Beyond that, that aspect of the defense hinges on Anglin's belief of Holocaust denial being treated as legitimate (and thus his use of the related iconography should not be considered a "true threat" because of that belief.) The whole defense centers around Holocaust denial in order to make the (frankly ludicrous) argument that combining a Jewish person's face with Holocaust imagery is not a threat, and the entire argument falls apart if you remove the Holocaust denial aspect.
Given that, how is it inaccurate to say that the defense is (at least in this aspect) based on Holocaust denial? No, the defense is not arguing that "the Holocaust didn't happen" - just that taking such a belief is a legitimate position to hold, which strikes me as a difference without distinction, as allowing that position would be tantamount to saying the veracity of the Holocaust is up for debate - a horrible position for the court to take for a number of reasons.
In short, this is not an outlier, not a fringe position. The fact that a lawyer could, in this day and age, run a defense based on Holocaust denial and argue that it shows "love for the First Amendment" and not be booted out of polite society illustrates that point.
This is not a good framing of the case. The defense was not “based on holocaust denial”; it did not ask the court to accept that the Holocaust did not happen, nor did the defense lawyer say as much. Instead, he said his client believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen, which he represented as relevant to whether his client’s use of holocaust imagery constituted a “true threat,” presumably because the law makes true threats dependent on the person’s state of mind. I don’t find that argument very persuasive—not a lawyer myself, but I’d strongly suspect that even if his client is a denier, he can still (and probably did) use Holocaust imagery with whatever state of mind is required for a true threat. But I nonetheless find your presentation of the issues inaccurate and frustrating.
Ed: for politeness
If the client believes that an African American is not human, should that belief protect him from threatening the life of a black family? After all, in their mind, they are not committing a crime since it is not illegal to threaten an animal.
That's the logic you are so strenuously defending.
A) It isn't. The lawyer is contending that the threat wasn't actually sincere because of reasons. That's completely different from saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons.
MrMister isn't defending anything, you goose. He's insisting that we not misrepresent or LIE about things.
I have zero respect for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
E: Actually, my first draft was too equivocating. I have EXTREME CONTEMPT for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
Beyond that, that aspect of the defense hinges on Anglin's belief of Holocaust denial being treated as legitimate (and thus his use of the related iconography should not be considered a "true threat" because of that belief.) The whole defense centers around Holocaust denial in order to make the (frankly ludicrous) argument that combining a Jewish person's face with Holocaust imagery is not a threat, and the entire argument falls apart if you remove the Holocaust denial aspect.
Given that, how is it inaccurate to say that the defense is (at least in this aspect) based on Holocaust denial? No, the defense is not arguing that "the Holocaust didn't happen" - just that taking such a belief is a legitimate position to hold, which strikes me as a difference without distinction, as allowing that position would be tantamount to saying the veracity of the Holocaust is up for debate - a horrible position for the court to take for a number of reasons.
That's the issue that's core to the debate. Traditional American liberal thought contends there is a third position (think the "Atticus Finch" position) where a learned (white) figure stands between the bigots and those too ignorant to understand the majesty of American law and act as moderator and mediator.
That's the vantage where you can make arguments defending the right of Nazis to Photoshop the heads of local residents on concentration camp victims and spread those throughout the community, because that is free speech! The trouble is, the rise of social media giving viewpoints to those who aren't white liberals means that we have to contend with the voices of the minority victims and the direct hatred of the white supremacist movement means that the old liberal arguments don't look as wise, noble, or removed from the fray.
In short, this is not an outlier, not a fringe position. The fact that a lawyer could, in this day and age, run a defense based on Holocaust denial and argue that it shows "love for the First Amendment" and not be booted out of polite society illustrates that point.
This is not a good framing of the case. The defense was not “based on holocaust denial”; it did not ask the court to accept that the Holocaust did not happen, nor did the defense lawyer say as much. Instead, he said his client believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen, which he represented as relevant to whether his client’s use of holocaust imagery constituted a “true threat,” presumably because the law makes true threats dependent on the person’s state of mind. I don’t find that argument very persuasive—not a lawyer myself, but I’d strongly suspect that even if his client is a denier, he can still (and probably did) use Holocaust imagery with whatever state of mind is required for a true threat. But I nonetheless find your presentation of the issues inaccurate and frustrating.
Ed: for politeness
If the client believes that an African American is not human, should that belief protect him from threatening the life of a black family? After all, in their mind, they are not committing a crime since it is not illegal to threaten an animal.
That's the logic you are so strenuously defending.
A) It isn't. The lawyer is contending that the threat wasn't actually sincere because of reasons. That's completely different from saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons.
MrMister isn't defending anything, you goose. He's insisting that we not misrepresent or LIE about things.
I have zero respect for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
E: Actually, my first draft was too equivocating. I have EXTREME CONTEMPT for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
I don't think anyone in this thread had said the argument being made was a good one. In fact I'm pretty sure most of us have shown contempt for it.
What we're arguing about is what the argument the defense put forth *is,* and how it pertains to the thread.
Beyond that, that aspect of the defense hinges on Anglin's belief of Holocaust denial being treated as legitimate (and thus his use of the related iconography should not be considered a "true threat" because of that belief.) The whole defense centers around Holocaust denial in order to make the (frankly ludicrous) argument that combining a Jewish person's face with Holocaust imagery is not a threat, and the entire argument falls apart if you remove the Holocaust denial aspect.
Given that, how is it inaccurate to say that the defense is (at least in this aspect) based on Holocaust denial? No, the defense is not arguing that "the Holocaust didn't happen" - just that taking such a belief is a legitimate position to hold, which strikes me as a difference without distinction, as allowing that position would be tantamount to saying the veracity of the Holocaust is up for debate - a horrible position for the court to take for a number of reasons.
That's the issue that's core to the debate. Traditional American liberal thought contends there is a third position (think the "Atticus Finch" position) where a learned (white) figure stands between the bigots and those too ignorant to understand the majesty of American law and act as moderator and mediator.
That's the vantage where you can make arguments defending the right of Nazis to Photoshop the heads of local residents on concentration camp victims and spread those throughout the community, because that is free speech! The trouble is, the rise of social media giving viewpoints to those who aren't white liberals means that we have to contend with the voices of the minority victims and the direct hatred of the white supremacist movement means that the old liberal arguments don't look as wise, noble, or removed from the fray.
This is something that I've talked about elsewhere - the old liberal position of the answer to bad speech is more speech has always been a bad, flawed one, because what it winds up doing is forcing the dispossessed to have to continually argue for their right to exist. Social media has just illustrated that more openly.
