After some googling, I see that the US is more 'white' than Canada by a small margin, so if Canada is 'mostly homogeneous', so is the US.
without derailing, is it? We count numbers differently, but the US is about 62% white, 18% hispanic, 13% black, and 5% asian, and the rest is multiracial or smaller categories. All the googling I could find puts Canada at about 80% white, with the rest a boad mix of various others.
I think they're combining white and hispanic. Which would put it around 80% for both.
(As an aside, obviously the best road ahead for the Republicans is to expand the cultural definition of White to include Hispanics, but that will derail more lol)
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
I feel like if your counter argument involves a "but what if this is used against white people like myself as part of a dystopian nightmare hellscape" then it's probably a bad argument. And most arguments against hate speech laws seem to boil down to that.
Not pointing at anyone specific here. Just an observation of the trend of these sorts of arguments on the whole.
More like what happens when the government uses hate speech laws to go after, say, BDS. They're already trying to do that and weakening the first amendment will make it substantially easier.
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Let's get a little more real.
While there are some people wanting government intervention on hate speech (specifically on the grounds that it incites violence, WHICH IT DOES), the most prevalent manifestation of "free speech!" cries comes from people rallying against private institutions for having rules of conduct. Schools, websites, that sorta thing. And likewise there are people calling for these institutions to expand on those rules as they are sometimes too vague or don't cover enough ground, or sometimes the rules aren't enforced at all and are as such demanded to be acted upon.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
I don’t think that that is true.
The argument is that hate speech laws are too broadly defined and not evenly enforced.
Only those thinking up poorly defined ones. Once again, other countries manage it without devolving in to tyranny.
Like, just start with not seriously advocating the murder of groups of people. I don’t know of any necessity for it.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do by default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
The point of the first amendment is for the government to not punish people being critical or insulting of said government, in addition to not restricting religious practice nor restricting what the press reports on.
All this shit about free speech absolutism is not actually the point and never was.
There's nothing absolutist about what I said. Please go back and reread the last sentence.
Every freedom comes with attendant responsibilities. We can and do set standards - arguments against "free speech" are at their best an effort to dramatically lower the standard by which we infringe on the People's inherent freedom, and that is a bad idea regardless of how righteous we think the reasoning is.
It's often the righteous who institute oppression.
This is why I said absolutism, because you're arguing it should be absolute.
No, I'm arguing that it should be the way it is right now. Status quo please, no more no less.
The status quo is getting people killed. It's been a week since the New Zealand thing, and god knows how many people in America alone have been beaten or killed in that time.
I think there's kind of a soft assumption that either we have hate speech laws or we have a society where you get away with being a racist shitbird and I don't think it holds water.
I’m starting to think we need a law that whenever you make a cultural reference to 1984 in your argument (thought crime, memory hole, etc) you are required to provide a 1000 word book report exploring the themes of the book related to the idea you’re referencing.
This is a joke highlighting an issue with people throwing around ideas from 1984 without actually seeming to understand the context of those idea, the nature of IngSoc society and the mechanics of its fascism
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Fact checking:
From Wikipedia:
The US is approximately 53.54% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2015)
Canada is approximately 72.9% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2016)
To argue either is homongenous, however, is a bullshit point as that 72.9% in Canada is split down marked ethic divergent ways, with only approximately 59.1% of that number being White-Anglo western, and with a considerable amount being Francophone 29.1% of that number, amongst signifigant "white" populations that are specifically non-anglosphere first generation populations.
I think there's kind of a soft assumption that either we have hate speech laws or we have a society where you get away with being a racist shitbird and I don't think it holds water.
I’m inclined to disagree given the literal resurgence of Nazis.
