Talk:Hate speech

Topic

I think this could be expanded somewhat. The general Conservative line is that hate speech is equivalent to "mean speech", which is far from the truth. It could be a good refutation at some point, I think. --Kels 14:54, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Just sent this to Ed Poor, fyi for everyone about hate speech

Ed, I've been following your, err, discussion on the hate crimes bill. Several comments.

1. No liberal would ever suggest that the law should criminalize "God prohibits homosexual behavior." Indeed, a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment would let you go much farther than that. It might be a silly interpretation of the Bible, and a ridiculous viewpoint, but quite so, all liberals would defend to the death your right to say that. Any prohibition on such a speech act would surely run afoul of the Constitution. I do not believe a mainstream liberal would disagree with this statement. You know how very pro-gay rights I am, and therefore my assurance should count for something.
2. I do not believe that the current hate crime bill, as proposed, would criminalize this activity either. The act cited here criminalizes only violence motivated by bigotry; as a proto-lawyer, I recognize that this law will be well-nigh impossible to enforce, and somewhat silly at that. I think the purpose is more of a deterrent than an actual bona-fide attempt to prosecute. Regardless, though, it would not infringe speech rights, unless the speech were coupled with violent action.
3. The idea that the "Gospel will be outlawed" by hate crime laws is empirically disproven. England, while I was working in Parliament, passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. The Act goes much farther than any United States measures have, criminalizing speech designed to incite the violent acts. However, no such chilling effect or stifling effect on British religiosity has occurred. Thus, even the radical British measure would not cause the feared harms.
4. Further, a law passed in the vein of the British Act would be unconstitutional, as any liberal would tell you. Seditious libel and seditious incitement are issues at the frontier of First Amendment law, and the well-settled United States interpretation (however, as my professor notes, this interpretation has yet to be tested with a "hard case" like this would present) would in fact permit incitement to racial or religious intolerance, so long as it did not provoke immediate violent activity. Even standing in a town square yelling, "all those gays ought to die; the Bible says so," like Fred Phelps, is protected speech. Thus, the Constitution would immediately strike down the American analogue to the British law, even though it has had a null effect. And what's more, I expect the ACLU would take that case, for your side. They have a well-documented history of defending unpopular First Amendment issues.

Just a few thoughts. You should probably include this in the article; it is intellectually dishonest to set up a straw man as you appear to have done.-αmεσ (blackguard) 14:50, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

It's just my opinion, but it's pretty wierd that "Hate Crime" ends up linking to "hate speech." Linking the two is a pretty common right-wing practice when opposing hate crimes legislation, but I'm not quite sure what it's doing here. ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.106.85.43 / talk / contribs}

The two usually get mixed up probably because they both contain the word "hate". I have no problem with hate crime laws as they are only really invoked when actual violence is perpetrated against a protected group and only then would your hate speech be used against you in a court of law. That's reasonable, especially in the Anglo world until relatively recently which is a shameful development. It should also be noted that the UN has been behind hate speech laws in a lot of (but not all) countries and I think that should be mentioned in the article somewhere, regarding our non-US readers. There really needs to be more civil liberties organizations in more countries dedicated to free speech activism and being against the implementation of laws against hate speech. 68.46.9.6 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Skin color?

By "skin color", you mean "race", right? Types of humans can be distinguishible by more than just skin color. Hair textures and facial features come to mind. Some black people can have the same skin tone as some Indians, but the two races are still easily distinguishible from one another (blacks have thicker skin, and Indians caucasoid bone structure and hair texture). Ghandi infamously made that clear.

Likewise, some Northeast Asians can have the same skin color as some white people, but they're still not white. They can even be lighter-skinned, if you compare some Japanese from some Portuguese for instance.

So I think "race" would be a more accurate term here.

PS: I mean "race" here the way most people use it: in the physical anthropological sense, the phenotype, i.e. a bunch of people that remained isolated for some time and developed distinguishible physical features from other bunches of people, not biological. Whether it has a basis in biology or not is another issue.

105.101.118.97 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure: whites and Arabs are technically the same race (both being caucasian), but that doesn't stop darker-toned Arabs being subject to hate speech. Maybe listing skin colour and race would be the best idea? King Skeleton (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as race and there is no such thing as white people. Arabs are not Caucasian. People from the Caucus Region are Caucasian.^{— Unsigned, by: 98.22.213.92 / talk / contribs}

---

Yes, and a more specific term for that is "colorism" -- discrimination based on skin color even within individuals who identify as the same race. I read that it happens in the black community for example. It's generally lumped with racism.

And for that reason I think it's best to put both of them. Most laws that prohibit discimination in most countries put both "race" and "color".

