Freedom of speech and hate speech, especially in common law

[Sirona]

The UK situation:

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both."

Thank you for the info.

What I am mostly interested in learning about is the good old "Homosexuals should burn in hell because God tells me so" constellation. Would this constitute hate speech in your country? Question to everyone.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thank you for the info.

What I am mostly interested in learning about is the good old "Homosexuals should burn in hell because God tells me so" constellation. Would this constitute hate speech in your country?

Based just on my quote my expert legal opinion is that yes it contravenes the law. I suppose there's a judgment call on whether there is a risk of harm or not, as to whether the police would be involved. But that's just me speculating.

 

[Revoltingest]

Based just on my quote my expert legal opinion is that yes it contravenes the law. I suppose there's a judgment call on whether there is a risk of harm or not, as to whether the police would be involved. But that's just me speculating.

How does the law treat violent
works like the Bible & Koran?

 

[Estro Felino]

Thank you for the info.

What I am mostly interested in learning about is the good old "Homosexuals should burn in hell because God tells me so" constellation. Would this constitute hate speech in your country? Question to everyone.

That's a very good question. And that perfectly determines the limit of freedom of speech.
Let's say a priest says that sentence during a sermon or a lesson.
I need a premise. The law is materialistic here so all that is indemonstrable (God's existence, afterlife, Heaven, Hell) does not exist. So since Hell does not exist in the eyes of the Law, that does not constitute a factual threat.
Factual threat : actual and concrete danger.
It is like I told a person that Extra-terrestrials will abduct them tomorrow. Since ETs do not exist in the eyes of the law, that is not a threat.
So a priest can say that phrase, it is allowed here.

On the contrary, if the priest says: homosexuals are bad people and need to be ghettoized, emarginated and discriminated against. That is a incitement to hatred, because it deals with actual and concrete danger. So the priest will be held accountable.

 

[Secret Chief]

How does the law treat violent
works like the Bible & Koran?

I'm guessing they're still available from selected outlets.

I can see where this is going...

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm guessing they're still available from selected outlets.

I can see where this is going...

No, I've no new direction or hidden agenda.
I just wondered how religious texts that seem
to enshrine violence would be treated.
Obviously, they'd be accommodated, but
I wonder about the reasoning. That's it.

 

[Heyo]

I've heard of German law regarding people insulting
each other, ie, being able to sue & win for it. It sounds
so bad that they buy lawsuit insurance. Ugh.
A country of snowflakes?

You'll be fine. I survived out of prison and un-fined so far. Not even a warning. RF is more of a snowflake than Germany is.
And if you really need to insult somebody, don't do it, just state your opinion. That's perfectly legal. E.g. "In my opinion you're an idiot."

 

[icehorse]

The UK situation:

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both."

- Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Helps to keep the racists and fascists using dog whistle tactics.

This list - or some variation - is common. What bugs me about this list is that most of the things on the list are NOT something a person chooses, it's something they're born with. BUT, religion is not like that. So, for example, I find Wahabi Muslims believe some very intolerant things. And according to this law, I'm legally bound to tolerate their intolerance. I'm not allowed to criticize intolerant beliefs.

 

[Stevicus]

I confess, I have a dirty secret. Sometimes I watch Catholic TV. At the moment there seems to be some kind of "world family meeting" in Catholistan. I zapped into an interview program with an English-speaking guest who claimed that the law of free speech was so fuzzy that it was impossible to tell where the line was between what was "allowed" and what was not.

Well, at least for German law, that's not true. German law is haunted by the ghosts of Nazism, and so, simply put, anything that resembles or could resemble Nazi methods is impermissible. There is also a quote from Immanuel Kant that says that man exists for his own sake and must not be a means to an end. In fact, German law is under the supreme commandment of protecting human dignity, and so it is actually obvious, at least to me, that statements that deny dignity to others are inadmissible.

I have attended an introductory course in common law, and so it is clear to me that the principle of human dignity is not as explicitly enshrined in all legal systems as it is in the German one. In my subjective view, common law places more emphasis on the egoistic "freedom" of the individual (to express themselves) than on a supreme common value. But frankly, I don't remember much about it except that you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

I might have argued that conscience or "Christianity" might give one a sense of compassion, but from what I've overheard in the media and (especially) from Christian denominations brought in from overseas, the "definitions" of "what is Christian" in Europe and the U.S. don't seem to be exactly congruent either.

