Are there dangerous ideas?

[jakelafort]

Encogitationer, i aint buyin what you are selling. You are making a big deal about hate crimes. Hate crimes as you are arguing is a sort of red herring for right wingers to hang their ugly hats. Kristina gave a great explanation of hate crimes. To my knowledge those statutes are seldom utilized. When they are utilized it is for bad shit that warrants extra punishment. The law in USA has a similar treatment of extra bad behavior in civil cases in which damages are augmented in what are known as punitive damages. In both instances it makes good sense to make the punishment more harsh.

If a gay man is beaten for being gay by religious homophobic zealots and then raped with a tire iron until he dies then the hate crime statute is applicable. Why not just charge the zealots with murder? It is because their motivation was not only criminal but the ugliest most vile in human behavior. Or consider a modern lynching in which a black woman is hung from a tree and tormented for hours…raped and then skinned alive. You want ordinary murder charges to appertain or do you think maybe hate crime is the frosting on the crime?

Your use of thoughts and motives is inapposite. American law is all about thoughts and motives. If one accidentally kills another it may not even be a crime. For instance hunters who inadvertently kill another while hunting have committed a misdemeanor. Mens rea is the heart of criminal law. Hate crimes are justified and necessary. What does a culture stand for? What are its values and priorities? If we are to better ourselves we ought to protect the historically vulnerable groups from hate speech and fuck the racist/homophobic etc perpetrators of hate crime.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

Kristina wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Kristina wrote:

Why?

Referring to Anne Hathaway’s apology for playing a character in a classic kids story, what about such classics as The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which must trigger some people with spine deformations, and The Nigger of the Narcissus in these times when only blacks seem to be able to use the N word without offense? What are we to do with books like those? Hide them? Burn them? Pretend they don’t exist? Apologize for them?

She wasn’t apologizing for playing a character in a classic kids’ story. She was apologizing because the way they chose to depict her character unintentionally contributed to the marginalization real people face. If someone has an issue with your other examples, they should raise them and Victor Hugo and Joseph Conrad can respond however they like (though I suspect the response will be rather predictable in both cases).

Nowadays, Kristina, people are so ready to be offended or triggered that it’s hard to go through a day without doing or saying something that might, even if only potentially, offend or trigger someone.

To wit:

As for asking Victor Hugo and Joseph Conrad we don’t have them to ask. We just have two classic books that are sure to offend some people. But hey…what doesn’t anymore?

That’s how it always been. Just before anyone not in the mainstream group was expected to stfu about it and everyone else got to keep their precious, pearl-clutching peace. Well, maybe that’s not perfectly accurate, but in the right ballpark.

Now that’s not how it is. People say what they want. Someone criticizes you? They seem offended? Respond how you want or just don’t at all. It’s not the end of the fucking world in these relatively small doses.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: fixed iframe html snafu (likely a missing feature for regular users?)

[Glen D]

“(though I suspect the response will be rather predictable in both cases).”

Even 100% predictable. Seeing as Victor Hugo died in 1885 and Joseph Conrad died in 1923.

 

“Nowadays, Kristina, people are so ready to be offended or triggered that it’s hard to go through a day without doing or saying something that might, even if only potentially, offend or trigger someone.”

Quite.

I do not go around intentionally insulting others. Neither do I resile from expressing an honest view because some one might be offended. Of course that’s in my own country.  I do not ever criticise a country I’m visiting .This is partly from good manners and partly through an abundance of caution.  If in a country in which my answer can endanger my safety, I lie through my teeth.***

 

Thought for today ” You’re offended? So fucking what?”  (Stephen Fry)

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

***specifically while I was living in Malaysia ,1969 ( Australian army,  conscripted grunt)  and when I visited again in 2000.

