How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters.
A lot of religious texts, beliefs, and/or sermons would probably be considered hate speech to a not insignificant number of people.
How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters.
Yes, real life is hard and complicated and there's no easy way to decide it. We collectively do the best we can and keep trying to improve. That's just reality. That's why free speech absolutism is naïve- it appeals to our desire for one, simple, always enforceable rule but it's not the way the world works that one simple rule is always the best outcome.
The issue is, that collectively deciding what speech to ban, in a democratic manner, requires discussing that speech openly and publicly. But if the speech is illegal, that discussion can't happen. It's a Catch-22; censorship is incompatible with democracy!
> But if the speech is illegal, that discussion can't happen.
What kind of argument is that ? How do you think they trial people for hate speech ?
Murder is illegal you can still talk about it just don't plot an assassination. Being a nazi is illegal in germany, you can still talk about nazis and nazism
It's not a banned list fo words that immediately put you in jail for uttering them
No, that problem is quite simple to solve by designing the laws appropriately. For example, in the German criminal code, the first basic prerequisite for the applicability of the hate speech ban is that it occurs "in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace", which does not apply when talking about it in legal debates.
Exactly. Everyone acting like we have to have the perfect, be-all-end-all solution to everything or nothing. Our society evolves over time, slowly getting better (and hopefully not regressing).
I don’t think, “it’s hard” is a justifiable reason for an idea to be wrong, so I’m not sure the fact that having a fair way of discerning hate speech is hard means that we shouldn’t discern hate speech.
It's not hard, it's quite literally impossible.
If there's a person who believes God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners... and another person who is homosexual and doesn't believe in God, where can there be compromise? I'm neither, just looking at this from above.
The best you can do is disenfranchising anything less than the majority's opinion.
I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such.
Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism, and where I fear we're headed. The private sector has already tried to be said arbiters, so it's interesting to see where this ends up.
What you claim to be impossible is in fact routinely and successfuly done. Because the point of hate speech bans is not at all to police opinions, it's about making sure everyone can live in peace no matter what opinion anyone holds.
* believing that God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners is completely outside the scope of the law, since it only concerns speech, not beliefs.
* saying "God is real, and the Bible is real, and homosexuals are sinners" is also not affected (this is dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, frequently stated in public) because no matter whether you believe it to be true or not, it does not imply anyone should do anything in particular, and thus does not affect the public peace.
* saying "God hates homosexuals and they will burn in hell", still the same, what God does in hell is outside the scope of the law.
* saying "Every god-fearing man should do god's will and kill homosexuals on sight" in public in front of a crowd - BEEEP, BEEP, BEEP, we got ourselves a statement suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace, go to jail for between three months and five years.
* saying "People should not let homosexuals into their homes" - not affected, whom people let into your private homes is not a matter of public peace.
* saying "Companies should not employ homosexuals" - again not affected for the same reason, although companies who actually refuse to employ homosexuals would be in violation of an entirely different (anti-discrimination) law.
So you see: it's not actually that difficult.
> I think the current US model works well. Free speech, unless it's going to lead to immediate harm and such. Anything more than that is a step into authoritarianism
Yeah but all of those things said that you say are apparently okay can lead to declining mental health in gay individuals, who eventually kill themselves after years or decades of mental abuse.
>How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide?
Parliaments and courts.
See the battle-tested European hate speech laws I mentioned, e.g. section 130 of the criminal code of Germany:
"Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace,
1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origin, against sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population, or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or
2. violates the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming one of the aforementioned groups, sections of the population or individuals on account of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or sections of the population"
Note especially how the first sentence is a pretty tight restriction. Private speech cannot be affected. Academic texts are pretty safe. Anything arguing for moderation and careful consideration of facts is easily defensible.
And how can the parliaments, and the people who elected them, openly discuss what speech to ban, if the speech in question is illegal? Censorship is inherently anti-democratic.
Those laws you have the temerity to call “battle-tested” regularly lead to the violation of individual right by way of both arrest and prosecution for harmless and necessary speech.
What does a Daily Mail (already suspect source) article about a UK musician in the UK have to do with the statute as written in Germany as it applies to Germans? Right? The previous comment was talking about German law and jurisprudence and its effect (or lack thereof) on free speech?
As for the Daily Mail, you should be cautious in your commitment to its veracity and its applicability to an American audience. For example, the word “arrest” does not mean what you think it does in UK English. I think you are confusing it with the word used in the scenario you expected: “charged”. An arrest simply means that the police have started asking questions, and are notifying the subject that their questions and any answers can be admissible in court.
British police reality is not the same as in a US TV series.
…says the guy who fails to recognize that the musician was never taken into custody or charged with a crime. Some folks made an accusation (over a decade ago, by the way). The police followed up on the call by asking the guy questions about the incident. Literally just talked to him.
And then…? Nothing. No charges filed. No detention. No indictment. Nothing. The matter was dropped.
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, both in the US and the UK. That doesn't mean when the police follow up, the accused go straight to jail and stand before a judge.
Now, once more, UK laws have NOTHING to do with German laws, especially after the UK withdrew from the EU. So unless you've got an example from Germany or at least France that demonstrates a legitimate chilling effect on free speech due to hate speech laws present in those countries, you're indeed confused as to what it means.
Fun fact: Europe is not a monolith, and the UK has no prohibition against Nazi iconography and rhetoric, unlike for example France and Germany.
As opposed to the US where cops were called on folks BBQing in a public park (where BBQing is allowed)? And the US lacks hate speech regulations. So… no difference? When someone calls with some BS, the police are usually obligated to follow up. Now if you want to discuss how there should be penalties for wasting everyone's time with frivolous or hateful calls to the police, we can discuss that.
> I'm sorry, is the UK not in Europe now?
For the purposes of examining hate speech regulations, no, it's not. Different currency. Separate economic zone. Limited to no hate speech regulation especially as it regards Nazi/fascism.
The US and Mexico are on the same continent as well. Closer in fact due to the huge shared border and no large salt water channel between. Should we lump the laws of Mexico and the US together haphazardly as well? No? Then why would you automatically lump the UK and Germany together like that when they are in fact quite distinct entities?
A lot of religious texts, beliefs, and/or sermons would probably be considered hate speech to a not insignificant number of people.