It’s more that I don’t think bad actors care what the law is in the first place.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
While there are some people wanting government intervention on hate speech (specifically on the grounds that it incites violence, WHICH IT DOES), the most prevalent manifestation of "free speech!" cries comes from people rallying against private institutions for having rules of conduct. Schools, websites, that sorta thing. And likewise there are people calling for these institutions to expand on those rules as they are sometimes too vague or don't cover enough ground, or sometimes the rules aren't enforced at all and are as such demanded to be acted upon.
when we step away from the questions of government infringement, my feelings get a lot more malleable and flexible. Generally we don't want to have a society in which it's impossible to talk freely but the scope of that speech can be restricted a lot more broadly without doing damage to society or the people. Just because you can say something, that doesn't mean you should say it, and I'm fine with those sorts of codes of conduct.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I feel like if your counter argument involves a "but what if this is used against white people like myself as part of a dystopian nightmare hellscape" then it's probably a bad argument. And most arguments against hate speech laws seem to boil down to that.
Not pointing at anyone specific here. Just an observation of the trend of these sorts of arguments on the whole.
More like what happens when the government uses hate speech laws to go after, say, BDS. They're already trying to do that and weakening the first amendment will make it substantially easier.
Only if groups such as that one were advocating actual violence, as with Canada's laws.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I feel like if your counter argument involves a "but what if this is used against white people like myself as part of a dystopian nightmare hellscape" then it's probably a bad argument. And most arguments against hate speech laws seem to boil down to that.
Not pointing at anyone specific here. Just an observation of the trend of these sorts of arguments on the whole.
More like what happens when the government uses hate speech laws to go after, say, BDS. They're already trying to do that and weakening the first amendment will make it substantially easier.
Only if groups such as that one were advocating actual violence, as with Canada's laws.
Violence isnt a very clear line in the US legal system
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You'll find vast disagreement on what folks consider ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
After some googling, I see that the US is more 'white' than Canada by a small margin, so if Canada is 'mostly homogeneous', so is the US.
without derailing, is it? We count numbers differently, but the US is about 62% white, 18% hispanic, 13% black, and 5% asian, and the rest is multiracial or smaller categories. All the googling I could find puts Canada at about 80% white, with the rest a boad mix of various others.
That's because you are not looking at the same kind of numbers on both sides.
From Wikipedia:
The US is approximately 53.54% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2015)
Canada is approximately 72.9% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2016)
To argue either is homongenous, however, is a bullshit point as that 72.9% in Canada is split down marked ethic divergent ways, with only approximately 59.1% of that number being White-Anglo western, and with a considerable amount being Francophone 29.1% of that number, amongst signifigant "white" populations that are specifically non-anglosphere first generation populations.
Not including hispanics as white is a massive confounding factor here because of the different ethnic mixes between the US and Canada.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You'll find vast disagreement on what folks consider ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in
We'll start with "Let's murder all the non-whites".
The problem with these kind of bad arguments is they assume we can't be real narrow here and yet still catch a lot of people. It's not like a lot of the problems we see are fucking subtle.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
Quid on
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
After some googling, I see that the US is more 'white' than Canada by a small margin, so if Canada is 'mostly homogeneous', so is the US.
without derailing, is it? We count numbers differently, but the US is about 62% white, 18% hispanic, 13% black, and 5% asian, and the rest is multiracial or smaller categories. All the googling I could find puts Canada at about 80% white, with the rest a boad mix of various others.
That's because you are not looking at the same kind of numbers on both sides.
From Wikipedia:
The US is approximately 53.54% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2015)
Canada is approximately 72.9% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2016)
To argue either is homongenous, however, is a bullshit point as that 72.9% in Canada is split down marked ethic divergent ways, with only approximately 59.1% of that number being White-Anglo western, and with a considerable amount being Francophone 29.1% of that number, amongst signifigant "white" populations that are specifically non-anglosphere first generation populations.
Not including hispanics as white is a massive confounding factor here because of the different ethnic mixes between the US and Canada.
It would be odd to consider hispanic populations as white when we are talking about hate crime legislation.
