Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Hate speech laws

Page 2 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

12 Sep 2012, 11:24 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Though I think in some contexts hate speech should be barred.....for instance on a site to help people with mental health issues, it would make sense for them to bar hate speech as allowing it would only be detrimental.


You're confusing public and private spaces again, aren't you? No-one has any right in a private space (like a forum or on Facespace or Twatter) to any speech if admin prohibits it. It's a private space. Therefore, on a mental health website the admins necessarily will have control over what is said there as it's private property. Anyone who disobeys the rules will be warned or banned.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl545RF6dXA[/youtube]



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

12 Sep 2012, 1:36 pm

Tequila wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Though I think in some contexts hate speech should be barred.....for instance on a site to help people with mental health issues, it would make sense for them to bar hate speech as allowing it would only be detrimental.


You're confusing public and private spaces again, aren't you? No-one has any right in a private space (like a forum or on Facespace or Twatter) to any speech if admin prohibits it. It's a private space. Therefore, on a mental health website the admins necessarily will have control over what is said there as it's private property. Anyone who disobeys the rules will be warned or banned.


Huh? Not really it just didn't occur to me to word it like that......and that is basically what I was saying, is private spaces have the right to bar hate speech..but that in public it shouldn't be illegal because I think its quite fine if people make asses of themselves in public since it will only hurt their reputation.


_________________
We won't go back.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

12 Sep 2012, 1:43 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Huh? Not really it just didn't occur to me to word it like that......and that is basically what I was saying, is private spaces have the right to bar hate speech..but that in public it shouldn't be illegal because I think its quite fine if people make asses of themselves in public since it will only hurt their reputation.


Ah, so we basically agree then. Goody. :D



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,844
Location: London

12 Sep 2012, 5:01 pm

thewhitrbbit wrote:
Unfortunately, hate speech laws, no matter how well intended, create a slope towards banning speech that is simply not desirable. The writers of the Constitution placed the 1st Amendment above all overs because they understood that laws that regulate speech can be used to punish those who disagree. Perhaps no other part of our law is treated with such strict scrutiny as the 1st Amendment.

Why isn't there restriction of speech other than hate speech in countries with hate speech laws?
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I've been thinking about cyberbullying and troll-culture lately.

First off; how exactly does become cyber-bullied? I don’t understand that since it’s something the so called "victim" can turn off at will.

Not necessarily. Maybe the bully follows you around the internet. Maybe the bully photographs you against your will and uploads it to Facebook, or edits a photo of you to make it embarrassing. Maybe they impersonate friends and continue to bully there, possibly undermining your friendship with the oblivious friend. Maybe they find out your number from a mutual friend and text you nasty messages, maybe from different phones.



Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 268
Location: West Central Indiana

12 Sep 2012, 7:32 pm

I am so sorry to disparage the Orcs. How about Nazgul?



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

12 Sep 2012, 7:44 pm

There are more freedom of speech restricts under the Patriot Act than there are under most countries who have hate speech laws (and some like Australia have no legal amendment of any kind even guaranteeing freedom of speech - yet because it is implied in legal documents it is upheld in court anyway).

Seems like just another strawman where you pay attention only to what you want to - ignore the rather severe restrictions from the Patriot Act yet rebel against the concept of hate speech laws - without understanding what they imply and entail or how they are upheld.

In reality, hate speech laws are there in order that people are not incited to participate in violence, although at what point it could be considered "inciting violence" is still under discussion - but hate speech laws are designed to cover that grey area where they may incite violence yet concerte proof would require violence - so if it comes under a good chance of inciting violence it is covered by hate speech laws. They also tend to be used very sparingly - since freedom of speech is still considered something that must be actively upheld, therefore they do not wish to use hate speech laws any more than necessary to maintain order.

Furthermore - hate speech is diametrically opposed to democracy, liberty and equality. The notion that one group is inferior to another is against the very principles that democracy is founded on, which was that "every man is equal". Which brings into question - do you allow speech with a good possiblity of inciting violence, that is completely opposed to what the principles of your country were founded on?


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Sep 2012, 8:11 pm

Kjas wrote:

In reality, hate speech laws are there in order that people are not incited to participate in violence, although at what point it could be considered "inciting violence" is still under discussion



What should be and already is illegal is incitement to riot and insurrection. No reference is made to the content of such speech, but its consequences.

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

12 Sep 2012, 11:41 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Why isn't there restriction of speech other than hate speech in countries with hate speech laws?


Try using a direct quote from the Quran in a non-Islamic meeting in Sweden.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Sep 2012, 7:52 am

Tequila wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Why isn't there restriction of speech other than hate speech in countries with hate speech laws?


Try using a direct quote from the Quran in a non-Islamic meeting in Sweden.


That is not censorship. Only governments can censor, that is impose prior restraint on speech and print with the force of law.

Private groups can discourage discussions of various sorts. That is why you will not hear an open forensic debate on atheism at a Catholic service.

ruveyn



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

15 Sep 2012, 9:46 am

Tequila wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Why isn't there restriction of speech other than hate speech in countries with hate speech laws?


Try using a direct quote from the Quran in a non-Islamic meeting in Sweden.


I don't understand this comment :?: . Sweden has probably the most extreme censorship against people who criticize islam in all of Europe...



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Sep 2012, 9:57 am

Kjas wrote:

In reality, hate speech laws are there in order that people are not incited to participate in violence, although at what point it could be considered "inciting violence" is still under discussion - but hate speech laws are designed to cover that grey area where they may incite violence yet concerte proof would require violence - so if it comes under a good chance of inciting violence it is covered by hate speech laws. They also tend to be used very sparingly - since freedom of speech is still considered something that must be actively upheld, therefore they do not wish to use hate speech laws any more than necessary to maintain order.



In the United States incitement to riot and insurrection is NOT protected by the First Amendment. Incitement is illegal regardless of the content of the speech or writing used to incite riot or insurrection. Content is not being regulated. Behavior is.

ruveyn



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

15 Sep 2012, 10:01 am

speech laws are the laws of grammar and diction, and i do not have to obey them because i can usually get my point across anyway.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

15 Sep 2012, 7:46 pm

Hate speech laws are found in many locations. IMO, they should be significantly expanded. Ultimately, however, hate speech will not be eliminated legislatively, but spiritually.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Underscore
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036

15 Sep 2012, 7:59 pm

nominalist wrote:
Hate speech laws are found in many locations. IMO, they should be significantly expanded. Ultimately, however, hate speech will not be eliminated legislatively, but spiritually.


Could you elaborate? :)



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

15 Sep 2012, 8:09 pm

Underscore wrote:
Could you elaborate? :)


For instance, I don't think that this guy should be permitted to run for public office.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,054
Location: Houston, Texas

15 Sep 2012, 8:34 pm

I don't think he'll win anyway.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!