In short, this is not an outlier, not a fringe position. The fact that a lawyer could, in this day and age, run a defense based on Holocaust denial and argue that it shows "love for the First Amendment" and not be booted out of polite society illustrates that point.
This is not a good framing of the case. The defense was not “based on holocaust denial”; it did not ask the court to accept that the Holocaust did not happen, nor did the defense lawyer say as much. Instead, he said his client believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen, which he represented as relevant to whether his client’s use of holocaust imagery constituted a “true threat,” presumably because the law makes true threats dependent on the person’s state of mind. I don’t find that argument very persuasive—not a lawyer myself, but I’d strongly suspect that even if his client is a denier, he can still (and probably did) use Holocaust imagery with whatever state of mind is required for a true threat. But I nonetheless find your presentation of the issues inaccurate and frustrating.
Ed: for politeness
If the client believes that an African American is not human, should that belief protect him from threatening the life of a black family? After all, in their mind, they are not committing a crime since it is not illegal to threaten an animal.
That's the logic you are so strenuously defending.
A) It isn't. The lawyer is contending that the threat wasn't actually sincere because of reasons. That's completely different from saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons.
MrMister isn't defending anything, you goose. He's insisting that we not misrepresent or LIE about things.
I have zero respect for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
E: Actually, my first draft was too equivocating. I have EXTREME CONTEMPT for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
The only opinion I have displayed on this subject is "don't lie." That's it!
The opinions MrMisters has exhibited? "Don't lie" and "I don’t find that [lawyer's] argument very persuasive"
I don't get the impression you actually understood what either of us had to say. If you truly feel there's an "extreme difference of an opinion" over the above, and you either think it's okay to lie about people or that the lawyer made a compelling argument, then please say so and we can take it from there.
Beyond that, that aspect of the defense hinges on Anglin's belief of Holocaust denial being treated as legitimate (and thus his use of the related iconography should not be considered a "true threat" because of that belief.) The whole defense centers around Holocaust denial in order to make the (frankly ludicrous) argument that combining a Jewish person's face with Holocaust imagery is not a threat, and the entire argument falls apart if you remove the Holocaust denial aspect.
Given that, how is it inaccurate to say that the defense is (at least in this aspect) based on Holocaust denial? No, the defense is not arguing that "the Holocaust didn't happen" - just that taking such a belief is a legitimate position to hold, which strikes me as a difference without distinction, as allowing that position would be tantamount to saying the veracity of the Holocaust is up for debate - a horrible position for the court to take for a number of reasons.
That's the issue that's core to the debate. Traditional American liberal thought contends there is a third position (think the "Atticus Finch" position) where a learned (white) figure stands between the bigots and those too ignorant to understand the majesty of American law and act as moderator and mediator.
That's the vantage where you can make arguments defending the right of Nazis to Photoshop the heads of local residents on concentration camp victims and spread those throughout the community, because that is free speech! The trouble is, the rise of social media giving viewpoints to those who aren't white liberals means that we have to contend with the voices of the minority victims and the direct hatred of the white supremacist movement means that the old liberal arguments don't look as wise, noble, or removed from the fray.
Does appearing to be wise really matter all that much? I think the most we've been able to hope for, all over the world, have been stopgap intermediary solutions to addressing the effect social media has on the human race.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In short, this is not an outlier, not a fringe position. The fact that a lawyer could, in this day and age, run a defense based on Holocaust denial and argue that it shows "love for the First Amendment" and not be booted out of polite society illustrates that point.
This is not a good framing of the case. The defense was not “based on holocaust denial”; it did not ask the court to accept that the Holocaust did not happen, nor did the defense lawyer say as much. Instead, he said his client believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen, which he represented as relevant to whether his client’s use of holocaust imagery constituted a “true threat,” presumably because the law makes true threats dependent on the person’s state of mind. I don’t find that argument very persuasive—not a lawyer myself, but I’d strongly suspect that even if his client is a denier, he can still (and probably did) use Holocaust imagery with whatever state of mind is required for a true threat. But I nonetheless find your presentation of the issues inaccurate and frustrating.
Ed: for politeness
If the client believes that an African American is not human, should that belief protect him from threatening the life of a black family? After all, in their mind, they are not committing a crime since it is not illegal to threaten an animal.
That's the logic you are so strenuously defending.
A) It isn't. The lawyer is contending that the threat wasn't actually sincere because of reasons. That's completely different from saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons.
MrMister isn't defending anything, you goose. He's insisting that we not misrepresent or LIE about things.
I have zero respect for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
E: Actually, my first draft was too equivocating. I have EXTREME CONTEMPT for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
The only opinion I have displayed on this subject is "don't lie." That's it!
The opinions MrMisters has exhibited? "Don't lie" and "I don’t find that [lawyer's] argument very persuasive"
I don't get the impression you actually understood what either of us had to say. If you truly feel there's an "extreme difference of an opinion" over the above, and you either think it's okay to lie about people or that the lawyer made a compelling argument, then please say so and we can take it from there.
Maybe I did misunderstand. So, I'll lay out my arguments clearly and plainly.
I find the argument made in the trial contemptible. I am aware that the "Holocaust fantasy" argument was created by an attorney, so I find the attorney contemptible. I find the basic defense of free speech that underlies the idea that the accused has the right to spread hate speech and that the lawyer could make this argument and still count themselves on the side of justice to be contemptible.
Atticus Finch lost his case and Tom Robinson was lynched. So that's what Harper Lee thought of American Justice for minorities against bigots, I guess.
Atticus Finch lost his case and Tom Robinson was lynched. So that's what Harper Lee thought of American Justice for minorities against bigots, I guess.
The original text was about Harper going home years later and finding out that Atticus had joined the Klan. The novel we know is the flashback segments that turned the modern day portion into tragedy.
Editors convinced her to excise the modern-day portion of the novel and just publish the flashback. Which is a shame, because that jaundiced view of the classical "good liberal" would be very relevant today.
Phillishere on
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Atticus Finch lost his case and Tom Robinson was lynched. So that's what Harper Lee thought of American Justice for minorities against bigots, I guess.
Atticus Finch lost one case and was going through the appeals process when Tom Robinson was shot to death in attempted prison escape (not lynched). That's not quite the same message.
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
It's not hard to look at the collected evidence on the impact of white supremacist hate speech on minority citizens. It's not hard to look at the evidence of the impact of hate speech laws in other democratic nations - and even in totalitarian/weak state nations rebuilding from genocides - and discuss what elements would and would not work in the American context.
But Vague Liberal Pontificating is easy! Even better if it is done in third or second person to emphasize dispassionate detachment and reinforce how those not following the liberal way are just in thrall to their passions!
