecution must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict you of criminal threats charges include:
You willfully made a threat to seriously injure or kill someone
The threat was made verbally, in writing or electronically communicated
You intended your statement to be received as a threat
The threat, on its face and under the circumstances, was so “unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific” that it conveyed an immediate possibility of execution, AND
The threatening statement caused the threatened person to be in reasonably sustained fear for his or her own safety or his or her immediate family’s safety
...
Although the law states that the threat must be “unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific,” the courts have ruled that the language of the statute does not mean that you must be standing in front of your intended victim with a weapon in your hand to be considered a criminal threat.
Additionally, there does not have to be a showing that you had the immediate ability to carry out the threat, nor does the statute require a time or specific manner of execution.
Rather, the statute requires that the words you used be of an immediately threatening nature and convey an immediate prospect of execution.
Courts have ruled that conditional threats – such as telling your significant other “I’ll kill you if you leave me” – are considered criminal threats when they are made with a sense of purpose and a likelihood that they will be executed.
To me the examples you are given are covered under this law. And it's not really clear to me what you are asking for, other than for this current law to actually be enforced in a fair and justifiable manner. To which I would think a better approach would be laws about enforcement and police in general, rather than laws about speech (since the laws you want already exist).
But, I guess I'll also quote myself from a few pages ago and ask, would this be something you considered reasonable as the only modification or new law passed?
As a starting point I think quid has often advocated for a law based on current threat laws, but with an expansion to not require imminence or an individual target.
So still requiring that the speech was intended to cause fear, was a direct call for physical violence, was credible, and real.
The credibility part would then be reliant on if any action is likely to happen rather than a specific one. So if I say "all [insert ethnicity] should be killed", a prosecutor wouldn't have to prove that it was credible that someone might actually kill all of that ethnicity in the world, just that someone might try and kill anyone of that ethnicity because of what I am saying.
quid may have actually been thinking more broadly, that the threat doesn't need to be credible, but I think that would be very important for me. Someone mouthing off in a moment of passion like "fuck the police, you should all be shot," in my opinion shouldn't be punished if they were just mouthing off, instead of actually trying to rally other people to shoot at police.
edit - to clarify, I'm saying this is a type of law that might work as it does not rely on a "harm" definition, but rather on the easy classification of a type of speech that we can all probably agree is harmful. But it will be very limited in its effect on speech and I'm guessing nowhere near broad enough for most people advocating for more hate speech laws.
-edit sorry for tagging you again quid
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
It's interesting to me that the diffuse harm it is claimed private hatespeech engenders is described nearly identically to the way private sins are still harmful
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
Well clearly these laws fail your test on what laws are effective and needed so might as well throw them out.
But i was thinking more about laws against totally not threatening someone while saying how people like them should be gotten rid of while staring at them.
My standards for whether a law is worth implementing are not uniform across all subjects. My point was that you hadn't really answered AiC's question. If clear laws on the books just plain aren't enforced, then what good is done by making more laws? How will those laws change anything?
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
What is this? what are you actually trying to say with this?
The only possible reason I can come up with is far too sinister to asume without clarification, so please, expand on this.
How will any laws change anything?
I mean, clearly the fact that these laws in this instance were not enforced, means that no laws ever would be.
/sarcasm
Having the option to start working with the police earlier, and having obvious laws to point at will not work always, but having them is better than not having them, even if only for the ofchange that you get a police officer who is not a complete pile of shit.
There's also civil lawsuits.
This person gets it perfectly. Law enforcement reform is a thread of its own, I basically want to the law to fail me in the ways that it sucks for everyone instead of it failing me in novel bigoted ways. I'd like the possibility of redress when it fails and the use of of "They threatened a group, not you specifically" is A failure point in our justice system. Changing that would be a start, of course bad faith actors are going to try other stuff. Just because someone is trying to harm you with multiple vectors doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to take one away. Just because something doesn't 100% fix everything doesn't mean it isn't an improvement.
I'm currently pretty happy with the direction civil suits are going on this, that lady who won a pile off a Nazi for doxxing and brigading her was very encouraging. I think it got linked to upthread, once I'm on PC instead on phone I'll see if I can't fimd it and link it again.
