Hate Speech

Let's start with basics. Set aside the US Constitution for a bit [We'll return to it,] and consider why people in general institute a government -- specifically, a government which may be democratic in nature as it evolves.

Why? To provide protection for the people who live within its boundaries. If that answer sits well with you, let's continue.

Government, then, should protect the citizens not only from external threats to their well-being such as a war waged against them, but also from internal threats such as those from people or organizations who wish to cause them harm. Dealing with robbers and unscrupulous businesses would fall under the responsibility of a government. Whether physical or financial, there's harm to the individual from these sources.

There's a sub-set of acts which cause harm to the individual. These are acts driven by hatred of a group of people. To physically attack someone with red hair because you hate people with red hair would be a fanciful example. There are other examples which are much more real, of course. We can label these as 'hate crimes'.

A case can be made that speech can be used as a weapon -- a means of making someone feel less secure -- just like threatening them with a baseball bat. A threat that would make the targeted individual seek protection so that he/she can live his/her life in peace. If driven by the hatred of a group, this would be called 'hate speech'.

And there we have to come back to the US Constitution, which proclaims freedom of speech as a 'right'. The very document which defines the government government has tied its hands!

This poor old country mouse is still wrestling with these concepts.

How about you?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

I don't think there is a lot to wrestle with. I believe that we have inalienable rights....the right to express our selves without persecution from government is one of them.

I should have the right to say things that offend others without being put in jail, fined or otherwise targeted by a powerful government.

We have people on this forum who hate Christianity. They hate people who believe the Bible as truth. They have total contempt for those who teach their children Biblical concepts and truths. Should they really be fined for saying "I hate Christians and find them dangerous and stupid"?

Should a black person be fined or jailed for saying that he/she hates white people and they are all crackers and Karen's?

What do you think?

 

Hi, CKW.

In reference to your second paragraph above: "I should have the right to say things that offend others without being put in jail, fined or otherwise targeted by a powerful government."

If a large number of folks say the same thing, targeting a person solely because he/she is a member of a group of people, and that in turn causes the targeted person to live in fear, is that type of speech acceptable? Or, to put it another way, should the government concern itself with protecting that targeted individual?

That's why I posted what I did. Certain assumptions we have come in conflict with each other. To fully accept one is to deny the other.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

You already do have the right to say offensive things without being put in jail, fine or getting in legal trouble.

Whether you get in trouble with other people is another issue.

 

What I put in red is where your logic is flawed. Speech alone may be hateful, and it may be stupid and offensive. But it does not create the cold fear of imminent death that the face-to-face threat of attack with a baseball bat creates. The comparison is not valid. You may not have experienced a face-to-face threat of imminent death at the hands of another, but, if you have, then you know the difference.

As you pointed out, the US Constitution stands in the way of prohibiting mere speech, however offensive it may be, that is absent of some other recognized and defined crime. This is why we do have laws against "hate crimes", but not mere "hate speech." But just for the sake of discussion, let's say, hypothetically, that the 1st Amendment that guarantees the freedom of speech was repealed. That would leave it up to the government to decide what speech was acceptable and what speech was illegal. It would also leave it up to the government to decide what "hate" or "threatened" or "less secure" is.

Frankly, I don't think Americans want that to happen. Not liberals, not conservatives. And our national politics have a long history of swinging back and forth between the liberal side and the conservative side, and I don't think what speech is allowed and what speech is not allowed should be drifting along with the political winds. As a couple examples, with no 1st Amendment and a very conservative Congress and President, they could simply ban speech in favor of abortion rights or speech against gun rights, or they could ban any public expression of opinion by kneeling or sitting when the national anthem is played. A very liberal Congress and President could ban pro-life speech or speech against a liberal immigration policy or speech that was unsupportive of having a Pride Month. Either side could even ban speech either for or against a war.

I note that in Australia during the pandemic, a pregnant woman was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail out of her own home for her efforts to organize a protest against the Covid restrictions in her country. The protest hadn't even taken place yet, so she was arrested for her speech alone. This is the type of thing that can happen when there is no 1st Amendment protecting free speech.

