How would the First Amendment even BEGIN to be interpreted as allowing hate speech laws?

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by chris155au, Jul 16, 2020.

  1. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Explosive" has a precise definition in the context of the law but that doesn't mean you need a demolitions licence to have "explosive diarrhoea". :cool: "Incitement" and "Incitement to hatred" remain two distinct concepts.

    No, you were certainly wrong because you initially assumed the article supported your point based on the headline alone. Even if the body of the article did support you, the best you could claim would be "lucky".
     
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Explosive" in law is a noun. Explosive in "explosive diarrhea" is an adjective. Come on Joe.

    Well you DID at least admit that I am "potentially" correct in this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ate-speech-laws.575487/page-5#post-1071903022
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
  3. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which only goes to prove how much difference there can be between the meaning of a word alone and the meaning of the same word as part of a short phrase. "Incitement" and "Incitement to hatred" are still two distinct concepts.

    I didn't say you are potentially correct, I said "speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation" is potentially (i.e. could sometimes be) "speech that incites hate". The key point being that isn't always the case, which means a law prohibiting the latter wouldn't automatically be a prohibition on the former.

    Assuming an article supported your point on the basis of the headline alone remains wrong regardless. :cool:
     
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was NO mistake. I would have had EVEN MORE reason to cite the article if I had read the article in full. This guy clearly wants to ban "speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation". That's what literally EVERYONE considers "hate speech" to be.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you didn't know that. It'd be like shooting a random guy dead in the street because you thought he looked suspicious but then finding out he was a terrorists about the set of a huge bomb. That wouldn't magically make shooting him i the first place right.

    It isn't how you defined it when you said;
    . If everyone had the same definition of the term "hate speech", this wouldn't be anything like as difficult or controversial a topic.

    But that never uses the word "Incitement" on it's own. It's variously "Incitement to hatred", "Incitement to violence" or "Incitement to discrimination" because they all mean different things.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does that mean the shooting wasn't justified?

    "Saying hateful things" as in, speech which insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. I consider that to be what most people think of hate speech as. Do you include other things? I assume that you at least include speech that insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.

    Do you distinguish 'hate speech' from 'incitement to hatred?

    Sure they do, but don't they all involve someone encouraging - as in encouraging hatred, violence and discrimination? If not, then how the hell are you defining incitement in the context of "Incitement to hatred", Incitement to violence or Incitement to discrimination?"
     
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, shooting random people dead in the street because you think they look suspicious is never justified. If I really needed to explain that to you, I'm not sure there is any hope for you. It was meant to be a clear-cut metaphor, not a new topic of debate.

    "Hate speech" means different things to different people and in different contexts. That's why legislation never says anything as simple as "Hate speech is illegal!" but explains in great details exactly what it is seeking to address. That is also why, when we're discussing what we believe should or should not be made illegal, we also need to explain in some detail, not relying on casual phrases or individual interpretation (or just article headlines).

    Yes, that why we have two terms. Each term doesn't even always mean exactly the same thing depending on context.

    Stop right there. I said they mean different things. You said "The UN disagrees with you" and gave a link. I pointed out that link doesn't disagree with me and that the terms still mean different things and suddenly you respond "Sure they do"! You've complete reversed your position in the space of a couple of posts but are acting as it you're making a continuous point.

    This is why it is so difficult and frustrating to discuss anything with you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just doing it intentionally to troll or just arguing for the sake of argument (for now) so you really need to put n some effort to be clear in your own head what you're actually saying and stick to the point. Do you even remember what you said in your OP?
     
    chris155au likes this.
  9. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe after that we could burn all dangerous knowledge in big piles.
     
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was trying to find out if your point was that it isn't justified, although, I was the one who brought "justified" into it. You said that it wouldn't make shooting him in the first place "RIGHT", but perhaps by that you meant "justified." If we somehow knew that the terrorist would have gone on to kill hundreds of little children by blowing up a school, wouldn't you consider killing the terrorist RIGHT even if not legally justified? Anyway, I couldn't understand what point you were trying to make with this analogy. I'm not sure it's a fair one, because you're talking about a crime! All I did was read the headline of an article and make an assumption about the article based on it, and the assumption turned out to be correct. So I don't know what you think I did which - like the shooter in your analogy - wasn't "RIGHT."

    Correct, and I would imagine that any hate speech law would at least include speech which insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. I imagine that the hate speech law in the UK is at least this. Think about it - how often have you heard "hate speech" refer to ANYTHING outside of speech which insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation?

    Well you didn't specify detail when you said, "you've not established anyone has even casually proposed such laws." So I replied with someone who advocates for such laws in this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ate-speech-laws.575487/page-4#post-1071891584

    I thought that the UN article was saying something which it didn't.

    Don't they all involve someone encouraging - as in encouraging hatred, violence and discrimination? If not, then how the hell are you defining incitement in the context of "Incitement to hatred", Incitement to violence or Incitement to discrimination?"
     
