The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I hate overcooked liver! Is that "hate speech?" I want to kill women who overcook liver (the way everybody did 60 years ago when I was young)/ Is that hate speech? I urge you all to join me in my crusade against rural mothers who don't know how to choose a nice, young calf liver and quickly saute it so that it is a beautiful thing, and run them out of town! Is that hate speech?

Each of those does something a little different: the first expresses my own, personal feeling about something, but really not much more than that. Everybody seems free to agree with me or not, without consequence. The second ("I want to kill") seems to do something the same, but it does have a fairly negative and violent tone to it. But it still expresses only my own inclination, for which it might be right to censure me. It might even be right to have the local authorities "keep an eye on me," just in case I show any likelihood of acting on my desire.

The third seem different, though. It seems, rather than just talking about what I think, want, feel, am inclined toward, rather to urge others to take some action. This might come under another heading, actually -- not so much "hate speech" as "incitement."

It has often seemed to be the case, in human history, that persuasive individuals have some ability to "rouse the rabble," so to speak, to stoke up local public opinion in such a was as to incite otherwise reasonable people to commit unreasonable acts -- like lynching and so forth.

I don't wish to stifle people's ability to opine on the fact that I'm gay -- even to say (as they have all my life) that I'm "evil" or "sick" or "hated by God." That's their opinion -- mine is that they're particularly stupid and obtuse to have it, but what're you gonna do? But I do want to stifle the speech in the market square that says, "there's one now -- let's grab him and hang him." Don't think it happens? Think again?

 

[columbus]

ne and that is your opinion, but BLM and Stormfront are not on the same plane.

Ok, so. Our opinions about Stormfront are similar, our opinions about BLM rather different.
However, this thread is about freedom of speech. Regardless of the fact that I have a low opinion of BLM I don't want to see them shut up, any more than I do Stormfront.
That is my point.
Tom

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Ok, so. Our opinions about Stormfront are similar, our opinions about BLM rather different.
However, this thread is about freedom of speech. Regardless of the fact that I have a low opinion of BLM I don't want to see them shut up, any more than I do Stormfront.
That is my point.
Tom

And I am of the view that hate speech is incendiary and should not be in the realm of dialogue. Hate speech only represses the other views on the opposite end.

 

[icehorse]

But I do want to stifle the speech in the market square that says, "there's one now -- let's grab him and hang him." Don't think it happens? Think again?

And as I understand the limits of free speech in the U.S. the last example would NOT be protected. So it seems we're in agreement.

 

[Nous]

The SPLC, CAIR, Canadian Muslim groups, students who stifle speech by drowning out speakers, groups who dis-invite speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Majid Nawaz, the arrest of Kevin Johnston, the introduction of laws with the explicit intent to combat the made-up crime of "Islamophobia", and so on.

Just cite your sources. I'll read the reported facts there. This is your claim that you are trying to substantiate: "What I'm seeing these days is lots of people who don't like category 1 speech, mislabel it as "hate speech" and attempt to stifle it."

 

[Nous]

Much as I hate anti-semitic speech, in the commons it's probably protected, which is distinct from what a teacher can say in class.

Actually a public school teacher in the US who was "teaching" anti-Semitic things in the classroom would undoubtedly have been dealt with somehow. It isn't uncommon for university professors to be fired for many offensive comments both in the classroom and outside of it. Given that the outcome is presumably hardly different, one cannot claim that Canada's hate propaganda laws stifle freedom of speech in some unique way.

 

[Nous]

O M G - who will be the arbiter of "value" ??????

If you know of any value of hate speech, please tell us. I know of none.

 

[Nous]

Is Kevin Johnston's public concern over turning public schools into mosques considered by you to be hate speech?

I don't have a clue what is "Kevin Johnston's public concern over turning public schools into mosques." Never heard of Kevin Johnston.

 

[icehorse]

Just cite your sources. I'll read the reported facts there. This is your claim that you are trying to substantiate: "What I'm seeing these days is lots of people who don't like category 1 speech, mislabel it as "hate speech" and attempt to stifle it."

