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.
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.
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.
Not that we need no laws ever, but perhaps we should exercise caution when relinquishing currently held freedoms to institutions not famous for protecting and cultivating the freedom of its citizens? We can recognize the need for laws while ALSO recognizing that governments are flawed institutions and not suited to precisely handling every aspect of our lives.
The law is a hammer. Not every problem requires a hammer.
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.
"Mr. Shapiro, you called this police shooting victim a thug, which is clearly coded language for n----r"
"No I was referring to his past legal problems"
"No you weren't, 2 years prison and pay this fine"
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.
Not that we need no laws ever, but perhaps we should exercise caution when relinquishing currently held freedoms to institutions not famous for protecting and cultivating the freedom of its citizens? We can recognize the need for laws while ALSO recognizing that governments are flawed institutions and not suited to precisely handling every aspect of our lives.
The law is a hammer. Not every problem requires a hammer.
I’m content saying anyone calling for the murderous extermination of others needs a hammer.
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 isn't so easy as "murder is bad", notably a thing everyone agrees on which is still a thing our government can barely enforce in good faith and with very little equality.
If you think these chucklefucks aren't going to put all of Islam under hate speech, you've not been paying attention to the rhetoric and propaganda of the folks currently in charge.
Like the folks we're gonna maybe put in charge of writing the rules and enforcing them disagree at a base level with what even actually is hate speech.
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.
Because the original statement by BSoB is that sometimes laws work out poorly. Which applies to everything forever.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered 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.
Because the original statement by BSoB is that sometimes laws work out poorly. Which applies to everything forever.
Yeah, but not every law works poorly the same. Granting government the power to imprison people for speech has a very serious failure state. Acting like its just another thing we have to make sure we have good stewards for is hand waving. You have to be aware of what the tools you're giving powerful people might do.
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.
Because the original statement by BSoB is that sometimes laws work out poorly. Which applies to everything forever.
Yeah, but not every law works poorly the same. Granting government the power to imprison people for speech has a very serious failure state.
Like with fraud. And threats. And libel.
I think it’d be more useful in repeating the laws could he abused, perhaps demonstrate why you think hate speech laws of any kind are more susceptible.
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.
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 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.
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.
+3
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.
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.
Thoughtcrime shouldn't be a thing just in general. Hate shouldn't be illegal. Legislating right thinking is authoritarian, and that is bad.
It's true. I am risking my freedom everytime I speak. If only we did not have hate speech laws! I would be so much more free from the tyrannical oppression of the Trudeau regime!
Like, hate speech laws are not a radical new idea. They have been tested. They work.
+4
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered 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.
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.
I completely agree that the bar needs to be high, but we're well past the point where the social need to protect minority groups in America and abroad seems obvious and desperate. PoC, LBGT groups and women suffer in our society to an absurd degree because we're too afraid to tackle white nationalism.
+7
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered 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.
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.
Thoughtcrime shouldn't be a thing just in general. Hate shouldn't be illegal. Legislating right thinking is authoritarian, and that is bad.
Incidentally this is the rhetoric that MRAs, racists, and bigots in general use across social media.
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.
Thoughtcrime shouldn't be a thing just in general. Hate shouldn't be illegal. Legislating right thinking is authoritarian, and that is bad.
It’s not the thoughts that would be illegal. Speech is an action that has consequences. See again: Threats, fraud, libel.
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.
It's true. I am risking my freedom everytime I speak. If only we did not have hate speech laws! I would be so much more free from the tyrannical oppression of the Trudeau regime!
Like, hate speech laws are not a radical new idea. They have been tested. They work.
in your mostly homogeneous society, in which the indigeneous people are verbally shat on. Canada is no shining beacon of civility when it comes to racist speech, it's just easier to get away with because like 80% of the country is white.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2019
The thing that strikes me about anyone who uses "thought policing" or "thoughtcrime" unironically is how they handle the act of parenting, where they act absolutely authoritarian, abandoning all of things they tell others about government. They don't care about authoritarian action as long as they are the ones wielding the power. Heaven forbid they get elected to government and some of them do.
Which is how we end up with hate speech being defended from criticism. Even when people aren't talking about outlawing it, just saying "if you say hateful stuff I can't be friends with you," the brigade shows up to say you're wrong to draw the line on friendship there. Edit - Which then abandons the whole "thought policing" creed they claim to live by.
So basically it's all a load of shit. Everyone wants to be the authority.
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.
Thoughtcrime shouldn't be a thing just in general. Hate shouldn't be illegal. Legislating right thinking is authoritarian, and that is bad.
Incidentally this is the rhetoric that MRAs, racists, and bigots in general use across social media.
It doesn't surprise me at all to learn that MRAs, racists, and bigots in general are too ignorant or poorly read to recognize Orwellian references, or that on learning the origin, the alt-right deploys the language of the antifascists against them.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
“How do you legislate against jokes and dog whistles” strikes me as slightly disingenuous when we’ve had people actually heiling, calling for violence, etc. When there is a mass murder video getting posted online.