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/html/USCODE-2008-title42-chap7-subchapV-sec708.htm

Race is a nested concept meaning shared ancestry. You can share race at one level and not at another. A child could understand this. Emotional Child (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous

How can any wiki calling itself rational condone hate speech?^{— Unsigned, by: bonbon / talk / contribs} 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Methinks you are guilty of an overly simple reading. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with the second IP here: you definitely didn't catch the drift of this page's editorial perspective. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's called inverse stopped clock. Looks like RationalWiki should add itself to the list in that article. Redsjw (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So is being a strawman a day job for you?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 18:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the strawman? Redsjw (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I am basically calling you a troll.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 18:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll for criticizing the US mainstream belief that hate speech is free speech. Is this Reddit? Redsjw (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The strongest argument for hate speech laws

This article counters the claim that speech should be banned because it hurts people's feelings. It doesn't address the strongest argument for banning hate speech, because it literally kills people. Lies and hoaxes that result in people's deaths are not covered by free speech. Proponents of hate speech laws argue it is similarly not covered by free speech.

I've seen an estimate that gays are four times more likely to commit suicide than the average person in the USA. The extra gay suicides amount to about 4,500. That's one and a half 9/11s per year. Hate speech opponents argue those suicides are caused by homophobia - evidenced by the fact that the gay suicide rate has fallen as homophobia has declined. Here's a study that found suicide rates among immigrant groups were strongly correlated with hate speech. It is argued that any government policy that would reduce hate speech will save lives. The article must address this argument.--Speech (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course abuse and hatred ruins people's lives. That's not the issue here. The issue is if the way to deal with that is to unconstitutionally restrict speech, and further, if the restriction of said speech will actually make the hate speech stop. This factor is called "enforceability", and it is the single most important variable to any legislation. Laws infringing upon free speech are among the hardest laws to enforce imaginable, and so, nothing is performed by banning it. Just like hate. If you ban hate, what's changed? Nothing, because the enforceability of anti-hate laws is 0, even with a cop in every house of the nation. It's very very important and true that gay youth suffer enormous unfair treatment at the hand of complete assholes, and that this has a cost in lives, but making the argument that the fact that free speech exists is the problem is like saying that the net neutrality should be revoked because some people on the net are commiting crimes on it, or that the roads should be closed because some people drive drunk (and kill people). Obviously, the flaw isn't the service being provided to everyone else. It's the minority of assholes, and the root of the problem there, in turn, lies inside their numb skulls and not in their right of free expression. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a new section regarding this to the article.--Speech (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Inflammatory

Your article defines "hate speech" as "inflammatory" language about groups. You define "inflammatory" as "intended to stir up emotions". This is absolutely not how this dishonest rhetorical garbage term is used. Any negative statement about groups (except white people of course who are to blame for all problems) is called "hate speech". As if simply describing groups must be motivated by hate. Pure Marxist psychobabble gibberish. See also political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Emotional Child (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Scope

this article is very limited by it focus on the us and the arguments suffer as a result. arguments in the us are dominated by the inflexible nature of the us constitution. it boils down 'the constitution says this...' followed by symantics of what is permitted, and examples tend to be hypotheticals about he said/she said on the internet. other countries are much more flexible here with actual laws in place with actual real world examples providing more insight into scope, application and effectiveness of the varying laws. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Include Censorship

I'm new here, I added some stuff to this page and it was completely changed, then I changed it back and got blocked. How does this work? Is there any chance I can actually make an edit? I added a section detailing how other countries have criminalized "hate speech" even if it doesn't include a call to violence, because I think most Americans don't know that there are countries where you can literally go to jail for mis-gendering someone and I think that's important to know, especially living in America where free speech is what sets us apart from other countries. I also included a bit about how Carlos Maza used hate speech to get Crowder demonitized as an example of how hate speech is used here in America. Not sure why either of these things would be deleted, I think it's important to know! thanks. --LogicalLiberal (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You removed three sources and altered the POV the article without discussion. You also appear to be this IP, and definitively have a conflict of interest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

removed reference

the reference cited a section of the criminal justice bill which does not deal with speech nor does it seem to relate or support the idea 'most hate speech laws to protect historically persecuted people from groups with power' where it was placed. the cited section deals with increased sentences for 'aggravation related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity' ie if a crime was motivated by hostility to these 3 groups. the criminal justice bill 2003 does not deal with hate speech. i have removed but not really sure what would make a suitable replacement. the wording of particular claim seems a little off to me. 'groups with power' seems a little redundant and not entirely accurate anyway. i also question 'historically persecuted people' - race and religion are probably the most common basis for persecution through the ages, but hate speech laws dont specify protection of one race or religion over another. the historically persecuted in europe, would be jewish, or black people for example. but hate speech laws are not limited to only the historically persecuted and protect those in groups not usually persecuted to any degree at all. hate speech is still hate speech even if directed to a more privileged group. racial abuse is still racial abuse if you are railing against white devils. all that may change is how common such abuses are toward a particular group and the relative potential for harm as a resultAMassiveGay (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)