Outlawing "hate speech" & seemingly unrelated consequences.

Post Reply New Topic

who decides what is considered hate speech they can label anything hate speech and use that to control free speech. The most common places were speech is control is in Communist nations like China do we want to live in a communist like nation?

I have noticed hate crimes seem one work for one side I would image hate speech would work the same

Are you suggesting that 'one side' is more likely to rely on inflaming ethnic tensions or hostility towards other minority groups and that condemning bigotry would be more likely to impact people pushing that ideological position?

Well, I don't think that there are gangs of gay people beating up straight folk for being straight.

The reason it seems one sided is that the Left is generally for protecting groups from discrimination like hate speech. The Right just kind of goes bananas and acts like the are oppressed for a questioning of things might be racist, or they can't force the bible on school children. Christians making up that there is a war on Christmas and going berserk if someone says happy holidays.

The problem starts, however, when one party decides that the motives for another were "biased", inconveient, or otherwise "offensive" and so uses the "hate speach" claim (or associated "ism") in order to avoid\shut down all conversation, rather than seeking to understand the actual reason for the statement\content of the statement.

Through seeking to close down conversations in this way, they can potentially cause the "silenced" party to see the person/group of which they were seeking an honest conversation about as "privileged", or of having "special treatment", and can lead to resentment of this, and so cause the very issue which the silencing was used in an attempt to prevent.

Instead of silening speach in this way, a better option would be to allow it (within reason - no calls to violence against any person\group for example), in order for the flaws in the belief behind it (or in those assuming meanings\reasoning that was not present on the part of the "speaker") to be brought into the open and potentially corrected, rather than buried and so cause distrust\resentment...You may not change every mind, but you will make it a lot harder for those who were never going to change their mind to spread the hate to others, being that their "claims" and the conflicting information will all be publicly available and open to discussion\clarification.

Sadly some people seek to demonise those they disagree with, rather than to understand their point of view and indicate any flaws in it, as though their "value" as a person is questioned when someone does not agree with them.

Can you give an example where the left has shut down conversation? What is an earnest debate that those on the right feel they are silenced on?

I'll give you one example: Why do you think Andrew Bolt was charged by the courts for exercising his right to freedom of speech?

No one is silencing others by restricting what can be can be talked about by pointing things out as sexist or racist. If you don't agree with that label, refute it. There are plenty of awful sexist, racist and Homophobic (all the LGBT phobic) beliefs that exist in today's society, and letting those go without pointing them out for what they are stifles discussion for progress instead of working towards it. If you don't tell a kid not use a racial slur, or push a sexist stereotype or making fun for two boys kissing, that doesn't mean that that they are not going to grow up with some troubling opinions that they would not have if you pointed things out as sexist, racist and homophobic.

You don't stop a Nazi from spreading their hate by only stepping in once you can be sure they explicitly said something about violence. There are dog whistles that use coded speech for the purpose of becoming comfortable to and converting to bigoted and awfully discriminatory opinions. If one wants to stop hateful opinions at the root you need to stop the bullying and make sure those with bad opinions are seen as not cool.

Sure, there can be clumsy acts against them, I think those that say all pornography is oppression of women is a dumb opinion to act on, just as I can think that yaoi tropes can have some troubling aspects that glorify abuse and harassment. I have still been affected by a time in the 5th grade when I innocently touched the chest of a female classmate in a tag game, and the female teacher really chewed me out like all "boys" are feral monsters. I think that the rights of people considered minority for one reason or another can be pushed without actually demonising the other group, and supporting problems they might face without minimising the plight of the other oppressed group.

Laws for stopping hate speech are a movement to allow us to have those discussions without words like b***h, N word and fa***t colouring the conversation first.

Ding ding...ah ding.

Well I'm not American but I think people should be allowed to say anything they want to each other, even if it's insulting. I feel that it would be unconstitutional not to. I feel that when it comes to speech, the law should be, don't be a wussy and cry, whenever someone says what they want to you. Everyone is so concerned about not offending people, when perhaps the main concern is don't be offended and don't be a wussy.

Unless I am wrong?

The problem is that some people become so invested in their opinions\side that they see any critism of this as a personal attack, and so need to be "protected", at the same time feeling free to lob the appropriate "ism" at the person who was seeking an intelectual discussion on a topic.

Sadly, education has failed to teach children that "It's OK to think differently" (the only difference between individuals that they don't teach children to defend, seemingly), leading to the misguided belief that their opinion is the only thing that matters and is "right". Where once schools taught people "how" to think, they now teach "what" to think.

This is directed at both of you.
Have either of you been bullied? I mean really bullied to the point that you hate your life and may seriously be convinced to end your life, because you feel that alone.

