Hate Speech Public Consultation

Seathrun66 · 19-12-2020 02:03AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I love this thread.

The posters who are defending/supporting the legislation seem to be convinced that their form of expression would never, ever, be considered offensive or could be interpreted as hate speech towards any particular group or person. After all, their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are.

It's going to be interesting watching them get pulled up on their speech in the future. They don't seem to realise that they're not excluded from the legislation just because they've chosen to represent a particular side. They'll be held to account just like everyone else...

Nope. We don't incite hatred. Just ain't cool.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-12-2020 02:08AM

Tell me how wrote: »

What's violence?
Where's the line between what is a jostling, horseplay, assault etc?

These are non-scientific entities, I suspect the determination of what constitutes hate speech will follow similar processes. There is already reference to hate speech in law, this isn't re-inventing the wheel.

Right... speech isn’t violence though. I know some people like to characterise it that way but give me strength. And actually, I think it’s pretty easy to classify levels of violence. It’s not an unknowable thing. It’s physical, and physical damage is done at different levels. It doesn’t in any way answer the question of who arbitrates what hate speech is. It’s a deflection. When you have people calling epithets “literal violence”, it’s hard to be assured that the line will be sensibly drawn.

19-12-2020 02:42AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Boards seems pretty convinced.

They are yea

Eric Cartman · 19-12-2020 03:32AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So you dont defend free speech then.

I defend free speech for anyone who equally respects it. Anyone tries to silence views they just dont like and ill throw weight behind prosecuting these liberal hate mouthpieces. I have absolutely 0 appreciation for the likes of gemma o’d , grand torino, justin barrett, absolute grifter con artists , but were one of them to end up infront of a judge id do everything to make their counterparts una mullally, ebun joseph, emma dabiri, paul murphy, joe loughnanne end up infront of a judge too.

Either hate mongering on both sides ends or it continues on both sides. Balance or nothing

Annasopra · 19-12-2020 10:18AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I defend free speech for anyone who equally respects it. Anyone tries to silence views they just dont like and ill throw weight behind prosecuting these liberal hate mouthpieces. I have absolutely 0 appreciation for the likes of gemma o’d , grand torino, justin barrett, absolute grifter con artists , but were one of them to end up infront of a judge id do everything to make their counterparts una mullally, ebun joseph, emma dabiri, paul murphy, joe loughnanne end up infront of a judge too.

Either hate mongering on both sides ends or it continues on both sides. Balance or nothing

Nah. You claim you defend absolute freedom of speech but then you are ok with certain exceptions.

But then when you feel speech is threatened then you feel you have to threaten speech.

Your claims to defend free speech just dont hold up.

19-12-2020 10:27AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol this is hilarious. I genuinely have no idea what you are on about now.....

I know you don't.

It's very obvious you have convinced yourself of your righteousness and you would welcome any law which would silence people you disagree with and claim it was for the greater good.

It's a little scary and narcissistic.

19-12-2020 10:32AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So you dont defend free speech then.

Not if all speech isn't free.

19-12-2020 10:37AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Nope. We don't incite hatred. Just ain't cool.

Think of the righteous high above in their ivory towers looking down on the masses in glorious superiority, because they're crusaders for the cause. You don't think the righteous incite hatred with their aggressive push to convert/burn the heathens?

TBH I don't know your posts much. We don't frequent the same kind of threads, but there are other posters here who... aren't terribly tolerant of opinions that run counter to their own, and tend to enjoy their self-imposed positions high above us in their ivory towers.

Here's the thing. I discuss a couple of primary topics. Immigration, multiculturalism, feminism/male rights, and sexism/equality. Those are topics full of strong passions.. and stronger opinions. Which means that regardless of what I say, I will be offending someone. Which, in turn, is grounds for the claim of inciting hatred.

If I state that I favor EU migration instead of 3rd world migration, then, I will offend those who crusade on behalf of the the 3rd world migrants, and possibly incite their hatred of my position... and potentially of me. That's simply where the internet and some parts of society have developed into.

19-12-2020 10:38AM

Should I be prosecuted if I referred to black people as n*ggers?

For clarity, I wouldn't. I don't like that word.

But if I would be prosecuted, would a black person who refers to another black person as a n*gger be prosecuted?