In short, this is not an outlier, not a fringe position. The fact that a lawyer could, in this day and age, run a defense based on Holocaust denial and argue that it shows "love for the First Amendment" and not be booted out of polite society illustrates that point.
This is not a good framing of the case. The defense was not “based on holocaust denial”; it did not ask the court to accept that the Holocaust did not happen, nor did the defense lawyer say as much. Instead, he said his client believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen, which he represented as relevant to whether his client’s use of holocaust imagery constituted a “true threat,” presumably because the law makes true threats dependent on the person’s state of mind. I don’t find that argument very persuasive—not a lawyer myself, but I’d strongly suspect that even if his client is a denier, he can still (and probably did) use Holocaust imagery with whatever state of mind is required for a true threat. But I nonetheless find your presentation of the issues inaccurate and frustrating.
Ed: for politeness
If the client believes that an African American is not human, should that belief protect him from threatening the life of a black family? After all, in their mind, they are not committing a crime since it is not illegal to threaten an animal.
That's the logic you are so strenuously defending.
A) It isn't. The lawyer is contending that the threat wasn't actually sincere because of reasons. That's completely different from saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons.
MrMister isn't defending anything, you goose. He's insisting that we not misrepresent or LIE about things.
I have zero respect for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
E: Actually, my first draft was too equivocating. I have EXTREME CONTEMPT for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
The only opinion I have displayed on this subject is "don't lie." That's it!
The opinions MrMisters has exhibited? "Don't lie" and "I don’t find that [lawyer's] argument very persuasive"
I don't get the impression you actually understood what either of us had to say. If you truly feel there's an "extreme difference of an opinion" over the above, and you either think it's okay to lie about people or that the lawyer made a compelling argument, then please say so and we can take it from there.
Maybe I did misunderstand. So, I'll lay out my arguments clearly and plainly.
I find the argument made in the trial contemptible. I am aware that the "Holocaust fantasy" argument was created by an attorney, so I find the attorney contemptible. I find the basic defense of free speech that underlies the idea that the accused has the right to spread hate speech and that the lawyer could make this argument and still count themselves on the side of justice to be contemptible.
And I think we all agree on those points.
However, the way it was originally described in this thread, was that the argument was based on the court accepting Holocaust denial as a valid belief, which would fit perfectly as an example in how we need to create/enforce hate speech laws before we both-sides ourselves into normalizing hatred.
However, the actual argument was that the threat wasn't "sincere" because the man believe that the Holocaust never happened, which does not require the court to believe that it is a valid opinion, only that the defendant does and that it is why he did not believe he was being threatening. This is an equally despicable argument, because not believing in something doesn't mean you aren't aware that other people do believe in it, and the lawyer defending his actions as a protector of the First Amendment means it's still a (IMO very) good example for the point that's being made, but it's really a better example in how sham defenses that try to absolve the accused for their actions for ever-more-ludricous reasons are degrading the efficacy and people's trust that the courts can hold the guilty accountable for their actions, especially among those who can afford lawyers to come up with these crazy "defenses."
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
Once again, hate speech is not "odious". It is harmful, causing those targeted by it to fear for their safety and to feel that they no longer belong. Holocaust denial is not supported because Nazis "believe" it, but because Nazis know that it's something they need in order to relegitimize their political beliefs.
This is why I keep on bringing up "euphemistic language" - because it is designed to reduce harm into a "difference of opinion", from which tolerance of that harm can be argued for.
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
It's not hard to look at the collected evidence on the impact of white supremacist hate speech on minority citizens. It's not hard to look at the evidence of the impact of hate speech laws in other democratic nations - and even in totalitarian/weak state nations rebuilding from genocides - and discuss what elements would and would not work in the American context.
But Vague Liberal Pontificating is easy! Even better if it is done in third or second person to emphasize dispassionate detachment and reinforce how those not following the liberal way are just in thrall to their passions!
We've had these discussions in-thread. Generally, the structure of the US government makes it hard to enact hate speech laws mirroring other governments because of our legal precedent - and I know the argument that our justices ignore precedent anyway, but I feel that a future one more concerned with the integrity of US law and the good of society wouldn't be so cavalier. In addition, we lack evidence regarding the effectiveness of hate speech law, and this was bilaterally acknowledged earlier in this thread. As far as discussing which parts would work in the american context, we have essentially reviewed the various caveats and restrictions existing in legal precedent and emerging with recent cases. America does not have a formal hate speech law, but we certainly do have restrictions on libel, threats, and other dangerous speech elements.
I have been specific in my fact finding and responses which have been summarized above. It's hard to be more specific as the meat of the most recent discussion is emotional in character, and I want to recognize the feeling that makes us argue.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
Once again, hate speech is not "odious". It is harmful, causing those targeted by it to fear for their safety and to feel that they no longer belong. Holocaust denial is not supported because Nazis "believe" it, but because Nazis know that it's something they need in order to relegitimize their political beliefs.
This is why I keep on bringing up "euphemistic language" - because it is designed to reduce harm into a "difference of opinion", from which tolerance of that harm can be argued for.
It is harmful and odious, and we should recognize the emotional impact of the moral profanity while still being able to address the facts of the case. We do not currently restrict all speech which causes harm.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
In short, this is not an outlier, not a fringe position. The fact that a lawyer could, in this day and age, run a defense based on Holocaust denial and argue that it shows "love for the First Amendment" and not be booted out of polite society illustrates that point.
This is not a good framing of the case. The defense was not “based on holocaust denial”; it did not ask the court to accept that the Holocaust did not happen, nor did the defense lawyer say as much. Instead, he said his client believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen, which he represented as relevant to whether his client’s use of holocaust imagery constituted a “true threat,” presumably because the law makes true threats dependent on the person’s state of mind. I don’t find that argument very persuasive—not a lawyer myself, but I’d strongly suspect that even if his client is a denier, he can still (and probably did) use Holocaust imagery with whatever state of mind is required for a true threat. But I nonetheless find your presentation of the issues inaccurate and frustrating.
Ed: for politeness
If the client believes that an African American is not human, should that belief protect him from threatening the life of a black family? After all, in their mind, they are not committing a crime since it is not illegal to threaten an animal.
That's the logic you are so strenuously defending.
A) It isn't. The lawyer is contending that the threat wasn't actually sincere because of reasons. That's completely different from saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons.
MrMister isn't defending anything, you goose. He's insisting that we not misrepresent or LIE about things.
I have zero respect for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
E: Actually, my first draft was too equivocating. I have EXTREME CONTEMPT for any attempt at persuasion or argument that rests on falsehood.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
The only opinion I have displayed on this subject is "don't lie." That's it!