A few minutes of googling gave me these results. They are the tip of the iceberg. The bottom line is that most people think that hate speech is not protected speech and they are wrong. And their are many groups advocating that "hate speech" should not be protected, i.e. that we should increase censorship:

(Note: I'm struck by the irony of the Johnston case because the government - seemingly - IS protecting the imam's right to read from the hate-speech-filled Quran.)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: freedom fighter or just a help for Hanson? | Gay Alcorn

Man tied to $1K reward for videos of Muslim students praying charged with hate crime

Violent Charlottesville Protester Claims 'Free Speech Does Not Protect Hate Speech'

Black Lives Matter Founder Claims Hate Speech Isn't Protected By First Amendment

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

'Anti-Semitic' imam wanted in Canada

Greater enforcement of hate speech laws needed in Canada | Toronto Star

How to report hate speech in Canada – Speech & Privacy – Medium

 

[columbus]

And I am of the view that hate speech is incendiary and should not be in the realm of dialogue. Hate speech only represses the other views on the opposite end.

Maybe it's because I grew up as a target of hate speech, being a gay atheist. My standards are pretty high.

You have to be competently plotting something violent to rise to the level of "forbidden" speech. Had the people running this country in the 70's been able, I am sure that they would have squelched all that "gay rights" anti-God and country stuff.
I just can't get behind limiting speech except under far more dire circumstances than ignorant ideologues usually manage to create. That includes BLM, the Catholic church, and Stormfront, as well as almost everyone else.
Tom

 

[Nous]

A few minutes of googling gave me these results. They are the tip of the iceberg. The bottom line is that most people think that hate speech is not protected speech and they are wrong. And their are many groups advocating that "hate speech" should not be protected, i.e. that we should increase censorship:

(Note: I'm struck by the irony of the Johnston case because the government - seemingly - IS protecting the imam's right to read from the hate-speech-filled Quran.)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: freedom fighter or just a help for Hanson? | Gay Alcorn

Man tied to $1K reward for videos of Muslim students praying charged with hate crime

Violent Charlottesville Protester Claims 'Free Speech Does Not Protect Hate Speech'

Black Lives Matter Founder Claims Hate Speech Isn't Protected By First Amendment

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

'Anti-Semitic' imam wanted in Canada

Greater enforcement of hate speech laws needed in Canada | Toronto Star

How to report hate speech in Canada – Speech & Privacy – Medium

Cite the sources where you see lots of people "mislabel" speech as "hate speech". Remember, that's your claim that you're trying to substantiate. "What I'm seeing these days is lots of people who don't like category 1 speech, mislabel it as 'hate speech' and attempt to stifle it."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Maybe it's because I grew up as a target of hate speech, being a gay atheist. My standards are pretty high.

You have to be competently plotting something violent to rise to the level of "forbidden" speech. Had the people running this country in the 70's been able, I am sure that they would have squelched all that "gay rights" anti-God and country stuff.
I just can't get behind limiting speech except under far more dire circumstances than ignorant ideologues usually manage to create. That includes BLM, the Catholic church, and Stormfront, as well as almost everyone else.
Tom

Well your view makes sense. Unforunately, you are of the minority group, just like me, just like the man over there (not literally over there) in the wheelchair, just like the old man we all belong to a small group which unfortunately gets the brunt of the societal rage called discrimination. Ironic how you're against BLM when BLM is in support of the LGBTQ community. BLM is composed of various individuals of different ethnic backgrounds that don't seek to repress people but to make the authorities that be that call them selves police, accountable. The Dallas shooter who shot and killed several cops even said he was not BLM but his speech and his hatred for cops turned into action. He himself said he was not a part of BLM and even criticized them but he decided to take his speech of hatred to another level. Dylan Roof, the same thing decided to kill 9 people in a church out of his hatred for black people, he commented heavily on his disdain and look what happened? Hate speech has no place ad I cannot condone it.

 

[icehorse]

Cite the sources where you see lots of people "mislabel" speech as "hate speech". Remember, that's your claim that you're trying to substantiate. "What I'm seeing these days is lots of people who don't like category 1 speech, mislabel it as 'hate speech' and attempt to stifle it."

As this discussion has gone on, it's given me the opportunity to dig a little deeper into the issues. First off, I've looked more closely at the definition you provided earlier in the thread:

Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group.

So first, I want to push back a bit on this definition. If this is the commonly held definition of hate speech by those who use the term to accuse, then the definition itself IS a problem! First off, we should not put a person's gender or ethnic origin in the same category as a person's religion. A religion is an idea and a person can change their mind on religion. I fail to see how attacking religious ideas should ever be categorized as hate speech. That seems like a call to make blasphemy a real thing, which I'd hope we could agree is a dangerous and laughable goal.

Next, what is meant by protected group? Since this is your claim, I think it's fair for me to ask you what is meant by "protected group".