If you wanted to, though, those numbers go up to about 75% and 78% respectively.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
After some googling, I see that the US is more 'white' than Canada by a small margin, so if Canada is 'mostly homogeneous', so is the US.
without derailing, is it? We count numbers differently, but the US is about 62% white, 18% hispanic, 13% black, and 5% asian, and the rest is multiracial or smaller categories. All the googling I could find puts Canada at about 80% white, with the rest a boad mix of various others.
That's because you are not looking at the same kind of numbers on both sides.
From Wikipedia:
The US is approximately 53.54% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2015)
Canada is approximately 72.9% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2016)
To argue either is homongenous, however, is a bullshit point as that 72.9% in Canada is split down marked ethic divergent ways, with only approximately 59.1% of that number being White-Anglo western, and with a considerable amount being Francophone 29.1% of that number, amongst signifigant "white" populations that are specifically non-anglosphere first generation populations.
Not including hispanics as white is a massive confounding factor here because of the different ethnic mixes between the US and Canada.
It would be odd to consider hispanic populations as white when we are talking about hate crime legislation.
If you wanted to, though, those numbers go up to about 75% and 78% respectively.
It would be odd to only consider hispanics not-white but not any other group when you are comparing two countries with such a massive massive difference in their hispanic populations.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
But then we’re back to you acting as if they should have no power ever.
You’re not arguing against hate speech laws. You’re arguing against ever trusting the government in any instance.
Quid on
+10
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
Your lack of faith in literally all aspects of the US government at all levels aside, this stance is functionally the same as "the government only exists to do evil and cannot be trusted as a tool or mechanisim to do good" which is a loaded premise at best and is functionally disprovable in a variety of ways.
It is perfectly possible to write a law which functions within the boundaries of the 1st amendment without defeating the point of the first amendment. Increasing the conditions in which the 1st amendment protections are waived to include things like doxxing and other directly harmful actions marginally beyond direct threats of violence may be such a law to consider.
Any approach to hate speech laws in the US have to come from the opposite end of the spectrum than in other countries. It cant be "what law can we pass to stop hate crime" but instead "what exclusions to the 1st amendment are within the framework of the intended purpose of the amendment." This already limits bad faith legislation from getting legs as the court challenge will have to show why there is a pressing need and alteration to the framework of speech to merit such a change, providing more protections for those who might be wrongfully assaulted by such a change.
If anything, our legal framework is more cautious and less likely to be abused than others, even with bad faith actors at the helm of the executive. Those bad faith actors aren't going anywhere, the system has to work within the boundaries of knowing they are there, and while its being tested right now generally it does the job.
The fact that there are abuses right now doesn't change this fact. A lot of folks seem to focus upon the occasional inadequacies of the system not as things needing corrections but as a judgement against the system as a whole, without pointing to any actual solution beyond shouting things are bad. We know they are bad. We want to fix them. Saying no fix is good and nothing can be trusted is close to doomsaying if not arguing in bad faith.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
But then we’re back to you acting as if they should have no power ever.
No power ever? If we have a thread about traffic lights I guess we can talk about that, but yeah I'd rather the government have a lot less power. I'm far more libertarian than this board in general.
What bugs me is the efficacy and scope of these hate speech laws is a fast moving target.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
But then we’re back to you acting as if they should have no power ever.
No power ever? If we have a thread about traffic lights I guess we can talk about that, but yeah I'd rather the government have a lot less power. I'm far more libertarian than this board in general.
What bugs me is the efficacy and scope of these hate speech laws is a fast moving target.
It isn't, though. Not in the US. Our exclusions to the 1st Amendment have remained largely unchanged for decades and only marginally changed since their inception.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
But then we’re back to you acting as if they should have no power ever.
No power ever? If we have a thread about traffic lights I guess we can talk about that, but yeah I'd rather the government have a lot less power. I'm far more libertarian than this board in general.
What bugs me is the efficacy and scope of these hate speech laws is a fast moving target.
