CDZ Hate speech leads to hate killings

[MaryL]

Begs the question: What IS hate speech? Anything you don't like? I HATE hate speech. Kill me.

 

[Coyote]

Begs the question: What IS hate speech? Anything you don't like? I HATE hate speech. Kill me.

Exactly - how do you define it! He called me fat - HATE SPEECH!

 

[saveliberty]

Begs the question: What IS hate speech? Anything you don't like? I HATE hate speech. Kill me.

Exactly - how do you define it! He called me fat - HATE SPEECH!

Yes, but we all hate that.

 

[MaryL]

I hate people that hate that hate that hate that hate things, it's so hateful. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[saveliberty]

Begs the question: What IS hate speech? Anything you don't like? I HATE hate speech. Kill me.

Maybe this helps?

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.


Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition

So basically the targeted group gets to decide, cool huh? Bold emphasis mine.

 

[Elvis Obama]

To address the topic: Hate speech leads to hate killings.

Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech.

In an open society, where the right of free speech has a very high value....how can you define, curb and criminalize hate speech?

I'm saying you can't. And I'm saying hate speech does not necessarily lead to killings any more than guns or religion do. Hate speech might provide the excuse, but that person was likely going to do something anyway where millions of other people didn't.

Free speech has limits and those limits are usually associated with public safety or slander/libel. If hate speech is fomenting a riot or calling for public violence, then that would be reason to curb it.

But beyond that - who determines what hate speech is? When it should be curbed? When it should be criminalized?

What's more - criminalizing it forces it underground where it can flourish unrefuted, in it's own vacuum chambers. Hate speech needs to be out in the open so it can be combated out in the open. Criminalizing it leads it's advocates to claim persecution and it gives their hate a certain "legitimacy" (see - they're trying to shut us down).

"Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech."

No, I could not disagree more. Hate speech does not need to be managed by law. It merely needs to be recognized and challenged. Hate speech does lead to the empowerment of extremists. Yes, you are correct that as society recognizes and marginalizes hatred, it is driven underground, not eliminated. So what? That robs the extremists of their support. It reduces them to rats scurrying inside the baseboards of society. It makes them harder to fight, but it also means there are a lot fewer of them to fight.

Do you really find hate speech difficult to recognize? Why? When someone conflates the actions of a tiny minority of a population with the actions of a BILLION people, that's difficult to recognize? When Donald Trump employs disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric, and as a result his rallies take on the appearance of a Nuremberg get-together from the good old days, with ever increasing violence, it's difficult to see the connection? Why?

Laws are what cowards produce after the public makes their opinions clear. No one can predict when a tipping point will be reached in public opinion, but when it does, the laws follow, they do not lead. When you express a hateful opinion the people around you will let you know how acceptable that speech is. When your hateful statements are met with disgust, you learn to keep your mouth shut. When your children see you shamed to silence about your hateful opinions they will be less inclined to adopt them. That's how you kill hate.

 

[Coyote]

To address the topic: Hate speech leads to hate killings.

Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech.

In an open society, where the right of free speech has a very high value....how can you define, curb and criminalize hate speech?

I'm saying you can't. And I'm saying hate speech does not necessarily lead to killings any more than guns or religion do. Hate speech might provide the excuse, but that person was likely going to do something anyway where millions of other people didn't.

Free speech has limits and those limits are usually associated with public safety or slander/libel. If hate speech is fomenting a riot or calling for public violence, then that would be reason to curb it.

But beyond that - who determines what hate speech is? When it should be curbed? When it should be criminalized?

What's more - criminalizing it forces it underground where it can flourish unrefuted, in it's own vacuum chambers. Hate speech needs to be out in the open so it can be combated out in the open. Criminalizing it leads it's advocates to claim persecution and it gives their hate a certain "legitimacy" (see - they're trying to shut us down).

"Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech."

No, I could not disagree more. Hate speech does not need to be managed by law. It merely needs to be recognized and challenged. Hate speech does lead to the empowerment of extremists. Yes, you are correct that as society recognizes and marginalizes hatred, it is driven underground, not eliminated. So what? That robs the extremists of their support. It reduces them to rats scurrying inside the baseboards of society. It makes them harder to fight, but it also means there are a lot fewer of them to fight.

I'm not sure...but I think we actually agree. I do NOT think it should be managed by law. I think it should be in the open where it can be challenged and refuted openly and publicly. If hate speech is illegal - then that will drive it underground, away from public eyes, and that will allow it to grow unchallenged and gain converts. So by all means, I support it being publicly refuted and marginalized.