==

Based on the above, I'd say that your definition of "hate speech", while probably accurate, stretches credulity, so maybe one of my concerns is simply that an ill-defined term has been foisted on society, and the term itself ought to be jettisoned (like the term "Islamophobia" ought to be jettisoned ).

Next, in the links I provided you can see many people using the phrase "hate speech" as a way to stifle legitimate criticism. In this way, those people really ARE attempting to create thought crimes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe it's because I grew up as a target of hate speech, being a gay atheist. My standards are pretty high.

You have to be competently plotting something violent to rise to the level of "forbidden" speech. Had the people running this country in the 70's been able, I am sure that they would have squelched all that "gay rights" anti-God and country stuff.
I just can't get behind limiting speech except under far more dire circumstances than ignorant ideologues usually manage to create. That includes BLM, the Catholic church, and Stormfront, as well as almost everyone else.
Tom

As did I, earlier than you. But you know, it really wasn't all that long ago (even into the 1990s) that it was perfectly acceptable to label gays as "perverts" and "abomination," even in the daily papers. I still have copies of articles to prove it.

Frankly, I was appalled last year in Toronto when BLM basically shut down the third largest Pride Parade in North America, until their list of demands was signed. And this year, police (including gay ones, and we have them, and have them openly) were "disinvited" as a consequence. I believe that there's a time and place for everything. I would not permit my personal grievances to allow me to spoil somebody else's celebration -- I think I'm better than that and make every attempt to respect others. Yet that's exactly what BLM did.

And still, I would not try to forcefully shut them down. I wish that they, and many other, similar groups, could learn to behave in a civil manner, but frankly, that's were my standards and expectations are probably too high. They won't, and I would not resort to force or law to compel them.

 

[idav]

A few minutes of googling gave me these results. They are the tip of the iceberg. The bottom line is that most people think that hate speech is not protected speech and they are wrong. And their are many groups advocating that "hate speech" should not be protected, i.e. that we should increase censorship:

(Note: I'm struck by the irony of the Johnston case because the government - seemingly - IS protecting the imam's right to read from the hate-speech-filled Quran.)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: freedom fighter or just a help for Hanson? | Gay Alcorn

Man tied to $1K reward for videos of Muslim students praying charged with hate crime

Violent Charlottesville Protester Claims 'Free Speech Does Not Protect Hate Speech'

Black Lives Matter Founder Claims Hate Speech Isn't Protected By First Amendment

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

'Anti-Semitic' imam wanted in Canada

Greater enforcement of hate speech laws needed in Canada | Toronto Star

How to report hate speech in Canada – Speech & Privacy – Medium

The first amendment protects speech and religion so reading from religious texts gets double protections.

 

[icehorse]

The first amendment protects speech and religion so reading from religious texts gets double protections.

It's a point well taken. That said, I'm not the only person that thinks the Quran is primarily a book on a political ideology with a bit of religion thrown in to provide cover.

 

[Nous]

As this discussion has gone on, it's given me the opportunity to dig a little deeper into the issues. First off, I've looked more closely at the definition you provided earlier in the thread:

Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group.

So first, I want to push back a bit on this definition. If this is the commonly held definition of hate speech by those who use the term to accuse, then the definition itself IS a problem! First off, we should not put a person's gender or ethnic origin in the same category as a person's religion. A religion is an idea and a person can change their mind on religion. I fail to see how attacking religious ideas should ever be categorized as hate speech. That seems like a call to make blasphemy a real thing, which I'd hope we could agree is a dangerous and laughable goa

You're quite confused. You really should have learned more about the topic before posting. Hate speech laws do not "make blasphemy a real thing."

Regardless of whatever problem you have with including religion as a prohibited basis in hate speech and anti-discrimination laws, the fact is that people often use religious-based hate speech and discriminate on the basis of religion, and religion is included as a prohibited basis in all hate speech and public accommodations laws, just as it is similarly included in hate crime laws and employment discrimination laws. Hate crimes committed on the basis of religion are among the most common type of reported hate crime (along with race and sexual orientation).

Next, what is meant by protected group? Since this is your claim, I think it's fair for me to ask you what is meant by "protected group".

A quick search shows that I haven't used the term “protected group” on this thread. But such language is commonly used to refer to those bases that an anti-discrimination statute specifies. Even the Supreme Court shortens “suspect classifications” to “suspect class”. One can read the term “protected group” in the Wikipedia article as referring to those groups who are most often the victims of hate speech. However, no hate speech, public accommodations, or employment discrimination law (in the US, at least) singles out particular groups for special protection. Rather, these statutes prohibit hate speech or discrimination on the basis of characteristics such as religion, race, age, sexual orientation, etc. (Indeed, in one of the earliest cases in Texas of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it was a gay bar that was held liable for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.)