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seriously! Making the assumption was the wrong thing to do. It makes absolutely zero difference whether the assumption pays out or not. The act of assuming is simply wrong in general. I'm not explaining any further.

    Not all speech that insults people on those grounds is illegal in the UK. There are all sorts of conditions, circumstances and defences. Some of them are specifically there to balance the protection of the law with the right to free speech. No such laws are so generic and all-encompassing to justify rhetoric like you raised in the OP. That is my sole point.

    You specified when you said what you were talking about was "just saying hateful things about people, whatever "hateful" could be defined as.". Nobody has proposed a law criminalising that.

    People have proposed criminalising says some specific hateful things in some specific contexts. There are already laws within that scope, including the US, apparently within the current legal interpretation of the First Amendment.

    Did you assume based on the headline?

    I'm not here to teach you how language works.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've actually discovered that I didn't even assume anything, given this conversation thread:
    If the headline was, Why American needs some restrictions on speech then I would have been making an assumption that the author is proposing a hate speech law, but the headline is, "Why American needs a hate speech law." So it's all in the headline!

    Are you sure that you don't mean, not all speech that insults people on those grounds ends in a criminal conviction
    in the UK?
    I'll be STUNNED if you tell me that someone cannot even be CHARGED on those grounds.

    Well there is no "right to free speech" in your country, or mine. Both of our countries have laws against offensive speech. Thankfully ours is applied very rarely, but yours is applied every day! Lots of your police departments boast about their super important work of keeping an eye on Twitter! They also arrest KIDS for saying the wrong thing online! :roflol:

    I've already explained what I meant by that - speech which insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. I should have been more specific at first.

    Well earlier you denied that "anyone has even casually proposed such laws."

    Nope. There are no laws in the US within the scope of criminalising "some specific hateful things in some specific contexts." What are you thinking of?

    The headline was simply, "Incitement to hatred", so no.

    What the hell are you talking about? I'm asking for YOUR definition of incitement! Mine is "the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully" which there are already laws against in the US. Again, the author concludes with, "I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate." He clearly thinks that "speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation" IS "speech that incites hate." He is making a CRYSTAL CLEAR connection. It's odd that you find this so difficult to understand. Anyway, I don't even know why you're trying to prove me wrong, because you clearly know that there are MULTIPLE people in the US who would like hate speech laws. I could probably cite a thousand others, but so could you!
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020 at 5:09 AM
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Under UK law, there has to be either intent to stir up hatred or be deemed likely to do so and there are exceptions such as within a private dwelling (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III).

    Just because it isn't codified in law doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We are signatories to the UN Convention of Human Rights, which includes it, and it is generally considered implied by our unwritten constitution, one of the basic moral principles under which the law is written and operates. It's also worth noting (again!) that just because there is a right to free speech doesn't mean it has to be unconditional. No rights ever are.

    Do you have the statistics to support that accusation or are you just assuming?

    Things like where they're considered threatening, in the context of an employer or educator, on broadcast television etc. Again, it isn't just about "saying hateful things" but also about the when, where and whys.
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well I didn't mean literally every day, but wouldn't it be safe to say even once a week? What about the kid that was arrested? Okay with you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2020 at 8:03 AM
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it wouldn't be safe to say because you have literally no idea. That's why I asked if you had anything to back it up. I mean, I could simple declare that speech laws are applied just as often where you live and you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise (and I don't even remember where you live :cool:).

    I don't know what you're referring to there so you'd have to clarify.

    Then you'd need to look back at what I've written and work out whether that one example actually contradicts anything I'm saying.
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. I DO "literally no idea!" Can't you see that's why I'm asking you? I'm betting that you hear of speech laws being enforced QUITE regularly. Tell me I'm wrong.

    https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ter-racist-messages-are-sent-to-wilfried-zaha
     
  17. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're wrong. I don't even remember the last time I did. You're the one stating that they are enforced regularly, it's for you to back that up.

    That involved a targeted threat of violence. There is also a reason that arrest was (briefly) such high profile news - it doesn't happen very often.
     
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Violence from a KID?
     
  19. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, an anonymous threat of violence. When it was received, there was no way of knowing who it came from of whether it could actually be followed through (which is the whole point of such a threaten message). Regardless, that will be why he was arrested, not just for "saying something offensive".
     
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What I mean is, that I would imagine that these categories would be listed in the legislation and that speech which insults people on the basis of these categories CAN be illegal.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020 at 9:40 AM
  21. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't need to imagine, the relevant legislation is on line. I even provided a link back in post #138 (there are other related acts but a lot of them use very similar wording).
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,650
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So this is only for 'Racial hatred.' Are there other ones for religious hatred and sexual orientation hatred?
     
  23. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and if you want to make statements about how they're written you'll need to find and actually read them first.
     

Share This Page