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
Right, but the argument is "Enforcement is a problem" therefore "we need to improve the laws". It's not just two separate observations. Its an argument that by changing the laws we will change the enforcement. But that doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny. If police will ignore a violent assault which is clearly and obviously illegal, why would they not ignore it if it is preceded by some illegal slurs.
This is especially true because in many places there are already hate crime laws. Attacking someone because they are a minority is already a more serious crime than just assaulting someone for some other reason.
Say police stop enforcing laws against speeding, something that is dangerous and kills people. Does that mean we should make talking about going fast a crime?
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
Right, but the argument is "Enforcement is a problem" therefore "we need to improve the laws". It's not just two separate observations. Its an argument that by changing the laws we will change the enforcement. But that doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny. If police will ignore a violent assault which is clearly and obviously illegal, why would they not ignore it if it is preceded by some illegal slurs.
This is especially true because in many places there are already hate crime laws. Attacking someone because they are a minority is already a more serious crime than just assaulting someone for some other reason.
Say police stop enforcing laws against speeding, something that is dangerous and kills people. Does that mean we should make talking about going fast a crime?
Is it? Whose argument?
Because my impression is more that "Law enforcement is a problem" and "current laws are insufficient"
These are two independent issues, that do interact with each other in nasty ways, but need to be tackled separately due to their nature.
Sorry to derail, but I said earlier that I'd link to the India case study I referenced about government intervention in online hate speech. I was linked to this by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sorry to derail, but I said earlier that I'd link to the India case study I referenced about government intervention in online hate speech. I was linked to this by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.
I glanced over it, this appears to just be the fluff peace proceeding the actual work. It seems to be an overview of India's laws with a few anecdotes of resultant cases, with a promise of actual thorough investigation to follow in a subsequent work. Unless I am just missing something.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
Right, but the argument is "Enforcement is a problem" therefore "we need to improve the laws". It's not just two separate observations. Its an argument that by changing the laws we will change the enforcement. But that doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny. If police will ignore a violent assault which is clearly and obviously illegal, why would they not ignore it if it is preceded by some illegal slurs.
This is especially true because in many places there are already hate crime laws. Attacking someone because they are a minority is already a more serious crime than just assaulting someone for some other reason.
Say police stop enforcing laws against speeding, something that is dangerous and kills people. Does that mean we should make talking about going fast a crime?
Is it? Whose argument?
Because my impression is more that "Law enforcement is a problem" and "current laws are insufficient"
These are two independent issues, that do interact with each other in nasty ways, but need to be tackled separately due to their nature.
I am in agreement on them being separate issues. The problem is that inevitably when talking about current laws being insufficient, the examples given include crimes that violate current laws. Which is very confusing. Is the violation of the current law supposed to be making a point about the insufficient nature of the law? Why bring it up at all if it is completely separate?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sorry to derail, but I said earlier that I'd link to the India case study I referenced about government intervention in online hate speech. I was linked to this by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.
I glanced over it, this appears to just be the fluff peace proceeding the actual work. It seems to be an overview of India's laws with a few anecdotes of resultant cases, with a promise of actual thorough investigation to follow in a subsequent work. Unless I am just missing something.
Case studies usually have a weak evidence base and precede more systematic investigation, but policy can only be guided by the best available evidence. At most, these provide expert summaries rather than the one-at-a-time narratives we've been doing. This was the only study linked by Berkman Klein regarding hate speech law efficacy.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Sorry, I feel dense, but what does it mean to have a legal leg to stand on? Not literally, I know the phrase, but...
Right now, you report an incident, it gets ignored.
With expanded laws, you report an incident, it gets ignored. What does your legal leg then do?
I'm looking for specifics because my privilege means I've got no idea what happens after an officer blows you off. Are we talking lawsuits against the police?
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
Right, but the argument is "Enforcement is a problem" therefore "we need to improve the laws". It's not just two separate observations. Its an argument that by changing the laws we will change the enforcement. But that doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny. If police will ignore a violent assault which is clearly and obviously illegal, why would they not ignore it if it is preceded by some illegal slurs.