So, in America, we deal with hateful speech in one of two ways, and I'll use a few examples. Let's say a few Ku Klux Klan members give a speech in a public place that contains hateful content about Black people and Jewish people. The vast majority of Americans simply ignore them. If their speech is reported by the press, we may sort of briefly look at them in the same way we briefly note any other human peculiarity, sort of shake our heads and quickly dismiss them and their speech. And in so doing, they are ignored. The other thing we can do is to counter their speech with a speech that ridicules them and stands up for respect for all Americans and their civil rights. Another example is a favorite chant of the far-left Antifa group which is ACAB (All Cops Are Ba--ards). That, too, is "hate speech", but the vast majority of Americans simply (1) ignore it, or (2) counter them by speaking in support of the police. And when a comedienne published a picture of herself holding up the bloody head of a beheaded Donald Trump, she suffered severe criticism for her hateful expression, but not arrest and prosecution.

So while "hate speech" is offensive and unproductive, in America, we believe that the greater threat is giving the government the power to tell us what we can say and can't say, unless that speech is combined with some illegal action against a person, in which case it becomes a part of a recognized crime, like Assault for example. But in the absence of that illegal action, hateful and offensive speech is simply ignored or it is countered. The freedom of speech is a bit "messy" at times, but we are pretty used to it in America, and we prefer it over the alternative.

Seth

 

I would wager that I am as old or older than you. My parents used to say: "Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words can never hurt you."

It seems this simple concept is lost in this day of the perpetually offended.

One reason for this, I think, is that there are no stick and stones on the internet, only words.

 

Hate speech is being used as an excuse to censor research done by people who don't hate anybody. They are not trying to harm anybody; they simply see what they think are lies and they analyse the situation.

Here are some examples of censored videos.
https://codoh.com/library/document/holocaust-typhus-and-zyklon-b-1039-min/en/

Dr. Mark Weber: Adolf Hitler's German Economic Miracle


The Holocaust - The Greatest Lie Ever Told



This is a touchy subject but searching for the truth is not hate.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance — Albert Einstein

 

Click on some of these videos. Almost all of them are blocked.

I live in Madrid and this is what comes up here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL RESTRICTED
The parent channel of this video is unavailable at your location due to the following restrictions:

Contains Incitement to Hatred
Please see the Community Guidelines for more details. If this is your content then please check the Visibility tab for more specific information on this restriction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

What happens in the US?

 

I realize that. But the op is stressing that the 1st amendment "ties the hands " of government and thus government can't protect people from hate speech. Government having the ability to "protect" people from hate speech is a whole different situation then what we have currently.

 

So what motivated you on this topic? What specific situations and events are happening right now that are in your mind targeting people and keeping them in fear?

 

I forgot to put the link in post #8.

https://codoh.com/library/videos/?page=1

 

One cannot give offense, only take offense.

We already have laws against true threats as not being protected by the 1st Amendment, and therefore criminal. Anything else is a choice you make, no one else, on whether you take offense or not, be afraid or not.

 

Hi, Seth Bullock.

First, thank you for taking time to read my post, consider it carefully, and provide a thoughtful response. Your statements are factually correct. The Supreme Court has ruled, time and again, that hate speech as such is protected. The sole possible loophole would be hate speech that incites unless, and it's a big unless, it incites imminent lawless action. [Brandenburg v. Ohio.]

My concern, though, remains. Hate speech, prevalent and directed at individuals within a group can, I believe, significantly alter their sense of ease in going about their lives. It is this which is even difficult for me to define. The sole legal counter to it that I can find is to use our educational system to instill in students a respect for others.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, Hotdogr.

89 years old here.

I'm not sure that it's easy to shrug off the sticks and stones of hate speech when you're a member of a minority group and the speech is perpetrated by the majority group. This would be particularly true if the minority group has little internal cohesion.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

All rights, even inalienable ones, have limits, specifically when they begin to conflict with others' inalienable rights, as to safety (or to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," if you prefer). Your examples are fine. They are not "hate speech." Saying, however, that blacks are "sub-human," for example, or comments encouraging an attitude of tolerance of violence aimed at transsexuals/drag queens/crossdressers, etc., would be considered hate speech. These would mimic the techniques used by the Nazi government, to demonize their Jewish population. Are you really defending that kind of speech?

 

Hi, CKW.

I'm not sure that my own concern is of importance at all, but here goes.

I have no specific incidents in mind, though there is a lot of palaver from time about this or that minority group here in the United States of America. At present, for example, the folks who are transgender come in for a lot of attention, not all of it praise. Rather, I'm approaching this with a theoretical mindset.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

You cant 'make' anyone feel insecure with just words- they have to choose to respond with that feeling...but they can do that without anyone even trying to make them feel it because some people are just so very insecure. If 'making people feel insecure' is what we call 'hate speech', and therefore a crime, then we'll all be criminals very quickly, because anything anyone says will be responded to by someone, somewhere feeling insecure.

'Threats' and 'calls to action' are objective enough to make enforcible laws with, which we have done. Anything more than that and we lose objectivity, and with it any semblance of a functioning code of laws. We'll instead just be subject to whatever the 51% doesnt want said. And no one really wants to live in that world...

 

Hi, Kal'Stanbg.

A most interesting comment. Worth consideration in depth.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, modernpaladin.

Thank you for your input. It's a tricky concept, and that's the truth.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Respect for others ought to be modeled by parents, educators, the entertainment industry (sports/music/tv and movies), and civic leaders and national politicians.

 

You bring up a post that advocates persecution for a definition of hate speech but you don't have specifics on what would be persecuted? That's interesting.

I think you should feel obligated to come up with a specific example of what should be prosecuted. It comes with the responsibility of advocating a major freedom being lost.

 

What kind of speech should be protected?. The ACLU has a long history of defending hate speech because they thought anytime the government encroached on any form of speech the lines between good speech and hate speech becomes blurred and we've lost a fundamental right. It's why we have laws against hate crimes, not hate speech. Speaking, itself, is not a crime.

 

As specific examples are required, to differentiate what is, and what is not, acceptable speech; and as I'd given specific examples; but as you'd failed to either respond to my examples, or to cite examples of the "hate speech" which you say that the ACLU has defended, it is hard to see any point, made in your post, to which I might respond.

 

Yes there will always be a sense of unease wherever freedom of speech exists. People inevitably feel threatened by ideas that oppose their own. People also will feel threatened by groups who oppose them, or seek either to control them, exclude them or marginalize them. In a democracy we will know who those people are because they will tell you. They will require extra monitoring, extra attention and govt is permitted to provide same under the same. Your problem is assuming that people should be promised a world without fear, unease or risk. Our Govt does not promise that.

 

You, clearly, have not experienced the demonization of your own group, to be seen as less than human, and as it being almost a public service, to eliminate you from society. Ethnic groups which have been so targeted, in various countries, know that the idea that words are harmless, is nothing but bunk. Whenever it is citizens who have perpetrated the violence against other citizens, whether the victims were (in this country) black, gay, Arab, Jewish, or trans, these acts have not come out of the blue, but were outgrowths from a substrate of hate speech.

The problem with your perspective, is that you have not defined hate speech, but are apparently using a generalized idea of any critical speech about any group, based I would guess on having heard it called "hate speech," but someone or other. That is not the definition. And so your excusing of all hateful speech, is erroneous.

Though I don't think it would fall under the definition of hate speech, I can point to the election workers who were falsely slandered by Trump and others, which resulted in their receiving death threats and citizen mobs showing up at their homes. For you to portray these people as not having had their safety credibly threatened, and to not have had any legitimate reason for fear, is your own acting in the way you suggest of @Torus34; namely, of trying to compare two things, without having personal experience with both.

If you were a member of the Darfuri people, in Western Sudan; a Hutu refugee, during the first Congolese War; a Tutsi minority ethnic group, killed by Hutu militias, during the Rwandan genocide; or a Bosnian Muslim man in 1995, during the Bosnian genocide, you would know what a load of crap, your claim is (assuming you were still alive).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides#List_of_genocides

Those who are ignorant of the horrible mistakes of history, are destined to repeat them.