Scotland’s hatespeech law proposal

[Tambourine]

No. But I wasn't making that comparison.



I am not assuming any of that.



That's a risk I am willing to take.



I think it is reasonable to draw the line in a manner that doesn't allow falsehoods to be intentfully spread.

How is that last statement consistent with your earlier statement that dehumanizing ideas spreading is "a risk [you] are willing to take"?

We would live pretending that people don't hate each other. We would live in a falsehood.

This is not just about people "hating" each other. This is about people denying other people's right to live.
That is not something I want to see in a free society.

 

[Tambourine]

They cannot stop us thinking but they can stop us sharing our thoughts.

Free speech is something to cherish.

Police Abuse Of Powers - Civil Liberties Eroding!

Paradoxically, while free speech is under threat we no longer have the right to remain silent in the UK.

Britain First leader Paul Golding guilty of terror offence after refusing to give cops his phone's PIN after Russia trip

Is there a particular reason why you haven't answered my questions about listening to other opinions?

Do you consider the idea of "white genocide" worth listening to? What about "ethnostates"? "Peaceful" genocide?
Do you extend the same charity to progressive, leftist or socialist ideas?

 

[Koldo]

How is that last statement consistent with your earlier statement that dehumanizing ideas spreading is "a risk [you] are willing to take"?

Falsehoods and despicable speechs are distinct beasts that may appear together but not necessarily so. One person may openly hate another without uttering a single lie.

This is not just about people "hating" each other. This is about people denying other people's right to live.
That is not something I want to see in a free society.

You are mixing things up. Denying other people's right to live? Why are you talking about homicide?

 

[Tambourine]

Falsehoods and despicable speechs are distinct beasts that may appear together but not necessarily so. One person may openly hate another without uttering a single lie.

Once again, "hate speech" is not someone saying "I hate you". It is a specific form of discourse that typically aims at dehumanizing specific groups of people. It is also very often tied to misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other forms of lies.

If you want hate speech to be part of your national discourse, you have to give way to misinformation, lies and propaganda to some extent.

You are mixing things up. Denying other people's right to live? Why are you talking about homicide?

I am talking about speech that denies that certain groups of people have a right to live, or live how they choose to live.

For example, homophobic hate speech denies that homosexual people have a right to express their sexuality and identity; people who advocate "ethnostates" advance the idea that only some groups of people have the right to live in a specific country, and so on.

It is an intrinsic part of hate speech that it denies that everyone has the same basic human rights.

 

[Koldo]

Once again, "hate speech" is not someone saying "I hate you". It is a specific form of discourse that typically aims at dehumanizing specific groups of people. It is also very often tied to misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other forms of lies.

If you want hate speech to be part of your national discourse, you have to give way to misinformation, lies and propaganda to some extent.

I wish it was just that, but it is not so simple. Saying 'I hate you for being part of some given race, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality' already counts as hate speech. No lie or misinformation is required.

Just to be clear: I don't hate anyone for any of those reasons. I just don't want the law, and more specifically the criminal law dealing with those people.

By the way, by 'law' I don't include the rules that private plataforms might have to create a friendly environment.

I am talking about speech that denies that certain groups of people have a right to live, or live how they choose to live.

For example, homophobic hate speech denies that homosexual people have a right to express their sexuality and identity; people who advocate "ethnostates" advance the idea that only some groups of people have the right to live in a specific country, and so on.

It is an intrinsic part of hate speech that it denies that everyone has the same basic human rights.

You are mixing up 'denying the right to live' and 'being openly opposed to a given way of living'.

 

[Tambourine]

I wish it was just that, but it is not so simple. Saying 'I hate you for being part of some given race, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality' already counts as hate speech. No lie or misinformation is required.

That's a very specifically Brazilian thing, then, and not consistent with how hate speech laws are formulated in other countries as far as I know.

Just to be clear: I don't hate anyone for any of those reasons. I just don't want the law, and more specifically the criminal law dealing with those people.

By the way, by 'law' I don't include the rules that private plataforms might have to create a friendly environment.

But you want the law to deal with lies and misinformation? Why the one and not the other?

You are mixing up 'denying the right to live' and 'being openly opposed to a given way of living'.

The oppression of a particular sexuality or ethnicity typically aims at both. The logical end point of dehumanization is the denial of the right to live.

And I am not talking in the abstract here. It is not coincidential that gay bashing (the literal thing, where people would round up gay people to beat them bloody) fell out of fashion when it became difficult or illegal to condone it publically. In Europe, we are seeing the reverse with the resurgence of neofascism, where dehumanizing rhetorics of racism feed into racist violence.

 

[Koldo]

That's a very specifically Brazilian thing, then, and not consistent with how hate speech laws are formulated in other countries as far as I know.

That's not the vibe I am getting from reading this:

Hate speech - Wikipedia

But you want the law to deal with lies and misinformation? Why the one and not the other?

Because I don't see the need to inhibit people from speaking out their minds about how they feel regarding something or how they see someone else. Intentfully spreading falsehoods though is an entirely different beast. It is character assassination.

If I am in favor of not having a ban to hate speech exactly to avoid living in a falsehood, why would I seek a right to utter falsehoods?

The oppression of a particular sexuality or ethnicity typically aims at both. The logical end point of dehumanization is the denial of the right to live.

And I am not talking in the abstract here. It is not coincidential that gay bashing (the literal thing, where people would round up gay people to beat them bloody) fell out of fashion when it became difficult or illegal to condone it publically. In Europe, we are seeing the reverse with the resurgence of neofascism, where dehumanizing rhetorics of racism feed into racist violence.

