Hard disagree. Hate speech shouldn’t be censored. I believe in freedom of speech. Prosecuting people for “hate speech” misunderstands what freedom of speech is.
As long as you don’t threaten direct harm to a particular individual, you should not be censored or punished for it. If you do threaten harm to a particular person, you should not be censored but instead restrained, and what you said should be noted down and preserved for the date of a fair trial.
One person being upset shouldn’t mean the other (who didn’t know any better) has to spend the rest of their formative years in prison.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)
The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.
I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.
The repercussion to bad speech and ideas is inherent to the current paradigm of the internet: downvotes and ostracization.
Maybe they will wind up on their own forum saying despicable shit, but they were probably going to do that anyway. Bad ideas love a vacuum away from prying eyes and outsiders.
It can lead to prison in some countries (more than I imagine you’d think), which I think is very bad.
Also, the opposite of what you’re describing can happen. Governments and big media/tech companies can use censorship to prevent ideas they don’t like from spreading online.
Stuff like “gay people are unnatural and should be corrected” and “drag queens/trans people/[insert bogeyman here] are pedophiles coming for our children” and “n***ers oughta be whipped”
My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people “hey, we’re all human, why can’t we just get along” when one group wants another to stop existing.
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it
If that’s how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn’t be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.
Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don’t care. As long as I’m allowed to live my life however I want, and you don’t come into my face and tell me not to, we’re good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who hold different beliefs than youlive their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we’re gonna have a problem.
This is (mostly) a different point and I’m not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn’t a slippery slope it’s the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.
Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.
You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted it’s not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.
But hate speech is never good, is it?
Hard disagree. Hate speech shouldn’t be censored. I believe in freedom of speech. Prosecuting people for “hate speech” misunderstands what freedom of speech is.
As long as you don’t threaten direct harm to a particular individual, you should not be censored or punished for it. If you do threaten harm to a particular person, you should not be censored but instead restrained, and what you said should be noted down and preserved for the date of a fair trial.
One person being upset shouldn’t mean the other (who didn’t know any better) has to spend the rest of their formative years in prison.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)
The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.
I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.
The repercussion to bad speech and ideas is inherent to the current paradigm of the internet: downvotes and ostracization.
Maybe they will wind up on their own forum saying despicable shit, but they were probably going to do that anyway. Bad ideas love a vacuum away from prying eyes and outsiders.
It can lead to prison in some countries (more than I imagine you’d think), which I think is very bad.
Also, the opposite of what you’re describing can happen. Governments and big media/tech companies can use censorship to prevent ideas they don’t like from spreading online.
Yes, absolutely. We should all be concerned with the source of our ideas and even our memes, as dumb of a concept as that is.
What is hate speech?
Stuff like “gay people are unnatural and should be corrected” and “drag queens/trans people/[insert bogeyman here] are pedophiles coming for our children” and “n***ers oughta be whipped”
My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
Not if he’s just arguing with you in a way that outwardly appears calm, even if a little shocked or disgusted.
As long as I get to tell him just as calmly to fuck off and leave me alone, and he does, we’re good.
I believe in trying to enact compassion and peace. Most people are actually very similar and don’t want to be bothered by angry people.
I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people “hey, we’re all human, why can’t we just get along” when one group wants another to stop existing.
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
If that’s how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn’t be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.
Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don’t care. As long as I’m allowed to live my life however I want, and you don’t come into my face and tell me not to, we’re good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who
hold different beliefs than youlive their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we’re gonna have a problem.This is (mostly) a different point and I’m not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn’t a slippery slope it’s the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.
I agree that censorship is evil. I disagree that people being banned from internet forums because of opinions they hold is censorship.
Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.
You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted it’s not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.
That only really applies to specific threats like that though, rather than just saying you personally think certain ideologies are morally wrong.