Are there dangerous ideas?

[jakelafort]

Well said Kristina.

It also appears that law in Texas is pandering to the right wing. Hate crime laws are typically enacted to protect groups who have been the victims of discrimination, bigotry, racism, homophobia. And while cops are not the most loved group especially in the current crisis they are not exactly an oppressed group.

[Davis]

Hate crimes are, in most countries, directed towards people of marginalised groups, almost always those with a quality that cannot be changed (ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability). Police choose to be police and can stop being police. They are not marginalised…they have more power (and in some countries where they aren’t overly violent and belligerent they have respect) than just about any other group. So the idea that there could be a hate crime against the police is absurd.

Unseen: Same with fat-shaming I would say that unless a person has a genetic problem that keeps them from losing weight then being overweight is also a quality that can be pretty easily changed by dieting. A hate crime could only apply to say, a group of overweight people with a genetic problem that makes it difficult to overcome causing fear in their community and discrimination and fewer opportunities. Do you know of any organised hate groups against people with genetic problems that cause them to be overweight? I would be super fascinated if you know of one.

Unseen you are just trying to infer that a slippery slope is inevitable seeding fear that if you have laws blocking the most vicious dehumanising speech against vulnerable marginalised groups that it will somehow get worse and end up with laws against fat-shaming or back-talking to the police. Decades of experience in many countries says this doesn’t happen. In fact if anything Spain has had a couple pretty stupid laws against insulting the king (dating well before hate speech laws). Since hate speech laws were introduced (there is little opposition against them) efforts to end the law against insulting the king began soon after, which if anything is an example where introducing hate speech laws does NOT erode freedom of speech, in Spain they accept hate speech laws but are trying to gain greater freedom of speech ending a pretty stupid law that is very much out of date. This is no different than people arguing against Euthanasia laws out of fear it will lead mass death chambers for inconvenient elderly family members or that if you introduce limited gun control that it is inevitable that all weapons will be banned.

[Davis]

Enconginator: North American schools can be thoroughly vicious. I did part of my schooling in Canada and I can promise you it is a different universe to most (though certainly not all continental European schools). I think all of my continental European friends had never heard of vicious relentless bullying until they watched a hollywood film dealing with it (or 13 reasons why). I avoided the bullying in Canada and I cannot say I was an angel in the way I treated some of the less cool kids though I at least didn’t systematically hurt people or drive them to depression or even suicide. The way children act is a reflection of broader cultural trends. None of my Spanish, German, Belgian, Dutch or French friends (and I asked a lot of them) were ever afraid or loathe to go to school (except one friend who was painfully shy). Just about everyone had fun and made lots of good friends. It breaks my heart the level of cruelty that’s permitted to happen in North American schools. It’s mind boggling. It’s slowly starting to become an issue in some countries here, especially with social media, though it is being super aggressively dealt with.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by Davis.

[TheEncogitationer]

Glen D,

“The First Amendment recognizes the right to free speech (plus the rights to freedom of religion”

OOPS! I knew that, don’t know why I typed the second. What can I say? I’m only an ignorant  foreigner.

Ha-ha! 😁  You are no “ignorant foreigner.”  You just got one number off.  You know more about The U.S. Bill of Rights than an overwhelming majority of U.S. Citizens.  That is a plus for you and a shame upon U.S. schools.

In the 1950s, pollsters would present The U.S. Bill of Rights to people on the street and many actually thought it was a Communist document (!?!)

Nowadays, pollsters doing the same thing would find many people that think The Bill of Rights is some militia hatemonger manifesto(!?!)  “Plus ça change…”

[Davis]

Indeed Christina it very much depends on the country. In some countries it is an additional aspect to a crime, in some countries though it is a crime in an of itself (especially some European countries). Saying to a resident or citizen from Latino origin in Spain “fuck off you peanut…you don’t belong here…Spain is only for Spanish blood go back home” you can certainly be fined for that (you will if it is recorded). You cannot be fined for saying “I don’t like immigration laws” or “I would prefer less immigrants came from Latin America” or “immigration has caused lots of problems” or “there is a high rate of violence near that immigration centre” or even “we should let fewer Latinos in” … but if you directly address someone or a group and dehumanise them or grossly insult them for their race/gender/sexuality it IS a crime. Same with numerous other countries. Enciting hatred in Canada is a crime in an of itself.

[jakelafort]

I wish USA would adopt similar hate speech laws.

It is a no-brainer. Just like legalization of pot is/was a no-brainer. Imagine the insult to the ugly American who is being denied his god given right to demean/dehumanize the vulnerable? Trample on his freedom to openly express his hatred? Hwaaat? How our culture will suffer if full expression of hatred is censored. And the foolish consistency of no holds barred adamantine free speech advocates is dispatched.

[Davis]

Jake I think the US has a particularly tough process to passing constitutional change (I mean the president, 2/3 of both houses AND 34 states to get a single amendment through. Yikes. It means only under the most exceptional circumstances can any even remotely contested amendments get through.