What if I referred to a person who identified as queer as a queer? If that was overheard by someone who didn't identify as gender queer, they might feel offended.

Are we going to have certain words that only certain people can use?

Should we be able to say that black people can't use the n word so flippantly and start policing language more stringently?

It seems a lot here would say yes.

The_Kew_Tour · 19-12-2020 10:56AM

Pretty much will have to shut boards. Scanning through first 50 or so topics in this thread and everyone of them will have to close really.

Don’t have a problem with legislation if the same rules were applied to everyone. It’s when One rule is different for somebody that’s where problems arise.

19-12-2020 11:02AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Pretty much will have to shut boards. Scanning through first 50 or so topics in this thread and everyone of them will have to close really.

Don’t have a problem with legislation if the same rules were applied to everyone. It’s when One rule is different for somebody that’s where problems arise. Democracy eh.

Not really. I suspect we'll go back to the way the Politics and Humanities forums used to be run... where posters will be required to post links/evidence to support most opinions, and those opinions will need to be formatted in more specific language. I do think it will be very difficult to express opinions that are counter the "accepted" worldview of the politicians, Academia and NGOs.

AH/CA will likely die though, since the requirement to watch every word and sentence you write, doesn't exactly encourage people to relax and chat... but boards will likely continue with a core group of people with serious discussion. Strictly moderated, and much reduced.

CtevenSrowder · 19-12-2020 11:37AM

Tell me how wrote: »

You say that like it's a bad thing while also, I take it acknowledging that those against the legislation recognize that at least some of what they say is hateful.

You do this as an attempt to smear those who disagree with you.

Have you thought of anything that posters in this thread have said that was hateful or racist in other threads on boards yet that should have them brought before the courts? Or was that just another smear tactic?

It seems you you aren't bothered to try and understand the concerns that people have, and like Klaz has said, believe that you yourself will never fall victim to such laws.

Gruffalux · 19-12-2020 11:56AM

In a hundred years when we are over the hump and the wheel has turned, when the authoritarians have been routed, put on trial, and are finally silent and dead like all their subjects, books will be written of the Global Autonomous Zone's Rule of
Infinite Love, Self Identity and Never Ending Peace, Reparation and Equity.

The books will record how in the early days some people said hang on a minute, it sounds like you are being dictatorial wallies trying to control everything that people say and think in the name of so-called goodness, don't you think you should sharpen your wits and persuade rather than march through the institutions and bully with trumped up enforcement and regulations?

And the books will say those people were crushed and dismissed, their political and media representation removed, and the great liberal Empire marched on, conquering all before it, bringing endless freedom to think and say what was permitted!

Thusly did we live under the great freedom, denying awkward science, unpleasant reality, and being compulsorily kind and wonderful, until the Revolution when the people rose up and slaughtered their masters and mistresses in their cushy strongholds, and once more people could say what they felt or somehow believed, and rise or fail by their power of reasoned argument.

Annasopra · 19-12-2020 02:09PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not if all speech isn't free.

All speech isnt free. You cannot currently under law say certain things. Thete is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Free speech/expression is often restricted. But I dont know why you want to speak for Eric though.

Eric Cartman · 19-12-2020 02:15PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All speech isnt free. You cannot currently under law say certain things. Thete is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Free speech/expression is often restricted. But I dont know why you want to speak for Eric though.

But it is. Now if those words damage someones reputation or finances they can sue you for it, but thats for the damages, not the words.

Free speech is absolutely key to a free society. If somebody is a racist and wants to say awful racist things among their racist friends or on a forum that allows that then so be it.

Legislating against words is the most totalitarian thing I can think of

Biker79 · 19-12-2020 03:01PM

The cost of restricted speech is far higher than the worst possible scenario under free speech.

There is an illusion that free speech is somehow a bad idea because restricted speech has dominated across social media, as a result of advertising interests. It would be foolish to think its because restrictions are somehow better, although so many people have made that assumption. It's completely false.

Good ideas always trump bad ideas when they are given enough space to compete with each other.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 03:34PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You do this as an attempt to smear those who disagree with you.

Have you thought of anything that posters in this thread have said that was hateful or racist in other threads on boards yet that should have them brought before the courts? Or was that just another smear tactic?

It seems you you aren't bothered to try and understand the concerns that people have, and like Klaz has said, believe that you yourself will never fall victim to such laws.