Policing speech is always going to require a bright line, and it’s frustrating that neither the government nor tech companies seem willing to put the line on the right side of incredibly obvious problematic shit (again, don’t post snuff movies). And whenever the moving of this line is proposed, the response is “well how can you draw a bright line over here in this murky gray area???” And so the line remains on the wrong side of snuff and swastikas.
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.
Thoughtcrime shouldn't be a thing just in general. Hate shouldn't be illegal. Legislating right thinking is authoritarian, and that is bad.
Incidentally this is the rhetoric that MRAs, racists, and bigots in general use across social media.
If Hitler told me the sky was blue I wouldn’t disagree because he’s Hitler. Thoughtcrime as a concept was a thing far before the alt-right and abandoning the concept to them is a terrible idea.
One thing that might be worth noting is that the Senate recently passed legislation that allows penalties for advocating the BDS movement in the US, despite the absence of any laws criminalizing hate speech or any revision of the 1st amendment.
And we seem to be ignoring an important question -
Is freedom of speech a means, or an end?
For myself, I'd argue that in the long run, freedom of speech is the former - we push for it in order to further the ends that we want to see for society, like equality and justice. And as such, being a means, that means that it has to bee tempered in balance to those ends that we're looking to achieve - for example, if allowing bigots to openly espouse their hatred causes those they target to retreat from open participation in society, then we have a case where freedom of speech is undermining the ends that we are looking to achieve. The problem that I see in the conversation about free speech is that more and more, it's treated as the latter - that free speech is the end, and thus should be defended even if it may be undermining other ends we look to achieve.
I don't really see it that way, to me freedom, like equality, is an end more than a means. Those two being the most important ends in my view.
The core conflict stems from the fact that "free speech absolutism" is ultimately an impossible position to hold, because of the chilling effect of hate speech - those targeted by hate speech will be forced out by it, conversely keeping them in the public conversation means not allowing hate speech to push them out. Ultimately, a decision has to be made as to who will be kept in the discussion.
I mostly agree with this, though. But an implication of your argument that I find interesting is that when you point to the danger of bigots and fascists pushing out marginalized groups, you're talking about a social (or, perhaps more accurately, antisocial) movement restricting the speech of other groups in society without the aid of the state. Ideally, the phenomenon you describe is how I would prefer the problem to be solved - make the decision about who to keep in the discussion, and on a social level drive out fascist and intolerant ideologies. I do fear expanding the government's power to restrict speech, and I'm not yet convinced that that fear is irrational. No, EU hate speech laws didn't turn European governments ultra-authoritarian, but they have been used in ways I'm not comfortable with (and I'm still not sure how effective they've been).
One danger I could see in the US is that, if the 1st Amendment were to be altered, or if hate speech legislation were otherwised passed, religion might make it onto the list of protected identities. While there is hatred directed toward people of various faiths that should be combated, I believe religious beliefs themselves should not be above criticism, and I am skeptical of the US government's inclination to recognize that distinction, as opposed to, say, Mike Pence leading a charge to restrict criticism of conservative/evangelican Christian beliefs.
However, I find the argument that our current situation is in some ways a social emergency that could justify hate speech laws despite their potential drawbacks compelling, so I've been a fence-sitter on this issue for a while (after many years of being stringently opposed).
Kaputa on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"Thought crime" is the hyperbolic shit people jump to when they're being reacted to socially. It's the phrase people jump to when they're being disagreed with socially, acting like that disagreement is a call to legislation / imprisonment.
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.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
It's true. I am risking my freedom everytime I speak. If only we did not have hate speech laws! I would be so much more free from the tyrannical oppression of the Trudeau regime!
Like, hate speech laws are not a radical new idea. They have been tested. They work.
in your mostly homogeneous society, in which the indigeneous people are verbally shat on. Canada is no shining beacon of civility when it comes to racist speech, it's just easier to get away with because like 80% of the country is white.
Mostly homogeneous?
That's the first time I've ever heard Canada described as mostly homogeneous.
Also, hate speech laws do have a high bar in Canada. People are free to be racist. They just can't advocate for violence without running afoul of the law.
+9
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered 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.
+11
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited March 2019
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.
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.
+5
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Posts
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.
Not that we need no laws ever, but perhaps we should exercise caution when relinquishing currently held freedoms to institutions not famous for protecting and cultivating the freedom of its citizens? We can recognize the need for laws while ALSO recognizing that governments are flawed institutions and not suited to precisely handling every aspect of our lives.
The law is a hammer. Not every problem requires a hammer.
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.
Subscribe to Pewdi*police kick down door*
I’m content saying anyone calling for the murderous extermination of others needs a hammer.
This isn't so easy as "murder is bad", notably a thing everyone agrees on which is still a thing our government can barely enforce in good faith and with very little equality.