[Davis]

Glen, we have to make a distinction between hate inciting gross offence and social outrage. These two may over lap but they are not the same thing. Just because you hear people loudly complaining about say a straight actor playing a gay role or things that may seem more trivial like fat shaming, and while I agree on the cumulative that can become tiresome, that should NOT diminish the most grossly offensive and dehumanising forms of speech that are dangerous, life changing, discriminating and indirectly incites violence and aggression. You’re tired of people going on about fat shaming? I can understand that to some agree. Please don’t lump that in with n*gger bashing, faggot bashing, calling Jews inhuman garbage or calling for Muslims to be rounded up and interred in torture camps. Some people can be easily and perhaps overly offended. However there is nothing unreasonable about say, gay people wanting to be considered human beings and be able to walk down the street without being called a dirty faggot or have “AIDS FAGGOT” spray painted on their houses or being beaten up at their high-school locker. In other words please try to distinguish loud social media outrage with vicious attacks on marginalised people. Homophobic acts of violence and speech aggression are numbered in the thousands in the USA. These can be life changing events where even the strongest person who can usually dust themselves off are never the same. Think of effeminate guys who have to butch-up and hide who they are during a job interview (hard enough without hearing about how non-human you are online), to not be able to hold their boyfriends hand through fear while in working class neighbourhoods, stay in the closet in some high-schools (again enough of a hardship without the public dehumanisation). Vitriolic dehumanisation makes this go on seemingly forever and while there has been some notable change its slow and no progress will come without fighting against it). Again, disagreement with “gay lifestyle”? Whatever. Passive bigotry? Fine I guess. But vicious in your face insulting hostility or physical aggression? No. Dehumanisation? No. It is not an overreaction for LGTBQ+ people or racial minorities to say ENOUGH and fight for protections so they can just live their lives without fear or made to seem inferior. It’s easy to think you’d be able to brush it off if you were in their shoes, its another thing to spend your whole lives hearing racist/homophobic bullshit on even a daily basis.

[TheEncogitationer]

Jake,

Here’s a big problem with your argument: all of the government’s and violent groups you have cited as justification for laws against “hate speech” and “hate crime” (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Ku Klux Klan, the Ottoman Empire, the Nazis, etc.) all supported censorship and forcible suppression of thoughts and ideas that they deemed dangerous!

If censorship and forcible suppression of ideas was wrong for them, it is wrong for anybody.

If you really believe that human beings are all fucked up, why would you trust those same human beings with the political power to decide what ideas are “dangerous” and then use political power to shut down those ideas?

 

[Unseen]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Jake, Here’s a big problem with your argument: all of the government’s and violent groups you have cited as justification for laws against “hate speech” and “hate crime” (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Ku Klux Klan, the Ottoman Empire, the Nazis, etc.) all supported censorship and forcible suppression of thoughts and ideas that they deemed dangerous! If censorship and forcible suppression of ideas was wrong for them, it is wrong for anybody. If you really believe that human beings are all fucked up, why would you trust those same human beings with the political power to decide what ideas are “dangerous” and then use political power to shut down those ideas?

All too often we do what we think the bad guys do. We dehumanize the opposition. We mischaracterize and therefor misconstrue what they say.

Take those who oppose gay marriage, for example. We refer to their opposition as examples of gay hatred instead of simply taking them at their word, that gay marriage is against their core value system or is deleterious to society. We don’t have to think of them and talk of them as examples of bigots who argue in bad faith. They may simply be wrong.

Take the bakery that didn’t want to make a gay wedding cake. We atheists depicted them as hateful bigots when in fact they may be “hate the sin, love the sinner” Christians of a certain stripe. Sometimes, behavior is driven by belief rather than emotion.

We need to be careful not to dehumanize our opponents, We also need to be consistent. Suppose, for example, that an atheist bakery wanted to turn down a wedding cake ordered by the KKK with a picture of a burning cross on it? Can we consistently say that the Christian bakers doesn’t have right of refusal while the atheist bakery does?

[Davis]

If you really believe that human beings are all fucked up, why would you trust those same human beings with the political power to decide what ideas are “dangerous” and then use political power to shut down those ideas?h

You trust the government to limit free speech when it comes to libel, contempt, interfering with the police, causing a panic, fraud and false advertising Encogitationer. Why do you suddenly get antsy when it comes to dehumanising people? Is it because you don’t think dehumanising vulnerable marginalised people and accompanying discriminatory and threatening hate speech is a big deal? Is protecting the public from false advertising reasonable but protecting vulnerable marginalised people from threatening speech and dehumanisation not?