Traffic lights get abused all the time by government.
Like, a massive amount more than current speech laws.
If you just don’t ever want to trust the government, that’s fine. But that’s an argument against the current government, not specific legislation.
I could use this same logic though to argue for really almost anything. You don't support mandatory organ donations? We're only take one kidney and its just a matter of making sure the right people are in charge, after all any law can be abused.
Its a silly argument from extreme that has little to do with what's actually on the table.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
The whole point of the 1st Amendment is the recognition that government ought not be allowed to infringe on basic liberties inherent to the people. It's not about whether you trust this government to avoid shooting the wrong person - it's a core thing that governments simply should not be able to do be default. They're run by people, people who don't always agree. The bar needs to be high as fuck, the social need obvious and desperate, and the remedy the only remaining one left to us, before we gag the People in any way.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
But then we’re back to you acting as if they should have no power ever.
No power ever? If we have a thread about traffic lights I guess we can talk about that, but yeah I'd rather the government have a lot less power. I'm far more libertarian than this board in general.
What bugs me is the efficacy and scope of these hate speech laws is a fast moving target.
Traffic lights get abused all the time by government.
Like, a massive amount more than current speech laws.
If you just don’t ever want to trust the government, that’s fine. But that’s an argument against the current government, not specific legislation.
Its not an argument against the current government. Its an argument that our government, across party lines and generations, has proven that its willing to abuse laws like those against making terrorist threats and that power should not be expanded so long as that danger remains real, which it is.
Hate speech laws exist and work in many countries without turning them into fascist dictatorships. To insist that they always do is the stare the real world in the face and then reject it.
Did you know that anti-nazi laws have caused videos from the youtube series contrapoints to be banned?
Hate speech laws are misused all the fucking time. Such as when France tries to ban the hateful act of being a Muslim woman in public.
I’m pretty sure there’s examples of fraud and threatening speech laws being misused or abused in the past too.
That speaks to the necessity of ensuring said regulation should be crafted carefully and executed in good faith. Not in refusing to bother trying.
I'm not sure of you've looked at the world's government's lately, but very few of them seem to be able to act in good faith on any dependable recurrence.
Well then no laws ever again I suppose. Shut it all down, boys.
Or more realistically, every single law ever requires good faith execution by the government. If you don’t think governments can’t be trusted with any laws ever because eventually bad actors will appear, well, okay. But I don’t agree.
This argument comes up a lot on this board and its such a weird way to hand wave actual problems with the way our government regularly behaves. Yes, every law requires good faith to work as intended, that doesn't mean the failure state for every law under bad faith is the same.
Might as well say every weapon requires care to use safely so why not just let people have whatever armaments they want.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You'll find vast disagreement on what folks consider ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in
We'll start with "Let's murder all the non-whites".
The problem with these kind of bad arguments is they assume we can't be real narrow here and yet still catch a lot of people. It's not like a lot of the problems we see are fucking subtle.
No my problem is that there will definitely be folks that will want to start with the entire religion of Islam, and unfortunately a bunch of those folks are already in positions of power, and have been for most of my life span.
I could use this same logic though to argue for really almost anything. You don't support mandatory organ donations? We're only take one kidney and its just a matter of making sure the right people are in charge, after all any law can be abused.
Its a silly argument from extreme that has little to do with what's actually on the table.
Well, that's a frontrunner for the "worst analogy in a political argument 2019" award.
Seriously, what the fuck?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+6
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I could use this same logic though to argue for really almost anything. You don't support mandatory organ donations? We're only take one kidney and its just a matter of making sure the right people are in charge, after all any law can be abused.
Its a silly argument from extreme that has little to do with what's actually on the table.
That's literally not at all what any of us said nor is it how the US operates. We're talking about legal structures that work regardless of who is in charge, and using the systems in place to limit such abuses when loopholes are discovered by bad faith actors.