This is especially true because in many places there are already hate crime laws. Attacking someone because they are a minority is already a more serious crime than just assaulting someone for some other reason.
Say police stop enforcing laws against speeding, something that is dangerous and kills people. Does that mean we should make talking about going fast a crime?
Is it? Whose argument?
Because my impression is more that "Law enforcement is a problem" and "current laws are insufficient"
These are two independent issues, that do interact with each other in nasty ways, but need to be tackled separately due to their nature.
I don't know how to parse what you said here as anything else than what tinwhiskers said:
If there is actual laws in the books, they can report the crime, and if the cops go "nope, nothing here" even when there clearly is and laws backs it up, they can then do something about that.
Having clear laws reduces the wriggle room cops have to say "nope, nothing actionable here", while being kinda/sorta/legally right.
I read this as saying better laws will lead to better enforcement. Or at the very least as saying better laws create the opportunity for better enforcement.
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Justice in our society requires evidence and standing, especially when it comes to appeals once law enforcement has violated your rights. I’m EXPECTING law enforcement to act in bad faith when it comes to minorities.
But the courts aren’t LE. While it’s often far too slow, error prone and rife with bad actors as well, the US federal court system has been the primary vector for the expansion of minority rights in my lifetime (in my mid thirties). By weakening the stringency of or striking outright needing threats to be as specific or imminent you would immediately grant an increased chance of redress from bigoted persecution. By opening up racist behavior as a grounds to appeal, maybe, just maybe, we can start to shift how LE and bigots can get away with targeting PoC and other minorities.
But doing that means changing definitions of some kinds of speech. I think it was Brandenburg I heard referenced as the relevant case, but my currently understanding that incitement is currently extremely narrowly defined. So much so that it is functionally dead letter law. By clearly expanding incitement to include broader patterns of threatening behavior it means that you expand appeals standings via the argument that the police abridged your rights by non-action against actual criminal behavior vs the current situation where they don’t have to do a damn thing if they know someone is targeting you but is smart enough to be vague. Smart bigots exist.
It’s a small, modest restriction of speech that I don’t think takes away almost anything of importance from society. It even keeps racist speech of most types legal, something that for whatever reason people keep arguing is super duper important. And you give a leg to stand on for people to advocate for their rights against a system that gives precious few ways to not be disappeared.
Justice in our society requires evidence and standing, especially when it comes to appeals once law enforcement has violated your rights. I’m EXPECTING law enforcement to act in bad faith when it comes to minorities.
But the courts aren’t LE. While it’s often far too slow, error prone and rife with bad actors as well, the US federal court system has been the primary vector for the expansion of minority rights in my lifetime (in my mid thirties). By weakening the stringency of or striking outright needing threats to be as specific or imminent you would immediately grant an increased chance of redress from bigoted persecution. By opening up racist behavior as a grounds to appeal, maybe, just maybe, we can start to shift how LE and bigots can get away with targeting PoC and other minorities.
But doing that means changing definitions of some kinds of speech. I think it was Brandenburg I heard referenced as the relevant case, but my currently understanding that incitement is currently extremely narrowly defined. So much so that it is functionally dead letter law. By clearly expanding incitement to include broader patterns of threatening behavior it means that you expand appeals standings via the argument that the police abridged your rights by non-action against actual criminal behavior vs the current situation where they don’t have to do a damn thing if they know someone is targeting you but is smart enough to be vague. Smart bigots exist.
It’s a small, modest restriction of speech that I don’t think takes away almost anything of importance from society. It even keeps racist speech of most types legal, something that for whatever reason people keep arguing is super duper important. And you give a leg to stand on for people to advocate for their rights against a system that gives precious few ways to not be disappeared.
The Brandenburg test is as follows:
a. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
AND
b. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action."
The idea that this makes the law functionally useless is not easily verifiable.