[Davis]

Also Encog. your argument about the Ku Klux Klan is totally fallacious. Just because a group of people supported lots of terrible things doesn’t mean everything they supported was terrible nor is it the case that if they support things for the wrong reasons that the same policy is useful for the right reasons or in the right contexts. Check out rationalwiki’s page on fallacies. There’s all sorts of examples of fallacies that are good to avoid.

[Unseen]

Davis wrote:

If you really believe that human beings are all fucked up, why would you trust those same human beings with the political power to decide what ideas are “dangerous” and then use political power to shut down those ideas?h

You trust the government to limit free speech when it comes to libel, contempt, interfering with the police, causing a panic, fraud and false advertising Encogitationer. Why do you suddenly get antsy when it comes to dehumanising people? Is it because you don’t think dehumanising vulnerable marginalised people and accompanying discriminatory and threatening hate speech is a big deal? Is protecting the public from false advertising reasonable but protecting vulnerable marginalised people from threatening speech and dehumanisation not?

The government in the U.S. does not limit free speech except in very few cases and when it becomes aware that said speech will be taking place. Otherwise, about all the government can do is prosecute and punish after the fact,. after the free speech has been exercised.

An example of the government limiting free speech would be when the Federal government becomes aware of the production of child pornography. Then it would attempt to put a stop to it before it happens.

The American government won’t and really can’t act to prevent speech that defames, dehumanizes, or injures vulnerable populations before it happens, and in fact there is little they can do even after the fact.

I suppose a sit like this would be put out of business in most other democracies, but the American government is largely helpless. If the government did go after them it’s likely the ACLU, a private agency devoted to defending and expanding civil rights, would be defending them in short order.

[—]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

If censorship and forcible suppression of ideas was wrong for them, it is wrong for anybody. If you really believe that human beings are all fucked up, why would you trust those same human beings with the political power to decide what ideas are “dangerous” and then use political power to shut down those ideas?

It comes down to the same reason most of us would trust a medical doctor over a faith healer if we found out we had diabetes. Despite the inherent flaws of humans, some methodologies and rationale produce more objective and consistent outcomes than others.

The question isn’t about whom we trust to determine what speech is harmful or not. The question is, can we determine an objective threshold where speech is more detrimental to protecting liberty and equality than limiting that speech would be?

In Canada, one of those thresholds is creating smear campaigns which encourage others to infringe the rights of or breach the peace against protected classes. It should be noted that protected classes includes both majority and minority populations (meaning all people, equally).

While that standard may seem too vague and open to interpretation, it actually isn’t. There are legal tests which determine if alleged hate propaganda actually meets the threshold and those tests are fairly narrow. Also, the following are valid defences against hate propaganda allegations:

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Regardless of whether or not you agree this is a sensible law, it sure as hell isn’t a matter of simply saying “Hey, politicians, judges and cops: you decide what we do or do not get to say from now on, kay please thanks!” They don’t have that kind of authority and leeway.

[TheEncogitationer]

Kristina,

An officer can always attempt to twist something into an offence. It’s done with ‘obstruction’ and ‘resisting arrest’, no? That doesn’t mean they are correct.

No, they are not correct.  And laws against “hate speech” or “hate crimes” gives corrupt law enforcers yet another opportunity to ensnare the innocent.

I don’t know what the legal situation is in Canada, but in the U.S. in 1994, there were 174,000 volumes in The Library of Congress devoted exclusively to law.  Very few of those laws are meant to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.  They are usually to protect people from their own folly, to criminalize victimless, consensual acts of consenting adults, or to subsidize some special interest at the expense of others.

Who knows how many other such laws have been passed since then? (Most Congresspersons didn’t even read The USA PATRIOT Act or The Affordable Care Act before passing them.)  But one thing is for sure, to quote Cicero: “The more laws, the less justice.”  “Hate speech” and “hate crime” laws are just another part of that awful continuum.