The opinions MrMisters has exhibited? "Don't lie" and "I don’t find that [lawyer's] argument very persuasive"
I don't get the impression you actually understood what either of us had to say. If you truly feel there's an "extreme difference of an opinion" over the above, and you either think it's okay to lie about people or that the lawyer made a compelling argument, then please say so and we can take it from there.
Maybe I did misunderstand. So, I'll lay out my arguments clearly and plainly.
I find the argument made in the trial contemptible. I am aware that the "Holocaust fantasy" argument was created by an attorney, so I find the attorney contemptible. I find the basic defense of free speech that underlies the idea that the accused has the right to spread hate speech and that the lawyer could make this argument and still count themselves on the side of justice to be contemptible.
A) You definitely did misunderstand. I'm glad that we're coming to a better understanding of each other here.
I mostly agree with what you've said in this post. The only thing I can think of is that the lawyer's argument (and I'm not 100% set in my opinion here), if he actually believes it to be true, is fair-play and falls on the side of justice as much as an argument on the kinda sorta wrong side of our adversarial legal system can. I think such an argument should be defeated in court, but I don't think it's actively antithetical to justice. Everybody should get the best defense from their lawyer that they can, as long as that lawyer isn't straight up lying.
C) My experiences on this forum's political and ethical threads are pretty compelling evidence that people aren't generally well equipped to judge whether another person's statement is actually hate speech, what precisely is intended by it, or what its real world effects are going to be. I probably spend upwards of half my time in these threads just trying to clarify what I or other posters are actually saying to somebody who was either misread a post outright or has read it and then gone way too far into extrapolating what they think the implications are and started treating those as the other person's established beliefs. That level of ambiguity and misunderstanding resulting in a judicial fight where one side is working towards fining or imprisoning the other would be a nightmare for anybody without the means to get a good lawyer. AKA minorities and poor folk.
Atticus Finch lost his case and Tom Robinson was lynched. So that's what Harper Lee thought of American Justice for minorities against bigots, I guess.
Atticus Finch lost one case and was going through the appeals process when Tom Robinson was shot to death in attempted prison escape (not lynched). That's not quite the same message.
I'd like to circle back to this. What Harper Lee believed about the American Judicial system, as far as I can tell, was that it's only as good as the people carrying it out. What troubles Tom Robinson had came not through the legal mechanisms of America, but through the misapplication of those mechanisms in bad faith by bad people. He wasn't tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, which is a constitutional right. He was tried and convicted by a bunch of racist white people. Even so, he still had some hope of winning an appeal in a higher court, a legal mechanism that is integral to the American judicial system. If he hadn't gotten himself shot in a prison break attempt, he had some chance.
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
Once again, hate speech is not "odious". It is harmful, causing those targeted by it to fear for their safety and to feel that they no longer belong. Holocaust denial is not supported because Nazis "believe" it, but because Nazis know that it's something they need in order to relegitimize their political beliefs.
This is why I keep on bringing up "euphemistic language" - because it is designed to reduce harm into a "difference of opinion", from which tolerance of that harm can be argued for.
It is harmful and odious, and we should recognize the emotional impact of the moral profanity while still being able to address the facts of the case. We do not currently restrict all speech which causes harm.
Stop trying to paint this as an emotional argument. The problem with hate speech is not that it offends people, it's that it's meant to make the people targeted by it unsafe, by othering them and legitimizing violence against them.
And as has been pointed out in this thread several times, things like Brandenburg making incitement a dead letter have had harmful repercussions, so the argument that "we don't restrict all harmful speech" isn't the winning argument that you're making it out to be.
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
Well, for me that would be how they are being applied in nations that have them and also promote the idea of free speech, even if not to the extreme that the US does.
The major concern for most here that are critical of the idea, after all, is that such laws would be used lopsidedly against speech against majority groups and rarely enforced for speech against minorities.
And if they do apply them in a way realistically similar to how people hope they would, whether there is a correlation with crimes against minority groups being lower per capita than in the US.
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
First, we'd need an internationally recognized outcome measure, like I said on page 20-something of the thread. Hate crime statistics, maybe? There are a bunch of domains, but we really haven't discussed which are functionally most relevant and feasible to measure. Then, we'd want to gather factors that could potentially affect this outcome and account for them. Also, we'd need an honest survey of the most important adverse events with a reasonable timetable to detect them.
Most of what we've got now are case reports and public opinion polls, which are not good evidence.
I looked into it earlier and had some Harvard link to an India study suggesting that government intervention was anemic in affecting public perception or event incidence, but that's vague and I'll have to dig into this thread when I get home to resurface the link. Sorry.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
Welllll
If there were countries that instituted hate speech laws that, as a result, saw very dramatic and measurable decreases in hate speech and bigotry-motivated crimes, with no cases of misapplication of the law (and for one idea of what I personally consider notable misapplication, see the Mark Meechan case)
then that would be convincing for me.
On an unrelated note, @AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on. Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
On an unrelated note, AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
When the targets of hate speech tell you about the harm that it does - from othering them in their own society to legitimizing violence against them - and you respond by using language to disregard that harm, to reduce it to just emotion and opinion - that's not a difference, that's ignoring harm. And that's all on you. The whole point of hate speech is to cause harm - to other, to delegitimize - and I do not see how you can see that as anything but harm, without creating a deception for yourself, to make the harm invisible.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on.
This is literally the argumentam ad populam (appeal to popularity) fallacy. Just because not everyone "agrees" with a position doesn't make it wrong (or right).
Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
So, here's what I see from my perspective when I look at this (and let's keep in mind that I am a white cishetero male, so I am pretty much never the target of hate speech directly):
*I have seen the rise of stochastic terrorism, especially in the past few years, fueled by hate being legitimized in our discourse, which has in turn caused people to view violence targeted at the targets of that hate as legitimate.
*I have read the responses by people who are the targets of that hate, and how they discuss the way that it serves to create the arguments for delegitimizing them.
*I have also read the arguments that hate speech should be treated as just a difference of opinion, that there is an "ongoing discussion" as you put it. And I note that the people who tend to espouse this position tend to be people who look a lot like myself, who are not going to be on the receiving end of hate speech.
*I also see that those people who look like myself are a lot more concerned about being held accountable for doing harm rather than following primum non nocare - first, do no harm.
So, from my perspective at least, what I see is less a "conversation" and more the clutching of the privileged at the idea that their causing harm should be excused. And I tend to find such a position to be less than compelling.
It's hard not to feel that people with odious beliefs should be stopped, or should be harmed or punished in some way at great or any cost. That passion is very human. The more passionate we feel, the harder it is to maintain perspective and be critically introspective of our own beliefs. Luckily we compartmentalize those functions to others with more experience.