As for being a small, modest restriction of speech, the Brandenburg test was later applied in Hess v. Indiana, overturning the conviction of an anti-war protestor who stated, "We'll take the fucking street later." Do we value our ability to advocate for illegal action as long as it isn't right now?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+2
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Those changes seem like they open the door to a lot of things. Like, say, somebody protesting police corruption being fined or imprisoned because it is probable that their speech either influenced someone else toward eventual lawless action or was intended to.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Generally if a government official is supposed to be doing something but isn’t the remedy is filing for a writ of mandamus. Which is the court telling them to do their job. Usually when it issued against the police it’s to force them to follow zoning ordinances or some other thing because they aren’t responding to local businesses.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
It's telling that you don't use Brandenburg to defend it, because the case is an example of what @Meeqe has been talking about - the titular Brandenburg was a Klansman, and was convicted of incitement for inciting violence as such. The legal system was so appalled by this that they gutted the law on incitement in response. Brandenburg is not a good ruling - it is a symbol of how our legal system has protected white supremacy and its related domestic terrorism through history.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
Well, if you're pretty sure then go ahead and walk us through how.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
Well, if you're pretty sure then go ahead and walk us through how.
Well, for one, we start acknowledging domestic terrorists like the Klan for what they are and respond accordingly - a large part of the problem is that as a society we are loathe to do that. But beyond that, we're coming back to one argument that's been running through this thread - that hate speech is the "price" of free speech, and thus you can't deal with the former without negatively impacting the latter. The thing is, this argument is never made outright (I would imagine because people know how it sounds), but is always couched in language that makes hate speech sound less harmful than it is (as well as presenting it as a matter of viewpoint.)
I would like to see a construction of these proposed non-specific non-imminent threat laws. That wouldn't ban something like one of my personal favorite all time bangers:
'Bout to turn this mothafucka up like Riker's Island, bruh
Where my thuggers and my cripples and my blooders and my brothers?
When you n[***]as gon' unite and kill the police, mothafuckas?
Or take over a jail, give those COs hell
The burnin' of the sulfur, God damn I love the smell
Blankets and pillow torchin', where the fuck the warden?
And when you find him, we don't kill him, we just waterboard him
We killin' 'em for freedom cause they tortured us for boredom
And even if some good ones die, fuck it, the Lord'll sort 'em
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
Well, if you're pretty sure then go ahead and walk us through how.
Well, for one, we start acknowledging domestic terrorists like the Klan for what they are and respond accordingly - a large part of the problem is that as a society we are loathe to do that. But beyond that, we're coming back to one argument that's been running through this thread - that hate speech is the "price" of free speech, and thus you can't deal with the former without negatively impacting the latter. The thing is, this argument is never made outright (I would imagine because people know how it sounds), but is always couched in language that makes hate speech sound less harmful than it is (as well as presenting it as a matter of viewpoint.)
It doesn't take a hate speech law to acknowledge the Klan as a domestic terrorist org.
But anyway. I fully understand that your position is that hate speech can be policed without materially harming free speech. Restating is not necessary. Nor is restating that position an answer to my question.
If indeed this is such a thing you are sure is doable, then tell me how.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
Well, if you're pretty sure then go ahead and walk us through how.
Well, for one, we start acknowledging domestic terrorists like the Klan for what they are and respond accordingly - a large part of the problem is that as a society we are loathe to do that. But beyond that, we're coming back to one argument that's been running through this thread - that hate speech is the "price" of free speech, and thus you can't deal with the former without negatively impacting the latter. The thing is, this argument is never made outright (I would imagine because people know how it sounds), but is always couched in language that makes hate speech sound less harmful than it is (as well as presenting it as a matter of viewpoint.)
It doesn't take a hate speech law to acknowledge the Klan as a domestic terrorist org.
But anyway. I fully understand that your position is that hate speech can be policed without materially harming free speech. Restating is not necessary. Nor is restating that position an answer to my question.
If indeed this is such a thing you are sure is doable, then tell me how.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
It's telling that you don't use Brandenburg to defend it, because the case is an example of what @Meeqe has been talking about - the titular Brandenburg was a Klansman, and was convicted of incitement for inciting violence as such. The legal system was so appalled by this that they gutted the law on incitement in response. Brandenburg is not a good ruling - it is a symbol of how our legal system has protected white supremacy and its related domestic terrorism through history.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
We're stepping backwards here. My objective is to make sure both the pros and cons are considered when proposing changes that affect the current legal standard.
