What's wrong with hate-speech?

Post Reply New Topic

The subject I want to discuss is whether hate speech is ok in some cases - like if you're directing hate speech against nazis.

But it is of course wrong to direct hate speech against people for disability, ethnicity etc.

I think a large part of the problem regarding "hate speech" comes from people being unable to differentiate between "hate speech" and "speech that they hate".

Unfortunately, too often, people see something said (or something said by a person\group) which they do not like\agree and decide that because it doesn't agree with their world view, it is automatically "hate speech" in their view - Just because a person may disagree with the content of what is said does not make it hate speech.

That's not to say that "hate speech" doesn't exist: merely that it is far less common than some would have people believe.

So, getting back to the original point:
"speech that people hate" should be permitted.
"hate speech" (as considered objectively) should be minimised\limited as much as possible, but the line between "banning" (and so having those who agree go "underground", and so spreading\encouraging it in private) and allowing it, in order for counter (through less\non-hate speech, or providing counter-points\different views) is certainly a difficult one to place.

Both options have their benefits as well as their costs, but in the end it would seem that permitting it may be the lesser of the 2 evils: If you know people hold certain views it is much easier to target both those views (and those holding them) to permit couterpoints to be targetted towards them and encourage them from those views.

Most countries also have laws around "incitement" which would cover any speech encouraging\endorsing violence (no need to "ban" speech that already has an appropriate penalty in place, as that is simply duplicating an existing tool), leaving generalised "hate speech" as the area that really requires consideration.

This is also the type of "hate speech" which may be most easily countered through "non-hate speech" (for want of a better term), as well as allowing (through permitting the speech) a way to determine how prevalent certain views may be within the community, and so whether programs to counter it are required...If "banned" and forced underground, there is no way to know how prevalent it is, nor how much it is spreading in private, which runs the risk of some action resulting from those with the views which may have been otherwise prevented had the extent of the views been apparent\public.

So, to answer the question:
"speech that people hate" (example: "I dislike XYZ") - Nothing wrong with it.
"Hate speech" encouraging violence (example: "All XYZ should be killed") - illegal (under incitement laws) in many countries.
"Hate speech" that does not encourage violence (example: "All XYZ are evil") - While problematic (particularly for those targetted), it does allow a way to measure the public approval of\agreement with the views stated, and so permit actions (education campaigns, for example) to discover and counter the beliefs which underpinned it, and so (ideally) eradicate the cause of it, and therefore not "wrong", but rather distasteful\misguided.

The Nazis murdered thousands for being jews, partisans or communist....infact in the night of the long knives they murdered their own brown-shirts. CLose to pure evil as you can get.

Last edited by cyberdad on 24 May 2021, 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Or hate speech reduces harm, because it allows people to express their feelings, rather than keep them bottled up.

yeah because that's really worked out well in the past

Hate speech laws are un-American. It is about silencing those whose speech the government disagrees with.

The problem is, who gets to define hate speech? One person can say, "I hate conservatives, they're all Nazis and we should attack them!" and that speech is just fine, but if a conservative says, "I don't think gay marriage is right." that is hate speech!

Well, I think it is more like this:

Conservatives: "I think everyone on disability benefits are leeches. They should be deprived of their benefits and work - or starve to death" - and that's totally fine with everybody as that is "freedom of speech".

But if someone replies to that conservative statement with "Conservatives are evil, they want to starve disabled people to death!" - that's hate-speech and discrimination.

I was actually banned from a discussion board with this very same situation, so it is not even a thought scenario. It's for real.

Conservatives wants to kill people like me, and I'm not even allowed to fight back...

But you know what? I say f**k all Conservatives and f**k social media. If my self-defense is cathegorized as "hate speech", then I'm a proud Hate Speaker!

I have not seen any definitions of hate speech that involves hating a group based on political ideology. So saying “All Nazis are scum” would not be hate speech under most definitions.

Religion falls under pretty much every definition. So if the central tenant of a religion is all non believers are pedophiles and should be killed then what?

Yes I am sure you would just love unfiltered opinions about autism and disability spreading through the airwaves because that's what we want. For everybody to just air their prejudices.

With our bad ToM and lack of understanding of hidden agendas that is a painful but useful thing.

Who decides what is "Hate Speech"?

Old white men in suits

To be fair, some old men in suits realize their influence is fading and freak out.

Although to be fair Joe Rogan seems more like an old man in a track suit.

track - suit

Are you're sure you're not on the spectrum? At least infrared?