Once again, hate speech is not "odious". It is harmful, causing those targeted by it to fear for their safety and to feel that they no longer belong. Holocaust denial is not supported because Nazis "believe" it, but because Nazis know that it's something they need in order to relegitimize their political beliefs.
This is why I keep on bringing up "euphemistic language" - because it is designed to reduce harm into a "difference of opinion", from which tolerance of that harm can be argued for.
It is harmful and odious, and we should recognize the emotional impact of the moral profanity while still being able to address the facts of the case. We do not currently restrict all speech which causes harm.
Stop trying to paint this as an emotional argument. The problem with hate speech is not that it offends people, it's that it's meant to make the people targeted by it unsafe, by othering them and legitimizing violence against them.
And as has been pointed out in this thread several times, things like Brandenburg making incitement a dead letter have had harmful repercussions, so the argument that "we don't restrict all harmful speech" isn't the winning argument that you're making it out to be.
It has both logical and emotional elements, but if you are not personally emotionally affected, that is fine as long as you've considered the possibility. I have to compartmentalize my feelings to re-establish principle in this case.
If you want to open up the discussion, we can address the free speech aspects of global warming, vaccination, and other cases where speech harms but is more divorced from human rights and minority oppression. Harmful speech is not a lone criterion for restriction, and if we want to make it so, we should think carefully.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You're ignoring the core point of "incitement to violence."
}
"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!".
Or to put it more simply, @WhiteZinfandel - if there is a certain level of hate speech that is "acceptable", then you should be able to say how derogatory someone can be to another based on their race/gender/orientation/creed/etc. This is your argument, after all - not all hate speech is evil or harmful?
You're ignoring the core point of "incitement to violence."
When I say harms, I don't just mean violence as an endpoint, but anything you would perceive as a harm. If this doesn't answer the question, please clarify your position.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
On an unrelated note, AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
When the targets of hate speech tell you about the harm that it does - from othering them in their own society to legitimizing violence against them - and you respond by using language to disregard that harm, to reduce it to just emotion and opinion - that's not a difference, that's ignoring harm. And that's all on you. The whole point of hate speech is to cause harm - to other, to delegitimize - and I do not see how you can see that as anything but harm, without creating a deception for yourself, to make the harm invisible.
I think you may have missed the word "baseline" in there. The point isn't to leave no room for the idea that a specific speech is evil, harmful, oppressive, etc. It is, when speaking very broadly, to use a term that accurately represents all of what people consider hate speech. Discussion of what constitutes hate speech, the effects of hate speech, and the appropriate responses to hate speech, all come afterward.
When alt-right fuckos walk around earnestly chanting "the Jews will not replace us," I'm right there with you on that being harmful, a big deal, and hate speech.
When Mark Meechan taught his girlfriend's dog to raise its right paw in response to "sieg heil" in an explicitly stated insincere fashion then it's probably not harmful in any measurable way and, if it is, is definitely not on the same level. Yet he fell afoul of speech laws and was sentenced to pay a fine of 800 euros for it.
The term "controversial speech" applies to both. The term "hate speech" arguably applies to both. Both incidents are important parts of the conversation about speech laws. Therefore, when discussing speech laws, insisting that we always use the phrase "hate speech" and never ever "controversial speech" is just muddying the waters. We are definitely always talking about controversial speech. We are not definitely always talking about hate speech.
By the way, nobody has ever come up to me and told me that Meechan's video delegitimized and harmed them. So feck off with that personal accusation of "creating a deception for myself" claptrap.
Or to put it more simply, @WhiteZinfandel - if there is a certain level of hate speech that is "acceptable", then you should be able to say how derogatory someone can be to another based on their race/gender/orientation/creed/etc. This is your argument, after all - not all hate speech is evil or harmful?
A) "acceptable" needs clarification. On a legal level, yes there is a certain level of hate speech that must be tolerated. On a social level, I'm comfortable more freely responding with "that's not okay to say."
"Not all hate speech is evil or harmful" Ehhhhhh, this is kind of a definitional game. I'm fine with saying that all hate speech is by definition harmful. The issue is that you can safely expect to have regular disagreement on whether or not a specific thing that's said constitutes hate speech. "All hate speech is evil and harmful" is fine as long as you understand that the followup "so all things that *I* decide are hate speech must be treated by all of you as evil and harmful" is bullshit.
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
Welllll
If there were countries that instituted hate speech laws that, as a result, saw very dramatic and measurable decreases in hate speech and bigotry-motivated crimes, with no cases of misapplication of the law (and for one idea of what I personally consider notable misapplication, see the Mark Meechan case)
then that would be convincing for me.
On an unrelated note, @AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on. Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
With these two here, i think we can declare almost all laws useless.
You're ignoring the core point of "incitement to violence."
When I say harms, I don't just mean violence as an endpoint, but anything you would perceive as a harm. If this doesn't answer the question, please clarify your position.
You're positing a slippery slope situation by ignoring the narrow scope of incitement to violence in favor of the wider scope of "harm."
}
"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!".
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
Welllll
If there were countries that instituted hate speech laws that, as a result, saw very dramatic and measurable decreases in hate speech and bigotry-motivated crimes, with no cases of misapplication of the law (and for one idea of what I personally consider notable misapplication, see the Mark Meechan case)
then that would be convincing for me.
On an unrelated note, @AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on. Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
With these two here, i think we can declare almost all laws useless.
Of course, because enforceable laws punishing thieves, murderers, and arsonists doesn't actually have any measurable effect on theft, murder, and arson.
E: Just caught that second bolding. I might be convinced to amend that with "very few."
E^2: Also, I never said that my standards for hate speech laws are the same as my standards for other laws.
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
Welllll
If there were countries that instituted hate speech laws that, as a result, saw very dramatic and measurable decreases in hate speech and bigotry-motivated crimes, with no cases of misapplication of the law (and for one idea of what I personally consider notable misapplication, see the Mark Meechan case)
then that would be convincing for me.
On an unrelated note, @AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on. Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
With these two here, i think we can declare almost all laws useless.
Of course, because enforceable laws punishing thieves, murderers, and arsonists doesn't actually have any measurable effect on theft, murder, and arson.
With no misapplication, ever?
Most laws don't give you sudden dramatic decreases, and no law is never misapplied.