So enlighten me, where exactly is the line between "allowed" and "forbidden" in free speech especially in common law systems?

I can see where they would want to ban Nazism in Germany, considering how badly it went the last time. But as far as the law is concerned, if they've spelled it specifically what is allowed and what is not allowed, then I guess that would be clear enough. Of course, that may not prevent organizations operating in secret.

But I wonder: What if they did allow Nazi imagery or the Nazi Party again in Germany? Would it influence the German masses into turning Nazi again?

American law grudgingly allows Nazi imagery and even allows Nazis to hold public demonstrations - even if it means calling out hundreds of law enforcement to prevent riots. At the very least, it's an enormous expense just to prove a point about free speech. As long as it remains peaceful and no one is directly calling for violence, then it would seem to fall within the guidelines of free speech.

It crosses the line into "forbidden" speech when it creates a clear and present danger, like inciting a riot or something that could lead to immediate violence or loss of life (such as in a panic from someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire). But then, if someone is speaking more in abstract or theoretical terms, then that doesn't seem it would cross the line.

 

[Secret Chief]

As long as ... no one is directly calling for violence

So what do the Nazis call for? A wider choice of ice cream flavours?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Insult is a misdemeanor. Provided someone can come up with enough evidence/witnesses, you can be fined or imprisoned for up to one year for calling someone an idiot.

That's pretty sad when it gets taken that far.

 

[Estro Felino]

The German Law is based upon a very ancient tradition called Pandectistics (Pandectae were present in the Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis - and that is why Greece law is based on German tradition too). It deals with very detailed anthologies of juridical matters, explained and solved by the greatest jurists of the Medieval Age.
It deals with a tradition which intensively developed during the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation.

The Napoleonic law is more based upon the Institutiones of the Corpus Iuris Civilis.
And it is greatly influenced by French Enlightenment.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, I've new direction or hidden agenda.
I just wondered how religious texts that seem
to enshrine violence would be treated.
Obviously, they'd be accommodated, but
I wonder about the reasoning. That's it.

I think you make a good point.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's pretty sad when it gets taken that far.

I think that insult is a pretty subjective notion.
The word lesbian is not an insult, for example, if one is actually a lesbian.
Our legal system is based upon truth and evidence, and above all on objective truths.

So if person A calls a person B "lesbian" and B goes wild saying "I am heterosexual, I am not a lesbian", A can sue B of course for defamation.
But if A brings evidence that B is actually a lesbian (for example a female witness that says "I have slept with B"), then A is considered not accountable by the judge, who will rule that it was not defamation, it is the truth.

And that is why if one can harshly criticize any politician in my country, if the object of criticism is something true.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If I am not wrong, the mayor of London said that Britain would have not allowed such a thing.

Whether it would be wise to allow them to be published is rather different from them being illegal to publish though, given that few things here in the UK are beyond ridicule. I believe they were shown to a school class and although there was a great fuss - from a parent, and not a parent of any child to whom they were shown - I don't think what the teacher did was deemed illegal but rather badly judged.

 

[Estro Felino]

Whether it would be wise to allow them to be published is rather different from them being illegal to publish though, given that few things here in the UK are beyond ridicule. I believe they were shown to a school class and although there was a great fuss - from a parent, and not a parent of any child to whom they were shown - I don't think what the teacher did was deemed illegal but rather badly judged.

That is a very smart observation.
In fact as I said in post #10, the judges in the Common Law systems, are endowed with big discretional power (that they lack in RL systems).

So the judge can use that power to prevent a citizen from keeping doing something that he / she considers unwise or not conductive of the public good.
Such power is not held by our judges.

 

[Heyo]

That's pretty sad when it gets taken that far.

It's a living fossil from a time when honour meant something to people and they'd duel over it. When duels became illegal, people were given the possibility to get at least judicial satisfaction and monetary compensation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you make a good point.

It would've been better if I hadn't left
out the word "no" in my 1st sentence.
It's fixed now.

Dang incompetent brain!

 

[Secret Chief]

It would've been better if I hadn't left
out the word "no" in my 1st sentence.
It's fixed now.

Dang incompetent brain!

Where would we be without the edit function?

One piece of advice on the German trip - stick to coffee. The Germans can't make tea. Not sure if that's racist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where would we be without the edit function?

One piece of advice on the German trip - stick to coffee. The Germans can't make tea. Not sure if that's racist.

I drink neither...except at Chinese restaurants.
Water is me beverage of choice.
Available in Krautland?