A quick search shows that I haven't used the term “protected group” on this thread. But such language is commonly used to refer to those bases that an anti-discrimination statute specifies. Even the Supreme Court shortens “suspect classifications” to “suspect class”. One can read the term “protected group” in the Wikipedia article as referring to those groups who are most often the victims of hate speech. However, no hate speech, public accommodations, or employment discrimination law (in the US, at least) singles out group for special protection. Rather, these statutes prohibit hate speech or discrimination on the basis of characteristics such as religion, race, age, sexual orientation, etc. (Indeed, in one of the earliest cases in Texas of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it was a gay bar that was held liable for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.)

Next, in the links I provided you can see many people using the phrase "hate speech" as a way to stifle legitimate criticism. In this way, those people really ARE attempting to create thought crimes.

So you cannot cite any examples where "lots of people" have "mislabeled" speech as "hate speech"?

BTW: Should I abandon hope that you are ever going to tell us what value hate speech has?

 

[Nous]

But you know, it really wasn't all that long ago (even into the 1990s) that it was perfectly acceptable to label gays as "perverts" and "abomination," even in the daily papers. I still have copies of articles to prove it.

You have regular newspapers from the 90s that referred to gay people as "perverts" and "abominations"? Cite them.

I haven't read a newspaper since probably 1980, but I don't ever recall such language used in one even then (unless perhaps they were quoting Anita Bryant or Jerry Falwell).

 

[icehorse]

You're quite confused. You really should have learned more about the topic before posting. Hate speech laws do not "make blasphemy a real thing."

Please lay off of this kind of nonsense, we're having an interesting debate and from my perspective it's appropriate that both of us might need to refine our arguments a bit. That said...

If a country were to implement a law against hate speech that used the definition of hate speech that YOU provided, then that law would - among other things - be a blasphemy law. Because your definition includes the idea of "attacking a religion". That's what blasphemy is.

Hate crimes committed on the basis of religion are among the most common type of reported hate crime (along with race and sexual orientation).

Let's not conflate criticizing a religion with committing a hate crime.

A quick search shows that I haven't used the term “protected group” on this thread.

YOU provided the definition of hate speech that we've been using, and the definition YOU provided uses the phrase "protected group". I didn't pull this out of thin air.

Rather, these statutes prohibit hate speech or discrimination on the basis of characteristics such as religion, race, age, sexual orientation, etc. (Indeed, in one of the earliest cases in Texas of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it was a gay bar that was held liable for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.)

In several of the articles I linked to one point that was made clear several times is that hate speech is protected.

And once again, it is a category mistake to lump religion in with classifications such as disability or ethnicity. One can change the former, one cannot change the latter.

Let me ask you point blank, since you've brought this up several times - are you of the opinion that criticizing a religion is hate speech?

So you cannot cite any examples where "lots of people" have "mislabeled" speech as "hate speech"?

Let me amend and make more precise my concern. The behavior I'm seeing is that many people think that "hate speech" (whatever THAT is), either IS illegal or should be illegal. These people use the phrase as a means to attempt to stifle speech they don't like. So the common pattern is:

1 - I don't like what that dude is saying!
2 - I'll label his speech "hate speech" as a way to keep him quiet or get him de-platformed.

So when someone makes a legitimate criticism of Islam or BLM or the BSD movement or Palestinians, or 3rd wave feminism, the apologist often cries "hate speech". Those apologists have in mind some form of censorship, as many of the links I provided will attest.

BTW: Should I abandon hope that you are ever going to tell us what value hate speech has?

First, it doesn't need any. Second, one value would be to make sure that as a society we still have the backbone to defend our most important liberty.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have regular newspapers from the 90s that referred to gay people as "perverts" and "abominations"? Cite them.

I haven't read a newspaper since probably 1980, but I don't ever recall such language used in one even then (unless perhaps they were quoting Anita Bryant or Jerry Falwell).

Then you have all you need. Bryant and Falwell were certainly quoted into the nineties. And there's one newspaper I refer to in particular -- The Toronto Sun -- that I have been corresponding with for over 30 years. They've published dozens of my letters, and also a column on the Op Ed page. You can investigate if you'd like. My name is Allen Earle.