+1
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
So here's an idea that I'm playing with: the downsides for misapplication of laws are not necessarily on the same level. What if there is a very dramatic difference due to freedom of communication being inherently integral to social and scientific progress? Wrongfully convicting a man of murder will ruin his life and strongly impact those around him. Might there not be a far greater impact if a single wrong (or right) idea is suppressed, either directly or indirectly as part of a chilling effect? As awful as it is for someone to spend life in prison for something they did not do, might it not be more harmful in the long run if, say, relativity were suppressed as wrongthink by religious fanatics? Or how about if the concept of the moral equality of mankind was strangled in its infancy?
Maybe it is terrifically important in the long term to have at least one mostly hands-off petri dish of a marketplace of ideas because, while the bad things that grow in petri dishes are gross, the good things, like some kind of metaphorical penicillin, can literally change the trajectory of human civilization.
Admittedly, that's getting a bit abstract and unverifiable. But I think it's an interesting idea.
Its not really a concern because "incitement to violence" is a pretty good test for whether an idea is valuable.
Denigrating the right of minorities to exist and to be free will never be an idea that has any value.
}
"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!".
So here's an idea that I'm playing with: the downsides for misapplication of laws are not necessarily on the same level. What if there is a very dramatic difference due to freedom of communication being inherently integral to social and scientific progress? Wrongfully convicting a man of murder will ruin his life and strongly impact those around him. Might there not be a far greater impact if a single wrong (or right) idea is suppressed, either directly or indirectly as part of a chilling effect? As awful as it is for someone to spend life in prison for something they did not do, might it not be more harmful in the long run if, say, relativity were suppressed as wrongthink by religious fanatics? Or how about if the concept of the moral equality of mankind was strangled in its infancy?
Maybe it is terrifically important in the long term to have at least one mostly hands-off petri dish of a marketplace of ideas because, while the bad things that grow in petri dishes are gross, the good things, like some kind of metaphorical penicillin, can literally change the trajectory of human civilization.
Admittedly, that's getting a bit abstract and unverifiable. But I think it's an interesting idea.
Yes, this "argument" gets trotted out quite frequently - the idea that we must give "geniuses" license to be offensive bigots, for fear of constraining their "brilliance". And again, it turns out to be goosery - just another way to justify allowing people to harm others with impunity.
Edit: Here's the flipside of your argument there - how much more advanced would we be if institutionalized sexism, racism, and other bigotries didn't chase women and minorities out of the academy, the tech industry, etc. How many great minds have we lost because we don't take bigotry seriously?
(For additional poignancy, contemplate while looking at a new £50 bill.)
Its not really a concern because "incitement to violence" is a pretty good test for whether an idea is valuable.
Denigrating the right of minorities to exist and to be free will never be an idea that has any value.
In other words, no matter how bad or dystopian things get no one should ever propose revolution by force because incitement to violence always makes an idea bad.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Its not really a concern because "incitement to violence" is a pretty good test for whether an idea is valuable.
Denigrating the right of minorities to exist and to be free will never be an idea that has any value.
In other words, no matter how bad or dystopian things get no one should ever propose revolution by force because incitement to violence always makes an idea bad.
No state will ever condone violent uprising against itself, and if it ever got to that point nothing the state does is legitimate any longer.
}
"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!".
"But it's hard" is not a very compelling argument, or even one people are unaware of.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
Welllll
If there were countries that instituted hate speech laws that, as a result, saw very dramatic and measurable decreases in hate speech and bigotry-motivated crimes, with no cases of misapplication of the law (and for one idea of what I personally consider notable misapplication, see the Mark Meechan case)
then that would be convincing for me.
On an unrelated note, AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on. Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
With these two here, i think we can declare almost all laws useless.
Of course, because enforceable laws punishing thieves, murderers, and arsonists doesn't actually have any measurable effect on theft, murder, and arson.
E: Just caught that second bolding. I might be convinced to amend that with "very few."
E^2: Also, I never said that my standards for hate speech laws are the same as my standards for other laws.
There is also the correlation/causation issue that makes proving that anything punishing X managed to reduce Y very difficult without years of studies and probably doing a few experiments that would be unsavory, if not practically impossible.
One could look at data involving hate crimes in another country and go "Look! Hate speech laws were enacted and hate crimes went down, it works!" And another person could look at the same data and go "No, hate crimes were going to go down anyway, the new laws simply reflect the society's lack of tolerance for hate speech." And there is likely nothing in that data to prove which is right strongly enough to convince everybody, especially those who are wanting one to be true rather than the other.
Posts
Given that, how is it inaccurate to say that the defense is (at least in this aspect) based on Holocaust denial? No, the defense is not arguing that "the Holocaust didn't happen" - just that taking such a belief is a legitimate position to hold, which strikes me as a difference without distinction, as allowing that position would be tantamount to saying the veracity of the Holocaust is up for debate - a horrible position for the court to take for a number of reasons.
Maybe I don't see the massive difference between a lawyer "contending the threat wasn't actually sincere" and "saying it's okay to make threats because of reasons."
The fact that you guys are doing the Internet nerd dance to show EXTREME CONTEMPT over this really is beside the point. You are eliding over an extreme difference of opinion by trying to recast your opinions into facts and others into falsehood, when it's actually just that we aren't accepting your framing of what is and isn't acceptable behavior when it comes to defending hate speech.
That's the issue that's core to the debate. Traditional American liberal thought contends there is a third position (think the "Atticus Finch" position) where a learned (white) figure stands between the bigots and those too ignorant to understand the majesty of American law and act as moderator and mediator.
That's the vantage where you can make arguments defending the right of Nazis to Photoshop the heads of local residents on concentration camp victims and spread those throughout the community, because that is free speech! The trouble is, the rise of social media giving viewpoints to those who aren't white liberals means that we have to contend with the voices of the minority victims and the direct hatred of the white supremacist movement means that the old liberal arguments don't look as wise, noble, or removed from the fray.
I don't think anyone in this thread had said the argument being made was a good one. In fact I'm pretty sure most of us have shown contempt for it.
What we're arguing about is what the argument the defense put forth *is,* and how it pertains to the thread.
This is something that I've talked about elsewhere - the old liberal position of the answer to bad speech is more speech has always been a bad, flawed one, because what it winds up doing is forcing the dispossessed to have to continually argue for their right to exist. Social media has just illustrated that more openly.
The only opinion I have displayed on this subject is "don't lie." That's it!
The opinions MrMisters has exhibited? "Don't lie" and "I don’t find that [lawyer's] argument very persuasive"
I don't get the impression you actually understood what either of us had to say. If you truly feel there's an "extreme difference of an opinion" over the above, and you either think it's okay to lie about people or that the lawyer made a compelling argument, then please say so and we can take it from there.
Does appearing to be wise really matter all that much? I think the most we've been able to hope for, all over the world, have been stopgap intermediary solutions to addressing the effect social media has on the human race.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Maybe I did misunderstand. So, I'll lay out my arguments clearly and plainly.
