Thought Crimes

Post Reply New Topic

People say that illegalizing certain speeches (ie. hate speech) equals to making certain thoughts a crime.

I disagree because whatever thoughts you may have, the government can never have control of. As long as you keep them as thoughts. But the moment where your thoughts become actions, ie. public speeches, it is no longer thoughts but actions, and then they can become illegal.

We need laws on speech, because hate speech can incite public unrest. In almost all countries, including UK and US, pro-terrorist sympathies are illegal. That's because otherwise you would encourage terrorism.

Hate speeches was common in the 1920's and this was THE cause of the nazi regime and WW2 a decade later.

So why should certain speeches not be illegal?

And how can this be "fascist" to have anti-hate speech laws or press censorship?

Let me remind you that both the US and UK had press censorship during both world wars. And many countries, like Denmark, Poland, Germany, France, Italy, UK etc. all of which we would regard as non-fascist countries, all have laws on speech.

Would you consider these countries fascist anyway?

Hate speech is a grey area. I think speech where you're trying to incite criminal action should be illegal and the same for deliberate lies about someone, which comes under slander. But suppressing speech can indeed be the same as suppressing thought because for many things your own brain and perspective isn't enough to form your thoughts on something. Imagine if teaching was forbidden, and everyone had to figure everything out for themselves.

The problem is that hate speech can be very broadly defined.

One person might say that it has to explicitly be incitement to violence. Another person may consider mere criticism of certain groups or individuals to be hate speech.


Things like Holocaust denial are definitely hate speech, as are direct calls for violence against certain groups. But beyond that, I don't know. For example, would Biblical/Quranic verses that criticize homosexuality fall under that category? Would saying "stewardess" instead of "flight attendant" fall under the category?

You know there were hate speech laws against the Nazis? It just made them look like victims.

Hate is a legitimate human emotion laws against it are obscene. If someone believes you deserve to go to hell for all eternity why is it wrong for you to hate them? If someone believes that a paedophile, serial rapist, slave owning, mass murdering warlord is morally perfect why is it wrong to hate them?

You cannot ban speech and have a democracy let alone a free society.

At first glance, speech crime laws are something autistic people should favor with all the offensive and triggering ableism around. But speech crime laws are the last thing autistic people should want.

Speech crime laws are generally enacted against ideas that most people think are dangerous. We think differently than most, we act differently than most. People naturally fear the different. An epidemic of speech crime laws would likely put Autistics in danger of legal trouble. Let's say you are opposed to neurodiversity but it becomes accepted and saying there should be research into a cure becomes punishable hate speech, would you like that? Let's say you are pro neurodiversity. Plenty of people think the movement is dangerous, putting lives in danger and relegating "people with autism" and their families to a life of misery and bankruptcy. In a lets ban "hate speech" frenzy advocating for accepting autistics as they are could become punishable hate speech.

Going beyond autism most ideas accepted today were considered dangerous at first. Popular acceptance and enactment of speech laws will stifle or delay progress. Ideas that are criminalized can fail to become thought a lot of people do not have because they did not hear about it.

Yes, America has made a certain speech crimes during times of stress. That is history to be ashamed of not history we should want to repeat.

Hate speech was not THE cause of the rise of the Third Riech. If it was everybody would be living under some sort of Nazi-like regime. The causes of the rise of Nazism are the factors that made people susceptible to their hate.

I can only go off my perception since I'm in the U.S. and my perception may be off, but it seems to me that "thought crime" is becoming more of a reality in some western European countries including the UK. If that's the case, and if there is a progressive slide down that slippery slope and IF I lived in one of the countries who would be deciding what kind of "thought" is legal or illegal, I would start a movement as follows:

I would create some sort of symbol to wear on a T-shirt, etc that would be prominently displayed in public. Perhaps instead of the well known "smiley face" it would be a version of that but instead of a smile, perhaps it would be toothy grin from ear to ear. What would that symbol represent?

It would represent me thinking some thoughts about something, someone, a group, it could be any number of things, the number being such that no one would have any idea of what those thoughts were specifically pertaining to. The key aspect though, would be if the thoughts were verbalized, I could perhaps be found to be committing a "thought crime". It would be my way of extending a HUGE middle finger to authority or any other group that would try to oppress me for what I might or might not think. Oh, gosh, I would love it. Basically, professing:

"I think or believe something or some things that you vehemently oppose and consider to be criminal. I'm reveling in those thoughts right now and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Have a WONDERFUL day!"

Kind of like the Guy Fawkes mask/image. Thousands of people sporting that symbol. A "screw you" to the "thought police". Gorgeousness and Gorgeousity. No one will tell me what or what not to think.