I'm not trying to hide anything. The harms of Brandenburg are exceedingly obvious and have been thoroughly discussed. However, the full context of the decision is that it has been reaffirmed multiple times, and not just for KKK members. We should acknowledge its implications in protecting speech other than white supremacy because that is reality. We have to think deeper than "this ruling helped a white supremacist and is therefore bad; white supremacists should never win anything in court."
The modification Meeqe mentioned above is practically unlikely because in all cases employing the Brandenburg test, the modifications would reverse the decision. If there are alternate modifications, they should be proposed so their effects and likelihood can be discussed.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That'd be the exact criteria I'd want to change. Change that AND to an OR, or remove imminent from clause 1 and I'd call it a start.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
It's telling that you don't use Brandenburg to defend it, because the case is an example of what @Meeqe has been talking about - the titular Brandenburg was a Klansman, and was convicted of incitement for inciting violence as such. The legal system was so appalled by this that they gutted the law on incitement in response. Brandenburg is not a good ruling - it is a symbol of how our legal system has protected white supremacy and its related domestic terrorism through history.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
We're stepping backwards here. My objective is to make sure both the pros and cons are considered when proposing changes that affect the current legal standard.
I'm not trying to hide anything. The harms of Brandenburg are exceedingly obvious and have been thoroughly discussed. However, the full context of the decision is that it has been reaffirmed multiple times, and not just for KKK members. We should acknowledge its implications in protecting speech other than white supremacy because that is reality. We have to think deeper than "this ruling helped a white supremacist and is therefore bad; white supremacists should never win anything in court."
The modification Meeqe mentioned above is practically unlikely because in all cases employing the Brandenburg test, the modifications would reverse the decision. If there are alternate modifications, they should be proposed so their effects and likelihood can be discussed.
Brandenburg is not bad because it "helped a white supremacist", but because of what it represents - laws that the Supreme Court had no problem upholding when used against groups and people that were viewed negatively by society suddenly became an affront when applied to an enforcer of white supremacy, and thus had to be removed. The legal community was so scandalized by the idea that a Klansman would be held accountable for inciting violence that they responded by restricting incitement so much that it's effectively dead as a law, as it is now easy to get around it. And while you keep talking about the positive aspects, you also give short shrift to the negative ones, which is what @Meeqe was talking about. It's hard to feel safe when people can whip up hate and violence against you, and there's nothing you can do about it legally.
Which ones specifically do you want me to learn about?
That is a list of gish gallop and I can't chase them all down.
It's 33 short paragraphs on nations with hate speech laws on Wikipedia, including brief descriptions of what laws they have and how they work. Not sure I'd classify that as "gish gallop."
Posts
Its not about censorship, its about equal protection. And I'd sooner buy a bridge from someone than buy that minorities get it right now. Sure, holding people accountable for threats is hard ahead of time. But law enforcement isn't there to stop crimes. Cops rarely stop crime in progress, what they do is investigate afterwords. I'd like general bigotry to be considered more strongly as evidence, and having standing to appeal to a higher court if someone gets off because their non-specific threats get repressed as evidence or similar miscarriages of justice seems to me like a nice moderate place to start.
Gotta watch out for that slippery slope and all
Actual, clear laws like the ones about assault and battery?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Well clearly these laws fail your test on what laws are effective and needed so might as well throw them out.
But i was thinking more about laws against totally not threatening someone while saying how people like them should be gotten rid of while staring at them.
What is this? what are you actually trying to say with this?
The only possible reason I can come up with is far too sinister to asume without clarification, so please, expand on this.
"Hate speechs laws can't work because police are terrible"
Is, i believe, the main thrust of the argument.
I could be wrong.
My standards for whether a law is worth implementing are not uniform across all subjects. My point was that you hadn't really answered AiC's question. If clear laws on the books just plain aren't enforced, then what good is done by making more laws? How will those laws change anything?
I mean, clearly the fact that these laws in this instance were not enforced, means that no laws ever would be.
