This. A giant, insurmountable fortress of exactly this.
Hate speech laws exist, and need to exist, because the kinds of stuff we classify as hate speech is essentially a threat of and incitement to harm made against an entire population group, rather than an individual.
edited 16th Mar '18 8:56:36 PM by Robrecht
Angry gets shit done.And again, on the point of "well, why don't we just let everyone speak freely?"—if the society in which people are speaking is already largely biased against certain marginalized groups, as ours is, then allowing the oppressor class to "speak freely" often only serves to enforce the status quo, while simultaneously making it much harder for the marginalized groups to speak freely for fear of their own safety.
Also, the "but if you ban hate speech, the government will ban anyone from saying anything" thing—still a slippery slope fallacy. Again, if the government wants to do something, it will use any excuse it has, regardless of precedent.
they're gonna find intelligent life up there on the moon/and the canterbury tales will shoot up to the top of the best-seller listYou don't debate Nazis. Nazis already have no good faith in them to debate with, there's absolutely no point to it. You silence them. Once they talk about eliminating so called "undesirables", you throw them in the slammer. I would deny them any right to speak their mind if what's on their mind is "groups of people I deem inferior are to be exterminated". Letting them speak is the first step in them growing in power until they manage to actually kill. Or are we going to ignore the Goebbels quote that was posted a couple pages ago about such a thing?
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?A short report by NATO Stratcom on trolling by botnets
For me the alt right are this decade pseudo science or fundamentalist: bullshit seller who know they cant win so they cheat every damn time, I feel ofended by their stupidity as their racism, so is a plesure for me to smack their atempt of bullshittery everytime I can.
You can't argue with someone whose position is that everyone who doesn't look like them should be killed. Anyone who holds that position is already too far gone for you to fix via debate. They need Freud, not Socrates, and there's no way for you to win the argument anyway.
Nazism is already abhorred in our society. Which unfortunately means that, come time for debate, there's no way for the Nazi to no exceed expectation in an argument. Simply by not being a drooling fanatic, he'll convince someone that he won the debate, and get himself one more recruit. The opposite is not true; you will not deprogram his followers by defeating him because they will never acknowledge he has been defeated.
The same goes for rape advocates, pedophilia apologists, and genocide denialists of other stripes. You can't argue with someone who is that far removed from having a moral compass. You might as well debate an unmedicated schizophrenic; they have lucid moments, while these people do not.
Since Facebook just suspended
Cambridge Analytica, The Guardian has done a lot of great
reporting
on it.
edited 17th Mar '18 8:54:49 AM by megaeliz
I was thinking about this last night before I went to sleep, but I really like Germany's way of handling hate speech, specifically towards Nazis. Using any sort of Nazi imagery, symbolism, or gestures is illegal, and those who use it face criminal (I think it's criminal at least) punishment. Just expand that umbrella to including the KKK, and I think we'd be golden. It' broad enough that it shuts down a wide amount of bigoted meeting places online and such, yet specific enough that no one can really claim a slippery slope fallacy.
I agree. Don't be argumentative by focusing on a periphery part of my post please.
edited 17th Mar '18 9:18:40 AM by randomdude4
"Can't make an omelette without breaking some children." -BurIt’s like so:
If you like to shout that slur or libel targeting those you love to hate, you do it at your place of abode or that of your friends (assuming they allow you).
When it comes to the public spaces there are rules about that, and you don’t make those rules, we do.
And if we choose to make those rules that put protecting our right to exist above your right to undermine said existence, you’ll have to learn to live with it as oppressive to you as it may seem.
If then you walked the streets still shouting the above like any vulgar Backpfeifengesicht, that’d make you a danger seeker and then danger will find you.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Spain would like to have a word with you. The government is using hate speech laws to silence students and musicians. It's not a slippery slope argument, when governmental officials have been abusing their power.
edited 17th Mar '18 12:29:22 PM by firewriter
![]()
![]()
Oh damn, it means that we arent gonna tolerate Blacks Supremacists just like we dont should tolerate White supremacists!!
Well, we can always protestate against that.
You see, dont matter what you do, SOMEONE will abuse its power and will use everything to do it, be either outside the law or using it. And when someone do the latter, we can prostest and talk about the law and how severe it must be.
There nuances, this is not a absolute free speech vs no free speech line.
edited 17th Mar '18 12:31:04 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryhttps://cpj.org/blog/2018/02/changes-to-jordans-hate-speech-law-could-further-s.php
Another example of the majority using hate speech to protect their authority is Jordan.
That's the problem here is that people trust that the government won't abuse this type of authority, when we've seen time and again they tend to actually run wild with it.
It's why private organizations should be the only ones who can have the right to decide which people can spout stuff on their networks.
edited 17th Mar '18 12:34:31 PM by firewriter
As a firm believer in equality I assume individuals from any underprivileged group aren’t any better than those of any other group, that sometimes Humans Are Bastards, and for some of us bastardsmanship (not a word, but it should be) is a full-time job.
Many people currently enjoying any measure of privilege are afraid of a turnabout is fair play scenario, because deep down they don’t believe they’re superior or else they’d have no fear of the underlings.
And given half a chance, some of the underprivileged will have a go at their former lords because humans are like that, but won’t get far unless they acquire privilege, which isn’t all that likely.
Yet, although deep down, so many among us (more than we suspect) actually believe no group is superior to another, we often believe that there’ll always be those dishing out domination, oppression, persecution, and worse, and those at the receiving end of it; and so we’d damn well better be among the former than the latter.
edited 17th Mar '18 12:48:18 PM by AlityrosThePhilosopher
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend![]()
By that logic, Christianity should be banned, because it has, historically, been abused by governments to justify not just the silencing of dissenting voices, but also their actual murder a hell of a lot more often than hate speech laws.
edited 17th Mar '18 12:51:12 PM by Robrecht
Angry gets shit done.When it comes to abuse of power, it happens whether that power is political or economic.
Liberal democracy has come to dealing adequately with the issue, there’s much room for improvement though.
Though beware, dare to question abuse of political power and hear the good people decrying you in the name of Vox populi, dare to question abuse of economic power and you’ll be driven out of town (at best) to the screams of “muh propertee!”
edited 17th Mar '18 1:02:42 PM by AlityrosThePhilosopher
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friendAnybody here want to question the legitimacy of "cpj.org" as a source on anything?
Additionally Spain's only been a democracy since the 70s and Jordan's never been one at all. So to cite problems in those countries as evidence that hate speech laws "inevitably" result in abuses is facetious at best.
But hey, let's take that argument for what it's worth (nothing) and run with it. Prison systems are abused all around the world, in democracies and dictatorships alike. Guess we better get rid of jails and let all the criminals out. Won't the world be a better place?

Talking is an action. And not a free one. Threats are already illegal. So why are threats against an individual illegal, but threats against groups have to be tolerated?
edited 16th Mar '18 8:13:13 PM by Antiteilchen