[jakelafort]

Encogitationer, we’ve already established that speech is limited in many circumstances. In addition to circumstances cited by Davis there is sedition and treason. Are you okay with treasonous and seditious ideas? If not, why not? Is it okay for the government to protect/preserve itself at the expense of free speech? If it is okay then why can’t the government punish criminals whose motivation is age old hatred that has resulted in untold and unimaginable injustice and suffering? Further shouldn’t the government protect its vulnerable citizens with hate speech laws? Or is it only okay to preserve the government but its citizens to whom the government is responsible are fodder for the haters?

You are equating hate speech/hate crimes with what great dictatorships have done in suppressing and censoring thoughts and ideas they deemed dangerous. The greater the power of the dictatorship the greater its abuse of power. Dictatorships seek to retain/augment power and impose their will. To that end the Catholic Church found Giordano Bruno guilty of heresy and toasted marshmallows with him. Bruno had dangerous ideas. So they murdered him. Dictatorships are suppressing ideas they perceive as threatening to themselves. Dictatorships deny freedom and liberty to their subjects so that they can be elevated. The individual within a dictatorship for her own safety ought to obey the dictator and never subvert or speak against the dictator or the dictator will squash her like an ordinary citizen swats a fly. Conversely, hate speech/hate crimes protect the freedom and liberty of those who most need that protection. Polar opposites.

If we are dealing in reality we must acknowledge the myriad mind viruses that are centuries old. We often read or hear how religion is a meme or mind virus that is perpetuated by religious institutions. The same is true with mind viruses of hatred. When we have a culture that is free to spread vicious propaganda against those marginalized groups or to torment individuals with the historical hatreds we show our true colors. Enabling hate groups and individual haters especially now with the utilization of social media changes the zeitgeist of a culture. Consider with what celerity the proponents of hatred under the Trump administration have made their mark. Consider how a government that does not tolerate the blood libel or the fill in the blank creates an environment that is conducive to freedom and liberty.

In supporting hate speech laws/hate speech crimes we foster liberty, freedom and inclusiveness. In denying the aforementioned we support faulty logic, a foolish consistency in the notion of free speech which is in any event illusory, and allow the culture’s zeitgeist to deteriorate.

[—]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Kristina,

An officer can always attempt to twist something into an offence. It’s done with ‘obstruction’ and ‘resisting arrest’, no? That doesn’t mean they are correct.

No, they are not correct. And laws against “hate speech” or “hate crimes” gives corrupt law enforcers yet another opportunity to ensnare the innocent.

They actually don’t, though. It doesn’t give the police tools they didn’t already have to try to manufacture charges.

I am not saying the change to the law is good. It isn’t. But you’re manufacturing a problem with hate crime legislation instead of addressing the reality of the situation.

[TheEncogitationer]

Kristina,

Does this act even bother defining “good faith,” “public interest,” or “public benefit?”  and who decides that?

And isn’t this provision effectively saying that the accused has the burden of proving that he or she didn’t violate the law and that the State doesn’t have the burden of proving that the accused did violate the law?

This sounds not only like a violation of free expression, but of due process, including the presumption of innocence for the accused.

[—]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Kristina, Does this act even bother defining “good faith,” “public interest,” or “public benefit?” and who decides that?

There are legal tests which apply, so ultimately, yes, jurisprudence defines these matters. It’s not so much as who decides but rather what. The constitution defines what principles apply, and evidence determines how that applies ad hoc.

And isn’t this provision effectively saying that the accused has the burden of proving that he or she didn’t violate the law and that the State doesn’t have the burden of proving that the accused did violate the law?

No. The state has to provide evidence that the law was violated. The defendant has to demonstrate either that the allegations are false (or unproven) or that their actions are saved under the acceptable defences. At the level of the Supreme Court, everything has to be weighed to determine what is constitutionally valid.

This sounds not only like a violation of free expression, but of due process, including the presumption of innocence for the accused.

It is a limitation on freedom of expression, but that’s not inherently alarming. I can’t think of a single modern state which has no limitations on freedom of expression, neither can I think of a reason for why that is desirable. The question is always about where the threshold needs to be set.

But violation of due process including the presumption of innocence? No such thing was implied at any point in time and there is absolutely no reason for you to jump to that assumption. It isn’t the case. As it stands, it is very difficult to get a criminal conviction for hate propaganda because the threshold of evidence required is high.

[Author]

Posts