Do you really find hate speech difficult to recognize? Why? When someone conflates the actions of a tiny minority of a population with the actions of a BILLION people, that's difficult to recognize? When Donald Trump employs disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric, and as a result his rallies take on the appearance of a Nuremberg get-together from the good old days, with ever increasing violence, it's difficult to see the connection? Why?

I know what hate speech is to *me* - but what does it mean to others? For example, can criticizing certain political views become labeled hate speech? If you are talking about legislation to ban hate speech - then where do you draw the line and who decides what it is?

Laws are what cowards produce after the public makes their opinions clear. No one can predict when a tipping point will be reached in public opinion, but when it does, the laws follow, they do not lead. When you express a hateful opinion the people around you will let you know how acceptable that speech is. When your hateful statements are met with disgust, you learn to keep your mouth shut. When your children see you shamed to silence about your hateful opinions they will be less inclined to adopt them. That's how you kill hate.

Agree, you don't need to legislate it, you just need to confront it.

 

[MaryL]

Hate speech is a artificial class that anyone can lump any group they disagree with under that category. Liberals are particularly keen to jump on that bandwagon. Back in the day, it was communist, now, its racist. Murrow must be turning over in his grave.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I dont think it is difficult to recognise hate speech.

This is a good example of what I would call hate speech.

Theodore Shoebat Supports Violent Vigilante Attacks Against Gay Rights Activists
Last month, we posted a video in which militant anti-gay activist Theodore Shoebat declared that Jesus would have personally beaten gay people to death, which prompted anti-gay activist Michael Brown to fire off a column denouncing Shoebat and calling his views "utter rubbish."

That, in turn, set off a battle pitting Theodore and his father Walid against Brown and other anti-gay activists who have denounced the Shoebat family's extremist views.

Yesterday, Theodore and Brown finally faced-off in a debate on Brown's "Life of Fire" radio program and Shoebat posted video of his side of the conversation in which he made clear his support for violent vigilantism against gay activists.

When Brown asked him point blank if he thinks it is a good thing when militant Christian activists go out and physically attack activists marching in gay pride parades in other countries and whether he'd like to see the same thing happen here, Shoebat was unequivocal.

"I'll give you a short answer," he said. "To the first question: yes; to the second question: yes, absolutely."

Shoebat said that physically assaulting gay activists was theologically justified and praised the nations where it takes place, saying that "I wish America had this stuff."

When Brown asked Shoebat his thoughts on an incident in Israel last year in which six people were stabbed by an anti-gay militant during a gay pride parade and one young woman died, Shoebat said that "it really doesn't bother me, to be honest with you."

"They see it as protecting their society from this invasion," he said, "and it is an invasion."

Shoebat then proceeded to again praise authorities in Peru for having turned fire hoses on gay rights activists because "you have to have a society that has a cultural hatred for homosexuality, they despise it so much they don't want to tolerate it."

This character is clearly inciting hatred against Gay people. It is irresponsible and moronic and leads to murdered ice cream sellers in New York.
What you then do about it is a tricky question and more likely to be settled on a local basis.

For example in Germany and Austria they have laws about holocaust denial. Because of their recent history they recognise the dangers of going down that path. There are no such laws in the UK and being honest I dont think we need them.

If I was a Gay man living in America I would probably feel threatened by Mr Shoebats actions.

 

[Coyote]

I agree with what you consider hate speech BUT - what one person considers hate speech is another person's free speech and once you start trying to limit it by labeling it as "hate speech" you open it up to abuse. I feel the same way about legislating against Holocaust denial. You drive it underground where it can thrive out of sight, and unconfronted. In this day and age it's easy to gather large followings in those dark internet places. What's more - illegalizing it gives them a certain legitimization - they can claim persecution and victimization for trying to "expose the truth" - and it's never confronted.

I think it's better to have hate speech out in the open.

Inciting hatred - such as mob violence, is against the law.

 

[defcon4]

Inciting hatred - such as mob violence, is against the law.

Yes, he's got arrested for this:

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Inciting hatred - such as mob violence, is against the law.

Yes, he's got arrested for this:

Has Mr Shoebat been arrested ?

 

[Coyote]

Has he incited a mob that has committed any violence?

Michael Brown's Father Urges Calm, Calls for 'Positive Change' - NBC News

 

[defcon4]

There is Brown's father and there is step father
"Where Brown’s father had called for peaceful protest in the days leading up to the decision, his stepfather, the man in green and white who eventually steps into the frame, clearly does not."
Michael Brown’s Stepfather Tells Crowd, ‘Burn This Bitch Down’

 

[saveliberty]

You end up creating special classes of people under the law. A news reporter on camera becomes responsible for content in a piece that later results in violence? This is usually where the Constitution says no.