I find the argument made in the trial contemptible. I am aware that the "Holocaust fantasy" argument was created by an attorney, so I find the attorney contemptible. I find the basic defense of free speech that underlies the idea that the accused has the right to spread hate speech and that the lawyer could make this argument and still count themselves on the side of justice to be contemptible.
The original text was about Harper going home years later and finding out that Atticus had joined the Klan. The novel we know is the flashback segments that turned the modern day portion into tragedy.
Editors convinced her to excise the modern-day portion of the novel and just publish the flashback. Which is a shame, because that jaundiced view of the classical "good liberal" would be very relevant today.
Atticus Finch lost one case and was going through the appeals process when Tom Robinson was shot to death in attempted prison escape (not lynched). That's not quite the same message.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's not hard to look at the collected evidence on the impact of white supremacist hate speech on minority citizens. It's not hard to look at the evidence of the impact of hate speech laws in other democratic nations - and even in totalitarian/weak state nations rebuilding from genocides - and discuss what elements would and would not work in the American context.
But Vague Liberal Pontificating is easy! Even better if it is done in third or second person to emphasize dispassionate detachment and reinforce how those not following the liberal way are just in thrall to their passions!
And I think we all agree on those points.
However, the way it was originally described in this thread, was that the argument was based on the court accepting Holocaust denial as a valid belief, which would fit perfectly as an example in how we need to create/enforce hate speech laws before we both-sides ourselves into normalizing hatred.
However, the actual argument was that the threat wasn't "sincere" because the man believe that the Holocaust never happened, which does not require the court to believe that it is a valid opinion, only that the defendant does and that it is why he did not believe he was being threatening. This is an equally despicable argument, because not believing in something doesn't mean you aren't aware that other people do believe in it, and the lawyer defending his actions as a protector of the First Amendment means it's still a (IMO very) good example for the point that's being made, but it's really a better example in how sham defenses that try to absolve the accused for their actions for ever-more-ludricous reasons are degrading the efficacy and people's trust that the courts can hold the guilty accountable for their actions, especially among those who can afford lawyers to come up with these crazy "defenses."
Once again, hate speech is not "odious". It is harmful, causing those targeted by it to fear for their safety and to feel that they no longer belong. Holocaust denial is not supported because Nazis "believe" it, but because Nazis know that it's something they need in order to relegitimize their political beliefs.
This is why I keep on bringing up "euphemistic language" - because it is designed to reduce harm into a "difference of opinion", from which tolerance of that harm can be argued for.
We've had these discussions in-thread. Generally, the structure of the US government makes it hard to enact hate speech laws mirroring other governments because of our legal precedent - and I know the argument that our justices ignore precedent anyway, but I feel that a future one more concerned with the integrity of US law and the good of society wouldn't be so cavalier. In addition, we lack evidence regarding the effectiveness of hate speech law, and this was bilaterally acknowledged earlier in this thread. As far as discussing which parts would work in the american context, we have essentially reviewed the various caveats and restrictions existing in legal precedent and emerging with recent cases. America does not have a formal hate speech law, but we certainly do have restrictions on libel, threats, and other dangerous speech elements.
I have been specific in my fact finding and responses which have been summarized above. It's hard to be more specific as the meat of the most recent discussion is emotional in character, and I want to recognize the feeling that makes us argue.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It is harmful and odious, and we should recognize the emotional impact of the moral profanity while still being able to address the facts of the case. We do not currently restrict all speech which causes harm.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As for effectiveness of hatespeech laws, how would you test for that?
What kind of evidence would it take to convince you not only of their effectiveness, but that youshould champion them being introduced into US law?
A) You definitely did misunderstand. I'm glad that we're coming to a better understanding of each other here.
C) My experiences on this forum's political and ethical threads are pretty compelling evidence that people aren't generally well equipped to judge whether another person's statement is actually hate speech, what precisely is intended by it, or what its real world effects are going to be. I probably spend upwards of half my time in these threads just trying to clarify what I or other posters are actually saying to somebody who was either misread a post outright or has read it and then gone way too far into extrapolating what they think the implications are and started treating those as the other person's established beliefs. That level of ambiguity and misunderstanding resulting in a judicial fight where one side is working towards fining or imprisoning the other would be a nightmare for anybody without the means to get a good lawyer. AKA minorities and poor folk.
I'd like to circle back to this. What Harper Lee believed about the American Judicial system, as far as I can tell, was that it's only as good as the people carrying it out. What troubles Tom Robinson had came not through the legal mechanisms of America, but through the misapplication of those mechanisms in bad faith by bad people. He wasn't tried and convicted by a jury of his peers, which is a constitutional right. He was tried and convicted by a bunch of racist white people. Even so, he still had some hope of winning an appeal in a higher court, a legal mechanism that is integral to the American judicial system. If he hadn't gotten himself shot in a prison break attempt, he had some chance.
Stop trying to paint this as an emotional argument. The problem with hate speech is not that it offends people, it's that it's meant to make the people targeted by it unsafe, by othering them and legitimizing violence against them.
And as has been pointed out in this thread several times, things like Brandenburg making incitement a dead letter have had harmful repercussions, so the argument that "we don't restrict all harmful speech" isn't the winning argument that you're making it out to be.
Well, for me that would be how they are being applied in nations that have them and also promote the idea of free speech, even if not to the extreme that the US does.
The major concern for most here that are critical of the idea, after all, is that such laws would be used lopsidedly against speech against majority groups and rarely enforced for speech against minorities.
And if they do apply them in a way realistically similar to how people hope they would, whether there is a correlation with crimes against minority groups being lower per capita than in the US.
First, we'd need an internationally recognized outcome measure, like I said on page 20-something of the thread. Hate crime statistics, maybe? There are a bunch of domains, but we really haven't discussed which are functionally most relevant and feasible to measure. Then, we'd want to gather factors that could potentially affect this outcome and account for them. Also, we'd need an honest survey of the most important adverse events with a reasonable timetable to detect them.
Most of what we've got now are case reports and public opinion polls, which are not good evidence.
I looked into it earlier and had some Harvard link to an India study suggesting that government intervention was anemic in affecting public perception or event incidence, but that's vague and I'll have to dig into this thread when I get home to resurface the link. Sorry.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Welllll
If there were countries that instituted hate speech laws that, as a result, saw very dramatic and measurable decreases in hate speech and bigotry-motivated crimes, with no cases of misapplication of the law (and for one idea of what I personally consider notable misapplication, see the Mark Meechan case)
then that would be convincing for me.