/sarcasm
Having the option to start working with the police earlier, and having obvious laws to point at will not work always, but having them is better than not having them, even if only for the ofchange that you get a police officer who is not a complete pile of shit.
There's also civil lawsuits.
You brought this up a few times, so I looked up the matter, wanting to better understand what happened. Wikipedia provides a good synopsis, so let's start there. First off, while his teaching the dog to do the Roman salute to "sieg Heil" is what is always brought up, it turns out that the video had more to it than that:
So, here's the thing - he didn't just teach the dog the salute, but also taught the dog to respond positively to an antisemitic command, as well as then trying to rope Buddhism into the "joke", as it were. I would imagine that it was those latter two parts that prompted the prosecution under the Communications Act of 2003, specifically the malicious communications statute. The revised guidelines for prosecution in the law are worth noting:
This is worth noting because Meechan's initial defense was that the video was intended as a joke for his girlfriend - a claim the court rejected given he posted the video on a public YouTube channel that she did not subscribe to. Basically, he managed, through his own conduct, to hit all of the points above.
Afterwards, he became a right wing cause celebre:
Ultimately, he wound up throwing his lot in with UKIP:
So, a summary - a YouTuber with right wing leanings creates a video of "turning his girlfriend's dog into a Nazi" containing antisemitic and antiBuddhist content, and is prosecuted under British hate speech laws. Afterwards, he winds up supported by a number of known alt-right figures, and ultimately himself joins UKIP - a political party built on racial grievance. Furthermore, his prosecution (which, let's note, he provided little in the way of a defense for) resulted in him having to pay an £800 fine, with no jail time. This does not strike me as a miscarriage of justice, but instead reminds me of what happened around weev in the US - tech community rallied around a misogynistic bully who liked to say racist things "ironically", and wound up being surprised when it turned out the racism wasn't ironic, with weev becoming the site administrator for...the Daily Stormer, the very website whose owner was just held liable for using it to encourage his followers to harass and threaten.
So, we just had one of our formers explain - in detail - how videos that normalize hate create an environment where abuse and violence towards them is then normalized. And there have been many other minority voices out there explaining the same thing. The problem is not that nobody has come up to you and told you, because they have. The problem is that you're not listening.
I mean, there are laws against rape and sexual assault, yet we also have evidence that police departments are not taking seriously many of those reports by women who say they were raped or sexually assaulted, and not investigating or prosecuting these cases even when there's physical evidence to support it, sometimes because the officers and officials simply don't believe the women, but also sometimes because their idea of what constitutes rape and/or sexual assault doesn't gel with society's (and reality's) definition.
Does this therefore mean that we shouldn't have better laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault? Or is it that the current laws aren't comprehensive enough, and also there is a culture within the system that is contrary to actually executing the law as it should be? That the culture within the police force needs to be corrected does not mean that wanting revised laws is an incorrect path to take, because these sorts of things aren't a binary proposition.
Right, but people are using one to argue FOR the need of the other.
If the argument is that because the police department refuses to prosecute assault, we therefore need hate speech laws. There needs to be some logic to why they'd prosecute the person for the slur, when they won't for the punch.
If law enforcement is a problem, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves cannot also be improved. But a discussion of how to improve our law enforcement is beyond the topic of this thread.
While I don't like using his actions after the case to justify the verdict, I can absolutely agree that knowing the full content of the video and where it was posted that this wasn't a case of the law being misapplied.
For the purposes of research, it's generally better to stagger interventions so you can assess their effectiveness independently. That's if your goal is research though
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm just going to focus on the legal part. I am not understanding your desires. To clarify, this is one of the first google results I found explaining a criminal threat law (in this case california):
To me the examples you are given are covered under this law. And it's not really clear to me what you are asking for, other than for this current law to actually be enforced in a fair and justifiable manner. To which I would think a better approach would be laws about enforcement and police in general, rather than laws about speech (since the laws you want already exist).
But, I guess I'll also quote myself from a few pages ago and ask, would this be something you considered reasonable as the only modification or new law passed?