 

[320 Years of History]

You end up creating special classes of people under the law. A news reporter on camera becomes responsible for content in a piece that later results in violence? This is usually where the Constitution says no.

Well, assuming one values egalitarianism and expects society to adhere to those principles, what do you propose be the effective alternative to doing that when, absent such laws, there occur numerous instances wherein one or several so-called special classes of people's rights under those principles are impugned, ignored, and/or denied?

 

[Elvis Obama]

To address the topic: Hate speech leads to hate killings.

Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech.

In an open society, where the right of free speech has a very high value....how can you define, curb and criminalize hate speech?

I'm saying you can't. And I'm saying hate speech does not necessarily lead to killings any more than guns or religion do. Hate speech might provide the excuse, but that person was likely going to do something anyway where millions of other people didn't.

Free speech has limits and those limits are usually associated with public safety or slander/libel. If hate speech is fomenting a riot or calling for public violence, then that would be reason to curb it.

But beyond that - who determines what hate speech is? When it should be curbed? When it should be criminalized?

What's more - criminalizing it forces it underground where it can flourish unrefuted, in it's own vacuum chambers. Hate speech needs to be out in the open so it can be combated out in the open. Criminalizing it leads it's advocates to claim persecution and it gives their hate a certain "legitimacy" (see - they're trying to shut us down).

"Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech."

No, I could not disagree more. Hate speech does not need to be managed by law. It merely needs to be recognized and challenged. Hate speech does lead to the empowerment of extremists. Yes, you are correct that as society recognizes and marginalizes hatred, it is driven underground, not eliminated. So what? That robs the extremists of their support. It reduces them to rats scurrying inside the baseboards of society. It makes them harder to fight, but it also means there are a lot fewer of them to fight.

I'm not sure...but I think we actually agree. I do NOT think it should be managed by law. I think it should be in the open where it can be challenged and refuted openly and publicly. If hate speech is illegal - then that will drive it underground, away from public eyes, and that will allow it to grow unchallenged and gain converts. So by all means, I support it being publicly refuted and marginalized.

Do you really find hate speech difficult to recognize? Why? When someone conflates the actions of a tiny minority of a population with the actions of a BILLION people, that's difficult to recognize? When Donald Trump employs disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric, and as a result his rallies take on the appearance of a Nuremberg get-together from the good old days, with ever increasing violence, it's difficult to see the connection? Why?

I know what hate speech is to *me* - but what does it mean to others? For example, can criticizing certain political views become labeled hate speech? If you are talking about legislation to ban hate speech - then where do you draw the line and who decides what it is?

Laws are what cowards produce after the public makes their opinions clear. No one can predict when a tipping point will be reached in public opinion, but when it does, the laws follow, they do not lead. When you express a hateful opinion the people around you will let you know how acceptable that speech is. When your hateful statements are met with disgust, you learn to keep your mouth shut. When your children see you shamed to silence about your hateful opinions they will be less inclined to adopt them. That's how you kill hate.

Agree, you don't need to legislate it, you just need to confront it.

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

To address the topic: Hate speech leads to hate killings.

Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech.

In an open society, where the right of free speech has a very high value....how can you define, curb and criminalize hate speech?

I'm saying you can't. And I'm saying hate speech does not necessarily lead to killings any more than guns or religion do. Hate speech might provide the excuse, but that person was likely going to do something anyway where millions of other people didn't.

Free speech has limits and those limits are usually associated with public safety or slander/libel. If hate speech is fomenting a riot or calling for public violence, then that would be reason to curb it.

But beyond that - who determines what hate speech is? When it should be curbed? When it should be criminalized?

What's more - criminalizing it forces it underground where it can flourish unrefuted, in it's own vacuum chambers. Hate speech needs to be out in the open so it can be combated out in the open. Criminalizing it leads it's advocates to claim persecution and it gives their hate a certain "legitimacy" (see - they're trying to shut us down).

"Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech."

No, I could not disagree more. Hate speech does not need to be managed by law. It merely needs to be recognized and challenged. Hate speech does lead to the empowerment of extremists. Yes, you are correct that as society recognizes and marginalizes hatred, it is driven underground, not eliminated. So what? That robs the extremists of their support. It reduces them to rats scurrying inside the baseboards of society. It makes them harder to fight, but it also means there are a lot fewer of them to fight.