To be honest I think the two amendments the US need the most (before anything about hate speech) are reforming your electoral system and limiting corporate donations to political parties. Without either of those two things the US is truly doomed to toxic two-party yo-yo politics. It’s hard to imagine things of substance getting done without always being heavily watered down or even mildly contentious bills finding screeching long-lasting acidic vociferous criticism. With a system set up for virtual permanent left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative it seems the US will be fiercely divided for a long time. And the political donations. Zheesh. No country can ever have remotely responsible government when they are funded to such obscene levels by corporate interests. I think it would take the most exceptional present (of the stature of Lincoln) to get such amendments passed. Considering for the foreseeable future nearly 25 states are loathe to pass even uncontroversial amendments it will be an epic monumental task. Hate speech amendments in the foreseeable future? Dream on.

[jakelafort]

Davis, i agree with your assessment except in terms of the process. We don’t need a constitutional amendment to pass hate speech laws. Federal gov could do it perhaps as part of a new civil rights package. Individual states can pass those laws to protect their citizens and piss off the haters.

But yeah those matters you point out are a greater priority.

[Unseen]

Kristina wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Here is where all this sensitivity leads: Roald Dahl wrote what is by now a classic children’s book about Witches. In the book apparently one of the major characters has a limp due to one leg being shorter and the lead character, played by Anne Hathaway has three fingers on each hand, which apparently is upsetting to some afflicted with this condition.

No, that’s not where it leads. That’s barely a footnote in the overall conversations concerning representation and disabilities awareness. Perhaps if that were an isolated incident or there was generally better representation of people with disabilities and less ostracism in real life, it would be a non-event. That’s not the case.

Talk to me about The Hunchback of Notre Dame and  The Nigger of the Narcissus, then.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

No Unseen you are wrong in asserting that in US nobody has wisdom to administer censorship nor do they have the authority. The government has the authority and censors certain speech and limits other speech. You have a bunch of junky slippery slope hypotheticals. It is really not that complicated. The government has a duty to protect its most vulnerable. When issues get nebulous it is the job of courts to make rulings interpreting the facts and applying those findings to the law. In certain instances there will be close calls whether speech ought to be protected or the gov can censor.

Censorship is applied before the offense. Afterward, all that can be done is sanctions. So, give me some examples of the censorship of which you speak.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

Kristina wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Here is where all this sensitivity leads: Roald Dahl wrote what is by now a classic children’s book about Witches. In the book apparently one of the major characters has a limp due to one leg being shorter and the lead character, played by Anne Hathaway has three fingers on each hand, which apparently is upsetting to some afflicted with this condition.

No, that’s not where it leads. That’s barely a footnote in the overall conversations concerning representation and disabilities awareness. Perhaps if that were an isolated incident or there was generally better representation of people with disabilities and less ostracism in real life, it would be a non-event. That’s not the case.

Talk to me about The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Nigger of the Narcissus, then.

Why?

[—]

Davis wrote:

Enciting hatred in Canada is a crime in an of itself.

The hate propaganda statutes (318, 319 Canada Criminal Code, advocating genocide and public incitement of hatred, respectively), are still separate from ‘hate crime’, however. Perhaps strange semantically, but hate propaganda is not a hate crime under most (if not all) functional definitions in Canada.

While you may already be aware of the distinction between terms, I do think it is important to be clear about how each is used. In Canada, people have a habit of claiming things which aren’t crimes are. On both ends of the spectrum people have a habit of claiming things to be hate crimes or hate propaganda which simply aren’t.

As a bizarre example, when Ann Coulter was doing a speaking tour in Canada, a provost at one of the universities on her tour sent her a message stating, “promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.” Ann Coulter then turned around and claimed to be the victim of a ‘hate crime’ and threatened to sue the university. Regardless of how serious either party was, both were getting pretty sloppy with legal concepts and riling up the public against imaginary offences (though in fairness, the provost sent the message privately; Ann made the big show of it all).

[Davis]

Okay thanks Kristina for the info. I’m sure Anne Coulter’s speech was full of accurate non-inflammatory insightful constructive meaningful information. 😉

[jakelafort]

Unseen, a few examples are as follows: laws against publishing pornography, laws against fraud

[Davis]

Indeed, in addition to laws against publishing pornography, laws against fraud…

…perjury, causing a panic, inciting a crime, speech that interferes with a police investigation, libel, misleading advertising, lewdness towards children, speech that causes a public disruption, speech that is in contempt of court. All of these involve penalties of one form or another (including being jailed). Several of these have been rules as acceptable limitations to the freedom of speech. It is astounding that this quantity of limitations against free speech are accepted without controversy by most but that protecting vulnerable marginalised groups from dehumanisation and the fear and misery it causes is not. Clearly the right to incite hatred, discrimination and inequality is sacred.

[Author]

Posts