I've said repeatedly that I don't think Boards is going to change that much.
It already has mechanisms in place which work quite well.

It seems you you aren't bothered to try and read what I have said but are rushing to panic stations over this.

I will repeat though that I see poster after poster who are doing such that I keep not being surprised to see the side of the argument they are on.

As for 'trying to smear people' what do you think people are doing when they talk about 'liberal posters'? We are all going on what we know of people based on what they post.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 03:35PM

Biker79 wrote: »

The cost of restricted speech is far higher than the worst possible scenario under free speech.

There is an illusion that free speech is somehow a bad idea because restricted speech has dominated across social media, as a result of advertising interests. It would be foolish to think its because restrictions are somehow better, but so many people have made that assumption. It's completely false.

Good ideas always trump bad ideas when they are given enough space to compete with each other.

Can you please explain this bold bit in the context of the people who have committed suicide after being targeted online, which is what this conversation is about.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 03:40PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This phrase is the new ‘going forward’. What other kind of experience is there?

Your post has highlighted how arbitrary this all is. Who decides what is and isn’t hate speech?

We have laws to deal with physical violence, laws which are somewhat arbitrarily applied as the situation, the subjective opinion (much as they try to exclude it) of the courts and the circumstance influencing the steps in relation to arrests, charges, prosecution and sentence.
Frequently these do indeed result in frustration at the variation in the application of these rules.

But, it is much better than not having any laws against such behaviour.

Please tell me how this is or should be any different?

19-12-2020 03:47PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All speech isnt free. You cannot currently under law say certain things. Thete is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Free speech/expression is often restricted. But I dont know why you want to speak for Eric though.

Because it is an open discussion.

What am I not allowed say by law? Are there words I can't say?

19-12-2020 03:49PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you please explain this bold bit in the context of the people who have committed suicide after being targeted online, which is what this conversation is about.

What would your suggested punishment be for insulting people online?

ThunbergsAreGo · 19-12-2020 03:51PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not really. I suspect we'll go back to the way the Politics and Humanities forums used to be run... where posters will be required to post links/evidence to support most opinions, and those opinions will need to be formatted in more specific language. I do think it will be very difficult to express opinions that are counter the "accepted" worldview of the politicians, Academia and NGOs.

AH/CA will likely die though, since the requirement to watch every word and sentence you write, doesn't exactly encourage people to relax and chat... but boards will likely continue with a core group of people with serious discussion. Strictly moderated, and much reduced.

Isn't that the point though an NGO drafted piece pf legislation stops people critiquing NGOs all while we het and more of them doing the same thing badly and taking more and more money from the government?

Biker79 · 19-12-2020 03:53PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you please explain this bold bit in the context of the people who have committed suicide after being targeted online, which is what this conversation is about.

Good ideas always trump bad ideas when they are given enough space to compete with each other.

That's all that needs to be said on the matter.

I would seriously doubt anyone healthy in body and mind would take their own life, as a result of comments online. Not to excuse such comments...but not to scapegoat them either, as you appear to be doing.

One eyed Jack · 19-12-2020 03:53PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I love this thread.

The posters who are defending/supporting the legislation seem to be convinced that their form of expression would never, ever, be considered offensive or could be interpreted as hate speech towards any particular group or person. After all, their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are.

It's going to be interesting watching them get pulled up on their speech in the future. They don't seem to realise that they're not excluded from the legislation just because they've chosen to represent a particular side. They'll be held to account just like everyone else...

I don’t agree that that’s true tbh. Speaking only for myself, I’ve always tried at least, to be considerate of the effect of my communications on other people. I’ve never gone out of my way to offend other people which is something I see in a quite a few of those people who claim to advocate for free speech. It appears that what they’re advocating for in reality is the freedom to shoot their mouth off and take no responsibility for the negative consequences of their behaviour, either for themselves or for others, but they’ll bask in the acknowledgement they get as a “truth teller”, “scientific facts”, all the rest of it. They’re already clever enough to couch their language in terms they know will get the intent of their message across while still giving themselves the freedom to claim they are being persecuted if they are set upon by hordes of people who exercise what is already their right to freedom of expression by effectively returning the favour according to their own standards of what they understand is meant by freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

The whole reason for this new legislation being introduced is because the current Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 is so ineffective. Personally, I don’t see any new legislation having the over-reaching effects it is claimed it will have by some posters on here. I’d imagine it will be as inefficient and ineffective as current legislation. I don’t imagine people are generally so unreasonable as the tiny minority of people who advocate for free speech as it pertains to issues that they are passionate about, like purposely going out of their way to offend people and incite hatred and discrimination against any groups in society which ultimately they just don’t want having the same freedoms as them.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Think of the righteous high above in their ivory towers looking down on the masses in glorious superiority, because they're crusaders for the cause. You don't think the righteous incite hatred with their aggressive push to convert/burn the heathens?