I could use this same logic though to argue for really almost anything. You don't support mandatory organ donations? We're only take one kidney and its just a matter of making sure the right people are in charge, after all any law can be abused.
Its a silly argument from extreme that has little to do with what's actually on the table.
I can explain why mandatory organ donations would be bad. You haven’t provided any explanation for why disallowing others to call for violence against others would be bad beyond the fact that you don’t trust the government.
Posts
I think they're combining white and hispanic. Which would put it around 80% for both.
(As an aside, obviously the best road ahead for the Republicans is to expand the cultural definition of White to include Hispanics, but that will derail more lol)
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
They're overly broad, too powerful to trust our government with, and a paper cover for deeper societal problems.
"Does this speech have value" is the third prong of the Miller test for obscenity.
So, yes, in some cases speech does require value to be protected.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
More like what happens when the government uses hate speech laws to go after, say, BDS. They're already trying to do that and weakening the first amendment will make it substantially easier.
While there are some people wanting government intervention on hate speech (specifically on the grounds that it incites violence, WHICH IT DOES), the most prevalent manifestation of "free speech!" cries comes from people rallying against private institutions for having rules of conduct. Schools, websites, that sorta thing. And likewise there are people calling for these institutions to expand on those rules as they are sometimes too vague or don't cover enough ground, or sometimes the rules aren't enforced at all and are as such demanded to be acted upon.
Okay. Others would not. Boom progress.
Hence why all those other first world countries have collapsed to them?
This is a joke highlighting an issue with people throwing around ideas from 1984 without actually seeming to understand the context of those idea, the nature of IngSoc society and the mechanics of its fascism
I did say "our government". Sample size of one (1) first world country operating under its control.
From Wikipedia:
The US is approximately 53.54% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2015)
Canada is approximately 72.9% white, not including hispanic. (as of 2016)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
To argue either is homongenous, however, is a bullshit point as that 72.9% in Canada is split down marked ethic divergent ways, with only approximately 59.1% of that number being White-Anglo western, and with a considerable amount being Francophone 29.1% of that number, amongst signifigant "white" populations that are specifically non-anglosphere first generation populations.
I’m inclined to disagree given the literal resurgence of Nazis.
It’s more that I don’t think bad actors care what the law is in the first place.
So then you don’t trust our government with all the other free speech laws in place? Because despite certain people in the government demanding libel implemented against critics, it hasn’t happened.
when we step away from the questions of government infringement, my feelings get a lot more malleable and flexible. Generally we don't want to have a society in which it's impossible to talk freely but the scope of that speech can be restricted a lot more broadly without doing damage to society or the people. Just because you can say something, that doesn't mean you should say it, and I'm fine with those sorts of codes of conduct.
Our libel laws are extremely weak. I don't think anyone here would be satisfied with hate speech laws as paper thin as our slander/libel codes.
I gave you an example earlier though. Our government(s) go after BDS efforts constantly, across party lines. Why would I trust that hate speech laws wouldn't be a massive arrow in their quiver?
Only if groups such as that one were advocating actual violence, as with Canada's laws.
Why do you think weak hate speech laws aren’t an option then?
Violence isnt a very clear line in the US legal system
You mean give the government more power to police speech, something they can already do, and this time aimed at stopping the spread of ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in? Yeah, that's actually a good idea.
You'll find vast disagreement on what folks consider ideologies that undermine the very democratic system we live in
You think its a good idea because you're operating under the assumption that these laws will only ever be put in service of liberal ideas.
I think a hate speech law as weak as our legal codes on defamation will do no one any good and weaken the 1st Amendment for little gain.
I think if we want to compare these hypothetical hate speech laws to existing laws the better comparison is our laws against making terrorist threat and how they're applied. Do you think the government treats terrorist threats by middle class white wine moms the same as those made by black muslim teenagers?
That's because you are not looking at the same kind of numbers on both sides.