-edit sorry for tagging you again quid
This person gets it perfectly. Law enforcement reform is a thread of its own, I basically want to the law to fail me in the ways that it sucks for everyone instead of it failing me in novel bigoted ways. I'd like the possibility of redress when it fails and the use of of "They threatened a group, not you specifically" is A failure point in our justice system. Changing that would be a start, of course bad faith actors are going to try other stuff. Just because someone is trying to harm you with multiple vectors doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to take one away. Just because something doesn't 100% fix everything doesn't mean it isn't an improvement.
I'm currently pretty happy with the direction civil suits are going on this, that lady who won a pile off a Nazi for doxxing and brigading her was very encouraging. I think it got linked to upthread, once I'm on PC instead on phone I'll see if I can't fimd it and link it again.
Right, but the argument is "Enforcement is a problem" therefore "we need to improve the laws". It's not just two separate observations. Its an argument that by changing the laws we will change the enforcement. But that doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny. If police will ignore a violent assault which is clearly and obviously illegal, why would they not ignore it if it is preceded by some illegal slurs.
This is especially true because in many places there are already hate crime laws. Attacking someone because they are a minority is already a more serious crime than just assaulting someone for some other reason.
Say police stop enforcing laws against speeding, something that is dangerous and kills people. Does that mean we should make talking about going fast a crime?
Because my impression is more that "Law enforcement is a problem" and "current laws are insufficient"
These are two independent issues, that do interact with each other in nasty ways, but need to be tackled separately due to their nature.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I glanced over it, this appears to just be the fluff peace proceeding the actual work. It seems to be an overview of India's laws with a few anecdotes of resultant cases, with a promise of actual thorough investigation to follow in a subsequent work. Unless I am just missing something.
I am in agreement on them being separate issues. The problem is that inevitably when talking about current laws being insufficient, the examples given include crimes that violate current laws. Which is very confusing. Is the violation of the current law supposed to be making a point about the insufficient nature of the law? Why bring it up at all if it is completely separate?
Case studies usually have a weak evidence base and precede more systematic investigation, but policy can only be guided by the best available evidence. At most, these provide expert summaries rather than the one-at-a-time narratives we've been doing. This was the only study linked by Berkman Klein regarding hate speech law efficacy.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't know how to parse what you said here as anything else than what tinwhiskers said:
I read this as saying better laws will lead to better enforcement. Or at the very least as saying better laws create the opportunity for better enforcement.
But the courts aren’t LE. While it’s often far too slow, error prone and rife with bad actors as well, the US federal court system has been the primary vector for the expansion of minority rights in my lifetime (in my mid thirties). By weakening the stringency of or striking outright needing threats to be as specific or imminent you would immediately grant an increased chance of redress from bigoted persecution. By opening up racist behavior as a grounds to appeal, maybe, just maybe, we can start to shift how LE and bigots can get away with targeting PoC and other minorities.
But doing that means changing definitions of some kinds of speech. I think it was Brandenburg I heard referenced as the relevant case, but my currently understanding that incitement is currently extremely narrowly defined. So much so that it is functionally dead letter law. By clearly expanding incitement to include broader patterns of threatening behavior it means that you expand appeals standings via the argument that the police abridged your rights by non-action against actual criminal behavior vs the current situation where they don’t have to do a damn thing if they know someone is targeting you but is smart enough to be vague. Smart bigots exist.
It’s a small, modest restriction of speech that I don’t think takes away almost anything of importance from society. It even keeps racist speech of most types legal, something that for whatever reason people keep arguing is super duper important. And you give a leg to stand on for people to advocate for their rights against a system that gives precious few ways to not be disappeared.
The Brandenburg test is as follows:
a. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
AND
b. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action."
The idea that this makes the law functionally useless is not easily verifiable.
As for being a small, modest restriction of speech, the Brandenburg test was later applied in Hess v. Indiana, overturning the conviction of an anti-war protestor who stated, "We'll take the fucking street later." Do we value our ability to advocate for illegal action as long as it isn't right now?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It renders it functionally useless because anyone with two brain cells can loophole their threats, citing that since its not illegal to just generally advocate for genocide that advocating for genocide of a group doesn't construe an imminent threat. We simply don't take direct genocidal hate speech as a threat legally. And it lets the cops just look the other way, with very little recourse.