If you think these chucklefucks aren't going to put all of Islam under hate speech, you've not been paying attention to the rhetoric and propaganda of the folks currently in charge.
Like the folks we're gonna maybe put in charge of writing the rules and enforcing them disagree at a base level with what even actually is hate speech.
Because the original statement by BSoB is that sometimes laws work out poorly. Which applies to everything forever.
I'm gonna go ahead and ask the obvious question of this thread; what is the value of hate speech? I ask since people seem to want to defend it.
Yeah, but not every law works poorly the same. Granting government the power to imprison people for speech has a very serious failure state. Acting like its just another thing we have to make sure we have good stewards for is hand waving. You have to be aware of what the tools you're giving powerful people might do.
Like with fraud. And threats. And libel.
I think it’d be more useful in repeating the laws could he abused, perhaps demonstrate why you think hate speech laws of any kind are more susceptible.
The "failure state" of current government policy is right-wing terrorism.
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.
irrelevant question. Speech doesn't require value to be protected.
I keep seeing a lot of fear mongering about government but no actual arguments against hate speech laws specifically.
All this shit about free speech absolutism is not actually the point and never was.
Thoughtcrime shouldn't be a thing just in general. Hate shouldn't be illegal. Legislating right thinking is authoritarian, and that is bad.
Like, hate speech laws are not a radical new idea. They have been tested. They work.
I completely agree that the bar needs to be high, but we're well past the point where the social need to protect minority groups in America and abroad seems obvious and desperate. PoC, LBGT groups and women suffer in our society to an absurd degree because we're too afraid to tackle white nationalism.
It’s not the thoughts that would be illegal. Speech is an action that has consequences. See again: Threats, fraud, libel.
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.
in your mostly homogeneous society, in which the indigeneous people are verbally shat on. Canada is no shining beacon of civility when it comes to racist speech, it's just easier to get away with because like 80% of the country is white.
Which is how we end up with hate speech being defended from criticism. Even when people aren't talking about outlawing it, just saying "if you say hateful stuff I can't be friends with you," the brigade shows up to say you're wrong to draw the line on friendship there. Edit - Which then abandons the whole "thought policing" creed they claim to live by.
So basically it's all a load of shit. Everyone wants to be the authority.
It doesn't surprise me at all to learn that MRAs, racists, and bigots in general are too ignorant or poorly read to recognize Orwellian references, or that on learning the origin, the alt-right deploys the language of the antifascists against them.
Policing speech is always going to require a bright line, and it’s frustrating that neither the government nor tech companies seem willing to put the line on the right side of incredibly obvious problematic shit (again, don’t post snuff movies). And whenever the moving of this line is proposed, the response is “well how can you draw a bright line over here in this murky gray area???” And so the line remains on the wrong side of snuff and swastikas.
If Hitler told me the sky was blue I wouldn’t disagree because he’s Hitler. Thoughtcrime as a concept was a thing far before the alt-right and abandoning the concept to them is a terrible idea.
I don't really see it that way, to me freedom, like equality, is an end more than a means. Those two being the most important ends in my view.
I mostly agree with this, though. But an implication of your argument that I find interesting is that when you point to the danger of bigots and fascists pushing out marginalized groups, you're talking about a social (or, perhaps more accurately, antisocial) movement restricting the speech of other groups in society without the aid of the state. Ideally, the phenomenon you describe is how I would prefer the problem to be solved - make the decision about who to keep in the discussion, and on a social level drive out fascist and intolerant ideologies. I do fear expanding the government's power to restrict speech, and I'm not yet convinced that that fear is irrational. No, EU hate speech laws didn't turn European governments ultra-authoritarian, but they have been used in ways I'm not comfortable with (and I'm still not sure how effective they've been).
One danger I could see in the US is that, if the 1st Amendment were to be altered, or if hate speech legislation were otherwised passed, religion might make it onto the list of protected identities. While there is hatred directed toward people of various faiths that should be combated, I believe religious beliefs themselves should not be above criticism, and I am skeptical of the US government's inclination to recognize that distinction, as opposed to, say, Mike Pence leading a charge to restrict criticism of conservative/evangelican Christian beliefs.
However, I find the argument that our current situation is in some ways a social emergency that could justify hate speech laws despite their potential drawbacks compelling, so I've been a fence-sitter on this issue for a while (after many years of being stringently opposed).
I don’t think that that is true.
The argument is that hate speech laws are too broadly defined and not evenly enforced.
Mostly homogeneous?
That's the first time I've ever heard Canada described as mostly homogeneous.
Also, hate speech laws do have a high bar in Canada. People are free to be racist. They just can't advocate for violence without running afoul of the law.
Not pointing at anyone specific here. Just an observation of the trend of these sorts of arguments on the whole.
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.
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.
Richard spencer would pass under that bar.
No, I'm arguing that it should be the way it is right now. Status quo please, no more no less.
Yeah, it sure sucks. Better give that government the literal power to police speech and hope they never get voted in again I guess?