People who say "stick and stones may break your bones, but words can never hurt you", have no idea of the power that words can have over another person. The gall for either of you to say that people are just being wussy, and complaining that school are not teaching children they can think differently, which I can only assume is that you are saying schools should allow children to call people names.

This infuriates me to my core, that I don't hate much, but what I hate above all else is a bully and people who say that bullying is fine, the victim should just stop being a wuss and just accept what their bully calls them. I can't believe that people in the autism community could believe this.

Please tell me that neither of you think that bullying is fine.

Oh yes I am totally against bullying. And yes I was bullied a lot growning up in school, especially as the autistic kid was different. But I think there is a huge difference between bullying someone, compared to calling someone an insult on social media for example. I think there is a huge distinction, unless I am wrong?

But I feel that some people actually deserve to called bad names. If someone is being a @#43hole to people and is being rude and bullying to people, I am going to call them #$hole, or call them harsh hateful words. One time I told off a bully, but I had to yell a bunch of obscenities to him and threaten him to get him to back off. I got a bully to back off. But should I be charged with hate speech because I used obscenities to put a bully in his place? I don't think so. Unless I am wrong?

How is just calling someone an insult on social media exactly relevant to this discussion of hate speech? None of these hate speech laws that I have seen proposed say that you can't just call someone an insult on social media. They are about systematic hate, and especially into regards to targeted hate, not a one off cases to someone they have no idea who it is, but harassment. The sort of thing that can greatly impact someone's mental health.

One person calling another a fa***t might seem like small potatoes and funny that someone to react so strongly, but you might have no idea what sort of system of harassment you are a part of where they can receive 50 messages of people saying the same thing to them, threatening to beat them up and possibly doing it in person. One statistic used against trans people is an extreme rate of attempted suicides, like more than one in four, like that means they are mentally ill. But truth is that those numbers are reduced dramatically when they are accepted for who they are and are not harassed by the sort of things that anti-hate speech laws would aim to stop.

Hate speech is bullying, it is harassment, and has a measurable impact on people's health. If you are championing for it to be allowed, then you are pro bullying.

As regards the "sticks and stones" bit...This comes down to whether you want to feel sorry for yourself, or whether you make an effort to buld up your coping mechanisms (which is something that SHOULD be taught in schools).

As to the rest, let's see:
Asperger's wasn't recognised in Australia as a condition until after I had finished school, and "Autism" then was only used to "explain"\"diagnose" what is now considered "level 3", so anyone who did not reach this level was considered "different", sometimes "gifted" (based on ability in a given area), and often suffered at school, being secribed as "needing to apply themselves", with no support provided, but a lot of negative attention from the teachers.

Then we reach the playground, where anyone different is fair-game, and scholarly ability causes resentment, whereas at the same time, lack of ability causes ridicule and then top that off with a preference for being alone (so no-one to defend you, nor see what happens or hear what is said), followed by an enjoyable 30+ minute trip home on the school bus with these same students)...And of course letting a teacher know doesn't mean things will change for the better. Add to that being choked by a fellow student until nearly passing out, and life at school was "fun".

So, no, I guess I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to bullying.

If you know how bad bullying can be for those likely to be its victims, then why are you so against steps that can go to stopping its systematic effects that can last into adulthood? Do you only consider it a thing that dumb children do to other children when they have no idea what impact that have? Do you think it builds character where they just need to build a tougher skin to harassment about their race, gender or sexuality? Or do you just not care because it is not the type of people like yourself who are victims of hate speech?

If you already know how bad it can be for those who can find themselves the targets of harassment that can come in the form of verbal and not being heard, then it is actually the more despicable that nothing can or should be done. You will be complicit in the harassment of others, you own some responsibility that the transgender lesbian black girl would try to kill herself from the hate speech that is thrown at her every day.

The framing of the question reminds me of a question a now long banned Islamist member once asked; If you don't like adultery, why shouldn't it carry the death penalty? (paraphrased).

Strangely, the most frequent bullying I see online is people being called "racist", "sexist", having "gender bias", etc. with no supporting evidence supplied, which is designed to force people to follow a given set of beliefs that the "bully" feels to be the "ultimate word", with it not being possible to believe otherwise, or to have an opinon which may differ in any way.

Unfortunately, bigots like that have none of my respect, and can sometimes cause me to adjust my beliefs against what they wish were I to be undecided on a topic - You don't get rid of bullying by bulling others, you do it by providing a coherent set of reasoning, and allowing the person you want to have agree wth you make their own decision through comparing their ideas with your own, and in their own time.

Trying to force\intimidate\bully someone into agreeing with a set of beliefs just looks (to me) as though that person doesn't truly hold the beliefs and need to have someone else agree in order to validate their choice, rather than being confident with their choice and knowing others will come to agree with them in their own time.