If and when it comes for advocating for lawless action history shows that all manner of nuance goes out the window. No one pushed the point of lawless violence is going to care two wits about it being illegal to talk about that violence. Also, lawless authoritarians don't need laws to enable their actions.
Change the criteria in either way and the protester goes to jail. You may consider that to be an acceptable loss, but you should think and talk about the ways your proposal can backfire instead of tunneling into the ways in which it can specifically be used to conquer your enemy.
As for statements about people not caring about the law when it comes to lawless violence and authorities not enforcing these laws, those arguments kind of weaken the point that these laws that will definitely require more enforcement will be effective. It's kind of weird to advocate for law as the answer and at the same time say that the law doesn't matter when the chips are down.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Those changes seem like they open the door to a lot of things. Like, say, somebody protesting police corruption being fined or imprisoned because it is probable that their speech either influenced someone else toward eventual lawless action or was intended to.
It's telling that you don't use Brandenburg to defend it, because the case is an example of what @Meeqe has been talking about - the titular Brandenburg was a Klansman, and was convicted of incitement for inciting violence as such. The legal system was so appalled by this that they gutted the law on incitement in response. Brandenburg is not a good ruling - it is a symbol of how our legal system has protected white supremacy and its related domestic terrorism through history.
Also, I'm pretty sure that we can create a standard that protects protesters while holding domestic terrorists (because that is what the Klan is) legally accountable, so the argument that we either protect both the protestor and the Klansman or we protect neither is not one I find terribly compelling.
Well, if you're pretty sure then go ahead and walk us through how.
Well, for one, we start acknowledging domestic terrorists like the Klan for what they are and respond accordingly - a large part of the problem is that as a society we are loathe to do that. But beyond that, we're coming back to one argument that's been running through this thread - that hate speech is the "price" of free speech, and thus you can't deal with the former without negatively impacting the latter. The thing is, this argument is never made outright (I would imagine because people know how it sounds), but is always couched in language that makes hate speech sound less harmful than it is (as well as presenting it as a matter of viewpoint.)
NSFW.
It doesn't take a hate speech law to acknowledge the Klan as a domestic terrorist org.
But anyway. I fully understand that your position is that hate speech can be policed without materially harming free speech. Restating is not necessary. Nor is restating that position an answer to my question.
If indeed this is such a thing you are sure is doable, then tell me how.
Step One: Stop pretending this is a purely theoretical conversation and start learning about the state of hate speech regulation across the world.
That is a list of gish gallop and I can't chase them all down.
We're stepping backwards here. My objective is to make sure both the pros and cons are considered when proposing changes that affect the current legal standard.
I'm not trying to hide anything. The harms of Brandenburg are exceedingly obvious and have been thoroughly discussed. However, the full context of the decision is that it has been reaffirmed multiple times, and not just for KKK members. We should acknowledge its implications in protecting speech other than white supremacy because that is reality. We have to think deeper than "this ruling helped a white supremacist and is therefore bad; white supremacists should never win anything in court."
The modification Meeqe mentioned above is practically unlikely because in all cases employing the Brandenburg test, the modifications would reverse the decision. If there are alternate modifications, they should be proposed so their effects and likelihood can be discussed.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Brandenburg is not bad because it "helped a white supremacist", but because of what it represents - laws that the Supreme Court had no problem upholding when used against groups and people that were viewed negatively by society suddenly became an affront when applied to an enforcer of white supremacy, and thus had to be removed. The legal community was so scandalized by the idea that a Klansman would be held accountable for inciting violence that they responded by restricting incitement so much that it's effectively dead as a law, as it is now easy to get around it. And while you keep talking about the positive aspects, you also give short shrift to the negative ones, which is what @Meeqe was talking about. It's hard to feel safe when people can whip up hate and violence against you, and there's nothing you can do about it legally.
It's 33 short paragraphs on nations with hate speech laws on Wikipedia, including brief descriptions of what laws they have and how they work. Not sure I'd classify that as "gish gallop."