On an unrelated note, @AngelHedgie, the reason people use "euphemistic language" is that what is evil naughty harmful hate speech to some is only odious to others, and is a stark expression of fact for others still, and I for one do not believe that a central authority reliably can or should be trusted to decide when those others are wrong and must be punished by the long arm of the law. From what I can tell your argument is "we shouldn't use euphemistic language because those euphemisms always represent evil and significantly harmful hate speech." I take issue with that "always." If I agreed that all hate speech had the same level of evil and harm, then I would be on the same page with regards to referring to all hate speech the same way. But I don't.
E: To clarify and sum up, I support calling hate speech odious, "speech you don't like," or controversial as a baseline because those are things pretty much everyone can agree on, while "evil, harmful, and oppressive" are not things everyone can agree on. Whether hate speech is evil, harmful, and oppressive (and to what degree) is an ongoing conversation! So the argument that people shouldn't use euphemistic language instead of calling it like it is (as you see it) sounds a lot like "you should all talk the way I want you to and ignore your own assessment of the matter."
When the targets of hate speech tell you about the harm that it does - from othering them in their own society to legitimizing violence against them - and you respond by using language to disregard that harm, to reduce it to just emotion and opinion - that's not a difference, that's ignoring harm. And that's all on you. The whole point of hate speech is to cause harm - to other, to delegitimize - and I do not see how you can see that as anything but harm, without creating a deception for yourself, to make the harm invisible.
This is literally the argumentam ad populam (appeal to popularity) fallacy. Just because not everyone "agrees" with a position doesn't make it wrong (or right).
So, here's what I see from my perspective when I look at this (and let's keep in mind that I am a white cishetero male, so I am pretty much never the target of hate speech directly):
*I have seen the rise of stochastic terrorism, especially in the past few years, fueled by hate being legitimized in our discourse, which has in turn caused people to view violence targeted at the targets of that hate as legitimate.
*I have read the responses by people who are the targets of that hate, and how they discuss the way that it serves to create the arguments for delegitimizing them.
*I have also read the arguments that hate speech should be treated as just a difference of opinion, that there is an "ongoing discussion" as you put it. And I note that the people who tend to espouse this position tend to be people who look a lot like myself, who are not going to be on the receiving end of hate speech.
*I also see that those people who look like myself are a lot more concerned about being held accountable for doing harm rather than following primum non nocare - first, do no harm.
So, from my perspective at least, what I see is less a "conversation" and more the clutching of the privileged at the idea that their causing harm should be excused. And I tend to find such a position to be less than compelling.
It has both logical and emotional elements, but if you are not personally emotionally affected, that is fine as long as you've considered the possibility. I have to compartmentalize my feelings to re-establish principle in this case.
If you want to open up the discussion, we can address the free speech aspects of global warming, vaccination, and other cases where speech harms but is more divorced from human rights and minority oppression. Harmful speech is not a lone criterion for restriction, and if we want to make it so, we should think carefully.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"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!".
When I say harms, I don't just mean violence as an endpoint, but anything you would perceive as a harm. If this doesn't answer the question, please clarify your position.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think you may have missed the word "baseline" in there. The point isn't to leave no room for the idea that a specific speech is evil, harmful, oppressive, etc. It is, when speaking very broadly, to use a term that accurately represents all of what people consider hate speech. Discussion of what constitutes hate speech, the effects of hate speech, and the appropriate responses to hate speech, all come afterward.
When alt-right fuckos walk around earnestly chanting "the Jews will not replace us," I'm right there with you on that being harmful, a big deal, and hate speech.
When Mark Meechan taught his girlfriend's dog to raise its right paw in response to "sieg heil" in an explicitly stated insincere fashion then it's probably not harmful in any measurable way and, if it is, is definitely not on the same level. Yet he fell afoul of speech laws and was sentenced to pay a fine of 800 euros for it.
The term "controversial speech" applies to both. The term "hate speech" arguably applies to both. Both incidents are important parts of the conversation about speech laws. Therefore, when discussing speech laws, insisting that we always use the phrase "hate speech" and never ever "controversial speech" is just muddying the waters. We are definitely always talking about controversial speech. We are not definitely always talking about hate speech.
By the way, nobody has ever come up to me and told me that Meechan's video delegitimized and harmed them. So feck off with that personal accusation of "creating a deception for myself" claptrap.
E:
A) "acceptable" needs clarification. On a legal level, yes there is a certain level of hate speech that must be tolerated. On a social level, I'm comfortable more freely responding with "that's not okay to say."
You're positing a slippery slope situation by ignoring the narrow scope of incitement to violence in favor of the wider scope of "harm."
"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!".
Of course, because enforceable laws punishing thieves, murderers, and arsonists doesn't actually have any measurable effect on theft, murder, and arson.
E: Just caught that second bolding. I might be convinced to amend that with "very few."
E^2: Also, I never said that my standards for hate speech laws are the same as my standards for other laws.
Most laws don't give you sudden dramatic decreases, and no law is never misapplied.
Maybe it is terrifically important in the long term to have at least one mostly hands-off petri dish of a marketplace of ideas because, while the bad things that grow in petri dishes are gross, the good things, like some kind of metaphorical penicillin, can literally change the trajectory of human civilization.
Admittedly, that's getting a bit abstract and unverifiable. But I think it's an interesting idea.
Denigrating the right of minorities to exist and to be free will never be an idea that has any value.
"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!".
Yes, this "argument" gets trotted out quite frequently - the idea that we must give "geniuses" license to be offensive bigots, for fear of constraining their "brilliance". And again, it turns out to be goosery - just another way to justify allowing people to harm others with impunity.
Edit: Here's the flipside of your argument there - how much more advanced would we be if institutionalized sexism, racism, and other bigotries didn't chase women and minorities out of the academy, the tech industry, etc. How many great minds have we lost because we don't take bigotry seriously?
(For additional poignancy, contemplate while looking at a new £50 bill.)
In other words, no matter how bad or dystopian things get no one should ever propose revolution by force because incitement to violence always makes an idea bad.
No state will ever condone violent uprising against itself, and if it ever got to that point nothing the state does is legitimate any longer.
"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!".
There is also the correlation/causation issue that makes proving that anything punishing X managed to reduce Y very difficult without years of studies and probably doing a few experiments that would be unsavory, if not practically impossible.
One could look at data involving hate crimes in another country and go "Look! Hate speech laws were enacted and hate crimes went down, it works!" And another person could look at the same data and go "No, hate crimes were going to go down anyway, the new laws simply reflect the society's lack of tolerance for hate speech." And there is likely nothing in that data to prove which is right strongly enough to convince everybody, especially those who are wanting one to be true rather than the other.