I’m thinking of them, but we’re probably not thinking of the same groups of people. I never have found liberal ideologies of any particular flavour all that appealing, the new breed who refer to themselves as ‘classic liberals’ are as much a pain in the face as progressives, but in just the same way as I have a right to express conservative opinions, I must acknowledge that living in a democratic society means those people whom I disagree with have an equal right to express liberal and progressive opinions, I would even argue more importantly so in a democratic society as minority opinions must be heard. The freedom to hear and to receive ideas is as fundamental to a democratic society as the freedom to express ideas in order to participate on an equal footing in a democratic society. It doesn’t mean anyone has the freedom to say what they want, it means people have to be considerate of other people in what they say and how they say it. I personally don’t think that’s a bad thing. It certainly beats the idea of invoking the principle of free speech to shoot one’s mouth of with the first brain fart that comes to mind without having given it due consideration and thought in their own head first.

CtevenSrowder · 19-12-2020 04:20PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I've said repeatedly that I don't think Boards is going to change that much.
It already has mechanisms in place which work quite well.

It seems you you aren't bothered to try and read what I have said but are rushing to panic stations over this.

But you are suggesting the reason certain posters posting on this thread are against the legislation is because they post hateful things, and as such fear that they could end up being convicted or at least hauled before the courts to explain themselves on the back of this legislation. Maybe they say these hateful things (whatever they are, because you not yet given examples) outside of boards.

I am asking for examples of such rhetoric. Whether you think it wouldn't happen because the courts are too busy is irrelevant.

Tell me how wrote: »

I will repeat though that I see poster after poster who are doing such that I keep not being surprised to see the side of the argument they are on.

Doing what? Can we have examples please?

Tell me how wrote: »

As for 'trying to smear people' what do you think people are doing when they talk about 'liberal posters'? We are all going on what we know of people based on what they post.

They do it so I do it. All a bit childish really. And I'm sorry, being labelled a liberal poster even if meant in a derogatory way is no were near the same as having it insinuated that you are in general hateful or a racist.

19-12-2020 05:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t agree that that’s true tbh. Speaking only for myself, I’ve always tried at least, to be considerate of the effect of my communications on other people.

With respect, I wasn't referring to you. I've read many of your posts over the years, and I've never found you to be overly aggressive, or judgmental towards those who disagree with you.

Now, you might feel that others don't behave the way I described, but IMHO it does happen quite a lot on a variety of thread topics.

I’ve never gone out of my way to offend other people which is something I see in a quite a few of those people who claim to advocate for free speech.

Ahh well, I've never believed that we had full freedom of speech the way that Americans talk about it. There's always been what's considered acceptable, usually based on common manners, and I don't really see the need to go beyond that. That some people break those social considerations, doesn't require a separate law, because I don't see it having the effect that those who promote it expect to happen.

It appears that what they’re advocating for in reality is the freedom to shoot their mouth off and take no responsibility for the negative consequences of their behaviour, either for themselves or for others, but they’ll bask in the acknowledgement they get as a “truth teller”, “scientific facts”, all the rest of it. They’re already clever enough to couch their language in terms they know will get the intent of their message across while still giving themselves the freedom to claim they are being persecuted if they are set upon by hordes of people who exercise what is already their right to freedom of expression by effectively returning the favour according to their own standards of what they understand is meant by freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

Perhaps "they" are interested in such things. I'm not. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any posts of mine which were obviously seeking to offend, or inspire hatred in others. At the same time though, considering how broad this legislation seems to be, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if I would be pulled up for voicing criticisms of certain groups who hold a victim status in popular media, or official pov.

