Should we bring in "Hate Speech" and incitement to hatred laws?

Sean.3516

Do we need more so called "Hate Speech" laws and laws against incitement to protect certain groups and individuals in society?

Or is this a step too far? Should we compromise on free speech in order to address bigotry?

Salary Negotiator

Many rights are not absolute, don’t see why free speech can’t have limitations.

Sean.3516

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Many rights are not absolute, don’t see why free speech can’t have limitations.

Normally the only time we balance a right with limitations or duties is in order to protect against the violation of the rights of others.

What rights are being violated that would necessitate putting limitations on what people can say?

Slim Charles

Nope.

May as well give us all a script to read from.

Salary Negotiator

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Normally the only time we balance a right with limitations or duties is in order to protect against the violation of the rights of others.

What rights are being violated that would necessitate putting limitations on what people can say?

Well if I start calling for people to kill travellers, immigrants or gingers and people are likely to actually do that then I’ve infringed on their right to life.

Sean.3516

Slim Charles wrote: »

Nope.

May as well give us all a script to read from.

Yes, currently the laws being proposed are only trying to put negative restrictions on what people can say. ie. telling you what you can't say.

As opposed to positive restrictions which enforce duties on what you have to say such as the transgender pronoun laws in Canada.

I'm not a fan of either. Nobody has a right to be insulated from particular types of speech.

Sean.3516

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Well if I start calling for people to kill travellers, immigrants or gingers and people are likely to actually do that then I’ve infringed on their right to life.

Yes I agree. 99% of Free Speech advocates would agree with you.

The issue here isn't the speech itself but the externalities to the speech. There are a couple of angles to this.

1.)
You've issued a call to action which makes you responsible for what follows even if you're not one doing the action.

2.)
Laws against bodily harm stipulate that a person can be guilty of assault even if they haven't physically harmed you. If you've made it clear that you intend to harm them (which would include giving instructions for other people to harm them) then that counts as assualt. The reason for this is so that it gives people who have yet to be harmed, (but have reasonable cause to believe someone intends to do them harm), a right to self defence.

I guess the question is what is your limiting principle?

For example, would you be in favor of banning me from calling travellers the "K" word or black people the "N" word?

(just a note, I'm not in favor of racial slurs of any kind. I'm just asking a hypothetical.)

Salary Negotiator

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes I agree. 99% of Free Speech advocates would agree with you.

The issue here isn't the speech itself but the externalities to the speech. There are a couple of angles to this.

1.)
You've issued a call to action which makes you responsible for what follows even if you're not one doing the action.

2.)
Laws against bodily harm stipulate that a person can be guilty of assault even if they haven't physically harmed you. If you've made it clear that you intend to harm them (which would include giving instructions for other people to harm them) then that counts as assualt. The reason for this is so that it gives people who have yet to be harmed, (but have reasonable cause to believe someone intends to do them harm), a right to self defence.

I guess the question is what is your limiting principle?

For example, would you be in favor of banning me from calling travellers the "K" word or black people the "N" word?

(just a note, I'm not in favor of racial slurs of any kind. I'm just asking a hypothetical.)

No, I wouldn’t be in favour of banning specific slurs, words or phrases.

I get what you’re saying above but it won’t always be as specific as my example, as in actually calling for harm to be done to certain people. It’s more likely to be someone falling just short of that “standard” but still crossing the line of merely stating an opinion.

I guess it’s about the intent as much as the words spoken. Tough one to properly legislate for.

Sean.3516

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

No, I wouldn’t be in favour of banning specific slurs, words or phrases.

I get what you’re saying above but it won’t always be as specific as my example, as in actually calling for harm to be done to certain people. It’s more likely to be someone falling just short of that “standard” but still crossing the line of merely stating an opinion.

I guess it’s about the intent as much as the words spoken. Tough one to properly legislate for.

Intent to what though?

You think my standard isn't sufficient but still insist a line is being crossed. Where is that line exactly?

The reason I'm trying to nail you down to a standard is that this conversation becomes impossible to have otherwise.

A law has to be specific. If it isn't, then it's enforcement will be subject to the whims of whatever government happens to be in power at the time.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Ranting post and response deleted. If people want to discuss specific issues they can do so elsewhere. This thread is for the general discussion of the principle of hate speech and hate speech laws.

liamtech

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Do we need more so called "Hate Speech" laws and laws against incitement to protect certain groups and individuals in society?

Or is this a step too far? Should we compromise on free speech in order to address bigotry?

I would be inclined to say no.. personally - but there is a caveat

Take David Irving - historian and Holocaust denier - frequently banned from speaking, and long time ago, invited to a debate in the Trinity College PhilSoc - and the invite was then revoked if i recall correctly. The argument was that it was hate speech etc etc - and many were very happy to see the invite revoked.

Personally i would have RELISHED the opportunity to watch this guy crash and burn. As a student of history too, i would have LOVED to call him out on some of his more ridiculous Arguments

Take Jamie Bryson as a contemporary example. He is online every day for the last few weeks

• Pan Nationalist Republican Alliance incl SF, SDLP, Greens, the EU, the Alliance, et al - are conspiring against Unionism -
• Implicit threats of violent disruption
• Begins every second post explicitly stating that he is NOT IN THE UVF/UDR/LVF/UDA et al - BUT - goes on to endorse their arguments and implicitly condone possible violence
• Completely omits that it is the Tory's who have stabbed Loyalism in the back
• Quotes George Seawright Frequently - a man who wanted to physically cremate Catholics and Catholic priests - to 'end NI's Troubles'

Arguably Jamie is a hateful person, spreading hate speech - and stirring up prejudice

Should we stop him - no.. he makes no sense to anyone sensible, and is frequently ridiculed - He has a hard core group of loyal friends and followers - and thats it - we are better to debate and crush (metaphorically speaking) those people using hate speech and embarrass their cause

If we lock up Jamie Bryson he gets to shout FREE SPEECH at the top of his lungs - and arguably get more attention

THE UNFORTUNATE CAVEAT - The Post Truth media have allowed people on all sides of society to get away with murder, in terms of unsubstantiated Claims. Often these claims go unchallenged, or are sometimes tacitly endorsed. I refer to this as a form of Relativism where by no evidence is demanded of these individuals, and yet, their opinions are seen as on a par with those opinions of experts. Look at Jamies Thesis - can he explain his conspiracy theory - can he back it up - are the Torys involved - If it was the Torys that threw unionism under a bus - is he advocating violence against them? Why does he say he is NON VIOLENT, but... [talks about UVF as heroes etc etc ]

Boris Johnson is a prime example atm.

• Refers to black people as Pickaninnies with watermelon smiles
• Gays are Tank Top Bum-Boys

When questioned, he effectively says, 'well i was just being dramatic and satirical'. Reporter moves on to another question.

I wouldnt silence anyone - everyone can say what they like but if they make claims that are nonsense, we should demand evidence. Otherwise i side with Christopher Hitchens

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

And where someone like BoJo chooses to use grossly offensive language - he should be publicly shamed across the media - but in the post truth world, this doesnt happen - which is worrying -

peddlelies

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Many rights are not absolute, don’t see why free speech can’t have limitations.

There are already limitations with free speech, and they're good enough.