Condoning a crime is problematic, and I have qualms with prohibitions related to it.

 

[Notanumber]

I believe that gays should be able to condemn Islam for the way it treats them without being denounced as Islamophobes.

 

[Tambourine]

@Notanumber
You still haven't answered my questions:

Why should I listen to people who are calling for "peaceful genocide" to establish "white ethnostates", who are calling for the ethnic cleansing of immigrant communities or the death of homosexual people? Why do you believe I only find these opinions reprehensible because "the Left" finds them "disagreeable"?

Do you consider these opinions worth listening to?

Is there a particular reason why you are avoiding a response?

 

[Tambourine]

That's not the vibe I am getting from reading this:

Hate speech - Wikipedia

What does that mean? Can you elaborate on your argument a little?

Because I don't see the need to inhibit people from speaking out their minds about how they feel regarding something or how they see someone else. Intentfully spreading falsehoods though is an entirely different beast. It is character assassination.

Hate speech is never about honesty or truth, however. All hate speech is laced with lies and misinformation.


I note however that all your arguments center around the people who are prevented from spreading their dehumanizing propaganda, and never around the victims. Do you think the victims of racist hate propaganda are being too sensitive, and should toughen up a little? Do you think widespread racism in public discourse is more acceptable than laws against racist propaganda?

If I am in favor of not having a ban to hate speech exactly to avoid living in a falsehood, why would I seek a right to utter falsehoods?

Because hate speech is based on falsehood and misinformation, and you seemed invested in protecting hate speech. How would anybody be able to spread antisemitism without founding it on the lies that people have used throughout history to justify their antisemitism. They wouldn't.

Just like people are spreading lies and misinformation when they get bent out of shape over a "gay agenda" or "Islamization of society" or any such hateful claptrap.

Condoning a crime is problematic, and I have qualms with prohibitions related to it.

I have difficulty parsing that statement. Are you in favor or against the freedom to condone a crime if it's an honest opinion on how that person feels?

 

[Koldo]

What does that mean? Can you elaborate on your argument a little?

Hate speech is never about honesty or truth, however. All hate speech is laced with lies and misinformation.

I note however that all your arguments center around the people who are prevented from spreading their dehumanizing propaganda, and never around the victims. Do you think the victims of racist hate propaganda are being too sensitive, and should toughen up a little? Do you think widespread racism in public discourse is more acceptable than laws against racist propaganda?

Because hate speech is based on falsehood and misinformation, and you seemed invested in protecting hate speech. How would anybody be able to spread antisemitism without founding it on the lies that people have used throughout history to justify their antisemitism. They wouldn't.

Just like people are spreading lies and misinformation when they get bent out of shape over a "gay agenda" or "Islamization of society" or any such hateful claptrap.

When such speech involves a call to violence, or spreading falsehoods, it might as well be banned. We agree on that.

But do you think that saying hateful things towards any given group should be against the law per se?

People can hate each other for a lot of different reasons and it doesn't actually depend on any falsehood. Just to cite an example, if there is a major influx of immigrants this might result in more people competing for the same job, and hatred can easily emerge from the feeling of helplessness.

When you ask me whether the victims of racist hate propaganda should just toughen up a little, I don't know how to answer that because I don't know what you have in mind when you ask me that. Are you talking about people being threatened or about people hearing things they don't like that offends them?

I have difficulty that statement. Are you in favor or against the freedom to condone a crime if it's an honest opinion on how that person feels?

Of course you have difficulty parsing that. It is missing a word! My mistake. What I meant was: Condoning a crime is problematic, and I have NO qualms with prohibitions related to it.

 

[Notanumber]

At what point does free speech cross the line into hate speech?

Who makes that critical decision?

If it is the courts, will these be Sharia courts?

 

[Mike.Hester]

WATCH: UK Police warn, preaching the Bible is a criminal offence if someone deems it offensive · Caldron Pool
Police in the UK have warned a Christian street preacher that it’s now a criminal offence to preach the Bible in public if someone deems it offensive.
Free speech in the UK? It has disappeared!

 

[Tambourine]

At what point does free speech cross the line into hate speech?

Who makes that critical decision?

If it is the courts, will these be Sharia courts?

Were the British courts in Thatcher's time Sharia courts?

Also, you still haven't responded to my other questions, what's up with that?

 

[Mike.Hester]

question for me?

 

[Tambourine]

question for me?

Actually, I wanted to ask you if you knew that free speech has disappeared in the UK since 1986.

 

[Mike.Hester]

Actually, I wanted to ask you if you knew that free speech has disappeared in the UK since 1986.

I think freedom of expression started its decline in the 70`s.

 

[Tambourine]

I think freedom of expression started its decline in the 70`s.

Why?

 

[Mike.Hester]

I cannot remember the exact details but a very elderly man placed a sign on his front lawn. "House for sale to a white British couple". The local council sued him for common law nuisance because there where no laws concerning the regulation of speech. The courts ruled against the old man and he removed the sign. This opened the floodgates to control your speech.

 

[Altfish]

I cannot remember the exact details but a very elderly man placed a sign on his front lawn. "House for sale to a white British couple". The local council sued him for common law nuisance because there where no laws concerning the regulation of speech. The courts ruled against the old man and he removed the sign. This opened the floodgates to control your speech.

Do you think that the court was wrong? Should people be able to discriminate against what ever type of people they don't like?
I am happy with the courts decision.