To wit:
Not including hispanics as white is a massive confounding factor here because of the different ethnic mixes between the US and Canada.
We'll start with "Let's murder all the non-whites".
The problem with these kind of bad arguments is they assume we can't be real narrow here and yet still catch a lot of people. It's not like a lot of the problems we see are fucking subtle.
I don’t think our government treats any law between any group of people the same. Not a reason to not have current laws.
And I suspect most people currently subject to calls to violence against them would rather have some protection rather than none.
It would be odd to consider hispanic populations as white when we are talking about hate crime legislation.
If you wanted to, though, those numbers go up to about 75% and 78% respectively.
I think its wildly reckless to say "yeah, the government is absolutely racist in how it applies its existing speech codes, lets give them some more power here".
It would be odd to only consider hispanics not-white but not any other group when you are comparing two countries with such a massive massive difference in their hispanic populations.
But then we’re back to you acting as if they should have no power ever.
You’re not arguing against hate speech laws. You’re arguing against ever trusting the government in any instance.
Your lack of faith in literally all aspects of the US government at all levels aside, this stance is functionally the same as "the government only exists to do evil and cannot be trusted as a tool or mechanisim to do good" which is a loaded premise at best and is functionally disprovable in a variety of ways.
It is perfectly possible to write a law which functions within the boundaries of the 1st amendment without defeating the point of the first amendment. Increasing the conditions in which the 1st amendment protections are waived to include things like doxxing and other directly harmful actions marginally beyond direct threats of violence may be such a law to consider.
Any approach to hate speech laws in the US have to come from the opposite end of the spectrum than in other countries. It cant be "what law can we pass to stop hate crime" but instead "what exclusions to the 1st amendment are within the framework of the intended purpose of the amendment." This already limits bad faith legislation from getting legs as the court challenge will have to show why there is a pressing need and alteration to the framework of speech to merit such a change, providing more protections for those who might be wrongfully assaulted by such a change.
If anything, our legal framework is more cautious and less likely to be abused than others, even with bad faith actors at the helm of the executive. Those bad faith actors aren't going anywhere, the system has to work within the boundaries of knowing they are there, and while its being tested right now generally it does the job.
The fact that there are abuses right now doesn't change this fact. A lot of folks seem to focus upon the occasional inadequacies of the system not as things needing corrections but as a judgement against the system as a whole, without pointing to any actual solution beyond shouting things are bad. We know they are bad. We want to fix them. Saying no fix is good and nothing can be trusted is close to doomsaying if not arguing in bad faith.
No power ever? If we have a thread about traffic lights I guess we can talk about that, but yeah I'd rather the government have a lot less power. I'm far more libertarian than this board in general.
What bugs me is the efficacy and scope of these hate speech laws is a fast moving target.
It isn't, though. Not in the US. Our exclusions to the 1st Amendment have remained largely unchanged for decades and only marginally changed since their inception.
Traffic lights get abused all the time by government.
Like, a massive amount more than current speech laws.
If you just don’t ever want to trust the government, that’s fine. But that’s an argument against the current government, not specific legislation.
Its a silly argument from extreme that has little to do with what's actually on the table.
Its not an argument against the current government. Its an argument that our government, across party lines and generations, has proven that its willing to abuse laws like those against making terrorist threats and that power should not be expanded so long as that danger remains real, which it is.
No my problem is that there will definitely be folks that will want to start with the entire religion of Islam, and unfortunately a bunch of those folks are already in positions of power, and have been for most of my life span.
Well, that's a frontrunner for the "worst analogy in a political argument 2019" award.
Seriously, what the fuck?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's literally not at all what any of us said nor is it how the US operates. We're talking about legal structures that work regardless of who is in charge, and using the systems in place to limit such abuses when loopholes are discovered by bad faith actors.
I can explain why mandatory organ donations would be bad. You haven’t provided any explanation for why disallowing others to call for violence against others would be bad beyond the fact that you don’t trust the government.