I'm not sure...but I think we actually agree. I do NOT think it should be managed by law. I think it should be in the open where it can be challenged and refuted openly and publicly. If hate speech is illegal - then that will drive it underground, away from public eyes, and that will allow it to grow unchallenged and gain converts. So by all means, I support it being publicly refuted and marginalized.

Do you really find hate speech difficult to recognize? Why? When someone conflates the actions of a tiny minority of a population with the actions of a BILLION people, that's difficult to recognize? When Donald Trump employs disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric, and as a result his rallies take on the appearance of a Nuremberg get-together from the good old days, with ever increasing violence, it's difficult to see the connection? Why?

I know what hate speech is to *me* - but what does it mean to others? For example, can criticizing certain political views become labeled hate speech? If you are talking about legislation to ban hate speech - then where do you draw the line and who decides what it is?

Laws are what cowards produce after the public makes their opinions clear. No one can predict when a tipping point will be reached in public opinion, but when it does, the laws follow, they do not lead. When you express a hateful opinion the people around you will let you know how acceptable that speech is. When your hateful statements are met with disgust, you learn to keep your mouth shut. When your children see you shamed to silence about your hateful opinions they will be less inclined to adopt them. That's how you kill hate.

Agree, you don't need to legislate it, you just need to confront it.

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

If you are pushing a divisive agenda then you will provoke a reaction.Most responsible politicians recognise that they have a responsibility to moderate their speech in order to not incite the mob.

Some go beyond that because they either do not know or they do not care.

In Trumps case I believe that he noticed that the more outrageous he was the more support he got. And that support became more extreme and fanatical.
He is holding a tiger by its tail at the moment. He needs to calm down or people will get hurt.

 

[Coyote]

To address the topic: Hate speech leads to hate killings.

Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech.

In an open society, where the right of free speech has a very high value....how can you define, curb and criminalize hate speech?

I'm saying you can't. And I'm saying hate speech does not necessarily lead to killings any more than guns or religion do. Hate speech might provide the excuse, but that person was likely going to do something anyway where millions of other people didn't.

Free speech has limits and those limits are usually associated with public safety or slander/libel. If hate speech is fomenting a riot or calling for public violence, then that would be reason to curb it.

But beyond that - who determines what hate speech is? When it should be curbed? When it should be criminalized?

What's more - criminalizing it forces it underground where it can flourish unrefuted, in it's own vacuum chambers. Hate speech needs to be out in the open so it can be combated out in the open. Criminalizing it leads it's advocates to claim persecution and it gives their hate a certain "legitimacy" (see - they're trying to shut us down).

"Tough tough subject because it implies that something should therefore be done to "manage" hate speech."

No, I could not disagree more. Hate speech does not need to be managed by law. It merely needs to be recognized and challenged. Hate speech does lead to the empowerment of extremists. Yes, you are correct that as society recognizes and marginalizes hatred, it is driven underground, not eliminated. So what? That robs the extremists of their support. It reduces them to rats scurrying inside the baseboards of society. It makes them harder to fight, but it also means there are a lot fewer of them to fight.

I'm not sure...but I think we actually agree. I do NOT think it should be managed by law. I think it should be in the open where it can be challenged and refuted openly and publicly. If hate speech is illegal - then that will drive it underground, away from public eyes, and that will allow it to grow unchallenged and gain converts. So by all means, I support it being publicly refuted and marginalized.

Do you really find hate speech difficult to recognize? Why? When someone conflates the actions of a tiny minority of a population with the actions of a BILLION people, that's difficult to recognize? When Donald Trump employs disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric, and as a result his rallies take on the appearance of a Nuremberg get-together from the good old days, with ever increasing violence, it's difficult to see the connection? Why?

I know what hate speech is to *me* - but what does it mean to others? For example, can criticizing certain political views become labeled hate speech? If you are talking about legislation to ban hate speech - then where do you draw the line and who decides what it is?

Laws are what cowards produce after the public makes their opinions clear. No one can predict when a tipping point will be reached in public opinion, but when it does, the laws follow, they do not lead. When you express a hateful opinion the people around you will let you know how acceptable that speech is. When your hateful statements are met with disgust, you learn to keep your mouth shut. When your children see you shamed to silence about your hateful opinions they will be less inclined to adopt them. That's how you kill hate.

Agree, you don't need to legislate it, you just need to confront it.

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

I agree - but, like I said - it should not be legislated against or legally repressed, that is a dangerous road to go down.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

And Trump is skilled at inflaming that anger but not channeling it into any sort of constructive message.

 

[OldLady]

Where has Trump's comments resulted in violence against Mr. Trump?

OMG, looking back on this. Was this famous last words or what?