The whole reason for this new legislation being introduced is because the current Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 is so ineffective. Personally, I don’t see any new legislation having the over-reaching effects it is claimed it will have by some posters on here. I’d imagine it will be as inefficient and ineffective as current legislation.

Fair enough.. I don't think the legislation, in itself, will be particularly effective. I do think the fear of the legislation will have knockon effects, allowing for more censorship of ideas.

It's like the sexual harassment laws in the workplace, which stifled interactions between men and women. It wasn't the laws, by themselves, that caused it to happen, but the fear that grew out of association. The fear of being accused, rather than the fear of being found guilty.

I don’t imagine people are generally so unreasonable as the tiny minority of people who advocate for free speech as it pertains to issues that they are passionate about, like purposely going out of their way to offend people and incite hatred and discrimination against any groups in society which ultimately they just don’t want having the same freedoms as them.

Sure, what about the people who claim to be fighting against hatred and discrimination, who ultimately are encouraging it through "reverse" behavior? I notice that you've focused on those who are intending on expressing hatred, but the post you're replying to was about others...

It doesn’t mean anyone has the freedom to say what they want, it means people have to be considerate of other people in what they say and how they say it. I personally don’t think that’s a bad thing. It certainly beats the idea of invoking the principle of free speech to shoot one’s mouth of with the first brain fart that comes to mind without having given it due consideration and thought in their own head first.

I snipped. Sorry. This is getting too long.

We never had the freedom to say whatever we wanted. There have always been consequences for those who break the common rules of accepted speech. And I always quite liked that such conventions existed, but social boundaries are breaking down, either from intentional changes to society, or as side-effects to other changes.

Getting back to the original point, you haven't really addressed what I said about "their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are."

You spoke about those who seek to incite hatred, or want to push their brain farts, but I'm at a loss to see how your response really counters what I said, except for your first sentence : "I don’t agree that that’s true tbh. Speaking only for myself"

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 06:01PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But you are suggesting the reason certain posters posting on this thread are against the legislation is because they post hateful things, and as such fear that they could end up being convicted or at least hauled before the courts to explain themselves on the back of this legislation. Maybe they say these hateful things (whatever they are, because you not yet given examples) outside of boards.

I am asking for examples of such rhetoric. Whether you think it wouldn't happen because the courts are too busy is irrelevant.

Doing what? Can we have examples please?

They do it so I do it. All a bit childish really. And I'm sorry, being labelled a liberal poster even if meant in a derogatory way is no were near the same as having it insinuated that you are in general hateful or a racist.

I'm not playing your game.

You don't get to demand examples so that they can then be argued point by point. You know full well that most serious posts are removed and the posters banned so this 'show me examples from Boards' is redundant.

I'm not saying others do something therefore I feel I can do it.
I'm saying I'm not going to explain why I do something any further while you ignore others doing it.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 06:02PM

Biker79 wrote: »

That's all that needs to be said on the matter.

I would seriously doubt anyone healthy in body and mind would take their own life, as a result of comments online. Not to excuse such comments...but not to scapegoat them either, as you appear to be doing.

All that shows is your ignorance on the matter. Deliberate or otherwise, only you know.

Eric Cartman · 19-12-2020 06:12PM

Biker79 wrote: »

That's all that needs to be said on the matter.

I would seriously doubt anyone healthy in body and mind would take their own life, as a result of comments online. Not to excuse such comments...but not to scapegoat them either, as you appear to be doing.

I think the dangerous part of this is were using an unrelated case to try shove in this legislation. Hate speech laws are not going to stop girls bullying each other online. The people using this angle are well aware the topics are only vaugely related but triumphing that angle because nobody condones that behaviour.

Gruffalux · 19-12-2020 06:16PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think the dangerous part of this is were using an unrelated case to try shove in this legislation. Hate speech laws are not going to stop girls bullying each other online. The people using this angle are well aware the topics are only vaugely related but triumphing that angle because nobody condones that behaviour.

That is very true. I know several teens who committed suicide due in large part to online bullying. It is and was traumatic. But Hate Speech laws will not address that or stop it. It happens in secret and usually uses the fleeting or invisible aspect of digital space to achieve its aim. To mortify a child in front of their peers, can be done in a comment that circulates for moments and is then deleted. It is a whole other issue. And to associate suicide from online bullying with the Hate Speech laws proposals is actually manipulative.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments