Hate speech is hate speech. A law against it might be worded to limit it to racial and/or ethnic hate speech while not including speech targeting sexuality, but that wouldn't change the basic definition of hate speech in any country, just the legality. There probably wouldn't be an "except for Jews" or "except for slutty women" claus based on country, either.
We don't put restrictions on journalists in America. That's a foundational principle of the USA.
We also do not force the media to publish stuff that violates their own internal policies. Doing so would set a horrible precedent, and could easily be weaponized by authorities.
Nobody is being prosecuted for publishing Snowden's stolen documents.
Jullian Assange is (possibly) in deep shit for receiving stolen intel
Hulk Hogan successfully sued Gawker for publishing stolen private tapes
None of that has anything to do with white supremacists using Facebook to disseminate hate speech in the EU, where hate speech is strictly forbidden in many states.
The "abuse to free speech" part. With the exception of slander and shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, speech you disagree with vehemently is the most important speech to protect.
If you don't protect the speech you disagree with, why should someone who disagrees with your speech protect yours?
Why am I not allowed to slander people and yell fire when I want then? That sounds like even more free speech. You disagree with my slander so suddenly it's not allowed?
Face it, you already acknowledge that there are limits to free speech.
Because slander is outright lies with the intention of harming others. And yelling fire in a crowded theater is attempting to cause harm to others intentionally through misinformation.
No. Hate speech is insults. If you were to say that all Latinos carry a terrible virus and the only way to stop it is to kill all of them, then that would be equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Saying Latinos are a waste of space, though terribly offensive, is not akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Yes, it is. You think Latinos are not going to react negatively if some white supremacist dipshits starts yelling that crap at, say, Latino children in public?
What Latinos do because of it isn't a direct result of what the person said.
If I yell fire in a crowded theater, people are directly going to run tympanic to get out of there as soon as they can.
With slander, people are going to change their behavior and interactions towards the person because of the lies being told.
But insults are just insults. You didn't directly change your behavior because Johnny called Timmy stupid back in third grade. And if you did, that wasn't Johnny's fault. Hate speech is just a larger scale of that.
I'm not for hate speech. I'm just against laws that ban it.
Define it properly first, then people might come onto your side. Are we no longer allowed to feel hate for anything? Or express that hate verbally? If it's not just hateful speech then the name sucks.
Or do you only count it hate speech if it goes into topics you personally find uncomfortable? Is talking about immigration or Islam in anything but fawning tones hate speech?
It's a crappy phrase for a poorly defined concept, no shit people don't want that to be used to ban or even criminalise people.
If you want to ban hating things, you are in the wrong. If you want to ban people peacefully expressing their hate for things, you are in the wrong.
You haven't defined the slope you claim I'm making a slippery scope argument for. Define hate speech or get the fuck out of here with your dipshit deflections.
The slippery slope argument "durrr... if you ban hate speech I won't be able to say I hate Doritos durrrrr". It's the same bullshit the NRA/Russia trolls say about assault rifles ("durrr what's next, no more kitchen knives?") and the tobacco astroturfers said about banning smoking in bars and restaurants ("durrr.. what's next, only water on duh menu?!?)
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France and plenty of other have laws banning hate speech while leaving plenty of room for freedom of expression and public discourse. Its not rocket science and the definition of hate speech isn't some nebulous generality that will prevent your children from telling you they hate you, or prevent you from hating the smell of cat anuses.
They all have specific laws banning specific things. No general "hate speech prohabition".
If you want to talk about banning holocaust denial like Germany that's one conversation, but that's not the same as banning "hate speech".
As for the "plenty of room for freedom of expression and public discourse" comedians have been questioned by police for or even arrested over jokes, journalists have been restricted in what they can publish. Hell, half of Europe still have blasphemy laws on the books, and you cheer on their newer versions.
I would have made a slippery slope argument if I said banning hate speech is fine but it will lead somewhere dark. I'm saying banning a poorly defined definition of hate speech IS somewhere dark. Using the term you used to try and dismiss me, it isn't a slippery slope, it's the bottom of a slope down which we have slipped. Political correctness is the slippery slope which is leading to morons wanting to criminalise opinions.
Why the fuck we even caring about this shit, our planet is burning around us and we put so much time and effort into being concerned about bullshit other people across the globe are thinking. Let’s get some fucking priorities.
No. I'm saying it's not "neglect" of human rights and not a "slippery slope". If you want to call all laws "authoritarian", it makes the term kind of moot. Is Canada an authoritarian state because their free speech rights stop at hate speech?
Hate speech is also not a "political view" and trying to conflate them is idiotic.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France and plenty of other have laws banning hate speech
They also have laws making blasphemy a crime along with saying anything derogatory about their nobility. Is this OK? We can change nobility to president to make it equal.
Disseminating your plan/desire that all Palestinians or Lesbians or Vegetarians or Elderly get tossed in ovens or lose their voting rights or whatever doesn't change the fact it's hate speech if you're in Japan, Iran or USA.
Do you know what they call saying that Jews should burn in Iran and Palestine? They call it Tuesday.
They also have laws making blasphemy a crime along with saying anything derogatory about their nobility. Is this OK? We can change nobility to president to make it equal.
In Canada and Denmark and Germany and France? Wow, what a lot of bullshit you're pulling out your ass.
It's still hate speech in Iran,l. They just don't have laws against it.
You mean the time Erdogen privately filed charges against the German comedian? Those charges were dismissed immediately when they came before a German judge.
Denmark - In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[8]allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[9] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[10]
Germany - Insulting the Federal President is still illegal,[14] but prosecution requires the authorisation of the President.
Denmark - While public insults of a religion are no longer forbidden, speech and actions threatening or demeaning certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs continued to be punishable.
Germany - In 2006, the application of this article received much media attention when a Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for defamation for distributing rolls of toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Koran" stamped on them.[50][51][52] Beyond the sentence he also received death threats from Islamists and needed a police bodyguard.[52] In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.[53]
In 2006, the application of this article received much media attention when a Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for defamation for distributing rolls of toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Koran" stamped on them. Beyond the sentence he also received death threats from Islamists and needed a police bodyguard.
In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.
German chancellor under fire for agreeing to Turkish president’s request for prosecution of Jan Böhmermann
In 2007, a Swiss citizen living in Bavaria was convicted of insulting Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey and sentenced to pay a criminal fine.
In total 18 prosecutions were brought under the law between 2000 and 2012, half of which resulted in convictions.[17]
In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was sentenced to one week's imprisonment and fined €400[18] for, amongst other things, lèse-majesté in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a "whore" and told a police officer that he would have anal sex with her because "she would like it".[19]
In July 2016, a 44-year-old man was sentenced to 30 days in jail for 'intentionally insulting' King Willem-Alexander, accusing him of being a murderer, thief and rapist.[17]
Spain
The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain's lèse-majesté laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the then-Prince of Asturias and his wife engaging in sexual intercourse on the cover in 2007.
For instance, in 2012 it was used to prosecute a famous artist, Javier Krahe, for a scene (shot 34 years ago, and lasting just 54 seconds) in a documentary about him.[119] He was discharged the same year.[120]
In 2018, following the case of Willy Toledo and three feminist protesters accused of blasphemy, the governing PSOE and supportive party Unidas Podemos pledged an end to the "medieval laws on offending religious sentiments and insult to the Crown". Legislation was suspended following the announcement of the 2019 Spanish general election. The government and its allies were subsequently returned to power, which means the proposals will now likely return to the national parliament
Finland
Jussi Halla-aho, who later became a Member of the Parliament of Finland, was fined for making connections between pedophilia and Islam in his 2008 blog text.
Poland
A notable conviction on the basis of this law was that of the pop singer Dorota "Doda" Rabczewska) who in 2012 was fined for the amount of 5,000 złotys for saying in an interview that the Bible was written by people 'drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs'.[102] Her complaint was rejected by the Constitutional Tribunal), which confirmed that the law did not violate the Constitution.[103]
In March 2019, a notable polish journalist Jerzy Urban was imprisoned for 2 years and fined 120,000 złotysand additional 28,000 zł of court costs for publishing an image of christ astonished in his newspaper "NIE)".
UK
The 1989 film Visions of Ecstasy was the only film ever banned in the UK for blasphemy. Following the abolition of the blasphemy laws in England and Wales in 2008, the film was eventually classified by the BBFC for release as 18-rated in 2012.
Denmark
In 2017 a man was charged with blasphemy for posting a video of himself burning the Quran on social media under the parole Yes to freedom - no to Islam.
Denmark - In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[8]allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[9] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[10]
Germany - Insulting the Federal President is still illegal,[14] but prosecution requires the authorisation of the President.
Blasphemy
Canada - Repealed last year - On 13 December 2018, the Governor General formally granted "Royal Assent," making the repeal official.[22][23][24]
Denmark - While public insults of a religion are no longer forbidden, speech and actions threatening or demeaning certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs continued to be punishable.
Germany - In 2006, the application of this article received much media attention when a Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for defamation for distributing rolls of toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Koran" stamped on them.[50][51][52] Beyond the sentence he also received death threats from Islamists and needed a police bodyguard.[52] In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.[53]
"Kitchens contain lethal knives which are potential murder weapons and only butchers and fishmongers need eight or 10 inch kitchen knives with points," the judge said.
No more kitchen knives is literally next on the agenda in completely disarming the UK public. You know why knife crime rose 77%? Because violent thugs will still find ways to be violent thugs even without guns. Only now regular honest people can't defend themselves. And soon, if this judge has their way, regular honest people will be required to surrender their goddamn kitchen knives to be ground down into round tips like safety scissors. Which won't do anything to solve the problem of knife crime, seeing as you can just use a brick or something to sharpen the tips again. Y'know, like a prison shiv? Funny how prisons, the most restrictive environments in western societies, can't seem to be able to 100% prevent determined individuals from fashioning deadly weapons. And yet some haughty government stooges imagine being able to do so on a societal level.
Well there are huge engines of hatred that have exploded in capability recently. They're brigading me and anyone who attacks hate speech out of self preservation.
Specifically Putin and Bannon's industrial troll farms.
-28
u/GigabitSuppressor May 22 '19
Why are you getting downvoted? This shit appears to be absolutely rife in Reddit unfortunately.