General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould hate Speech be banned and criminalized?
Let us assume that there are some clearly defined parameters for identifying hate speech.
Even so, I have never been for such a draconian measure.. I've always hoped that loonies have been too few to be a problem.
But I think online forums that allow hate speech are the breeding grounds for dangerous individuals. Politicians are now routinely steering into previous NO GO zones.. And there is a multiplier effects of sorts taking place.
I am beginning to think that we need some strong measure to rein in these dark forces that are clearly on the rise.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
:large
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)I really worry that we will not survive the consequences of having turned a blind eye to it. These guys are everywhere, they all have semi automatic weapons, and they are planning on using them to sow chaos.
I live in red country. Sad to say, the whispers that I hear suggest this is just beginning.
Hoping that they chicken out. But they are so hate filled, unhinged and disconnected.
Hoping these magaterrorists are all hat and no cattle.
But it is the unrelenting hate speech that amplifies and glorifies their tendencies.
hack89
(39,181 posts)How do you keep them from influencing any proposed law?
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)Of the hate speech.
Yes Republicans hate us..but whom have we explicitly threatened... Ever?
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Ted Cruz, the White House, Pentagon (maybe?) received packages containing ricin within the last couple of weeks. Also, James Hodgkinson had made some incendiary anti-GOP Facebook posts.
The trouble is, there is a free speech issue. There needs to be a line, I just don't know where it is, or who (which party?) should define t.
Arger68
(732 posts)Amendment, but I think it's time. With the internet what used to be the insane fringes of society are becoming more mainstream.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)News outlets have to source what they say instead of being able to make crap up out of thin air.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)In the late 1500s or so, it was the scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.
In Germany in the 1920s to 46, it was scientific fact that Jewish people were rather stupid and inferior.
In the USA, same with blacks. Scientific American ran articles about how stupid they were, and it was settled science.
And, in each case, unpopular "incorrect" opinions spoke up. And won the day.
Censorship is just a bad idea.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)Newspapers typically require two sources to report. There is no perfect system but allowing Fox and others to spew unsubstantiated BS propaganda is brain washing a good percentage of Americans. The media outlet must have something to back up their reporting other than Kellyanne Conway saying it is so.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Criminalizing hate speech causes more problems than it solves. It only opens the door for silencing other forms of speech and could be applied arbitrarily and unfairly depending on who is in charge.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)For instance there must be past historical connections between the speech and incidents of intimidation .
Me saying I hate deplorables is very different from saying I hate gays or Jews.. Latter should get me in trouble.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And who would be enforcing it.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)He'll be gone by 2024 at the latest. Hopefully sooner.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)You are speaking of hating a specific group of people, therefore "hate speech."
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)Me hating someone is irrelevant so long as they can be identified and targeted for intimidation/violence.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)If you say you hate "deplorables," that seems to me that you are speaking about a specific, identifiable group of people--generally, older, white, uneducated, bigoted men. How is that different from Bowers saying he hates Jews, or the Magabomber saying he hates Democrats?
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)Using violence against that group?
If the answer is "YES" .. Then I am guilty of Hate speech.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)If I say I hate Christians, Mormons, and Muslims, are those all hate speech, or none, or do we leave it up to Trump to decide?
In the words of just about every Star Wars character, I have a bad feeling about this.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)In our quest for fairness and intellectual rigor.. We leave enough room for crazies to drive a truck through.
Maybe how about just starting with public figures?
Journalists/ Opinionists/ Politicians/ Twitter celebrities and the like who has a sizeable following .. They have power ..and need to be held to a different standard of the law.
I am not a lawyer ..the only law class I have ever taken was related to environmental law .. But I have to believe that law should be able to step in this space that protects us all. In many cases incitement to violence is bit late in the day.. Also Trump neednt explicitly call violence.. He can foment plenty of hatred and create a tinderbox environment without doing so.... But that speech should be illegal - at least for a public official.
Do you disagree?
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)That would be an interesting starting point: if we're going to start policing speech, start with just the politicians. Let them live with the consequences of this kind of law first before subjecting us to it. (Pity that wasn't done with the Drug War.)
My prediction: it would become a weapon wielded by Trump and those like him, for the purpose of criminalizing his political enemies.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)We need to start somewhere
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First you have to write your "clearly defined parameters" (which will somehow be enacted into law with Republicans in power, and which will never be amended later once the protection of the First Amendment has been breached).
Then consider that this statute will be available to prosecutors in deep-red areas, who can present a case to a jury filled with Trump supporters. Any judgment against a progressive will be subject to appeal -- ultimately, to the Supreme Court.
I don't share your confidence that "We should be good" under these circumstances.
Brainstormy
(2,540 posts)MUCH too much to lose!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Can you give examples from Canada or any of several EU countries where this has happened?
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)And I don't understand how it can be legal for a rap artist to perform, for people to buy the music, listen to the lyrics, but somehow illegal to post the lyrics.
Oh, and blasphemy laws. That's serious bullshit in a free society.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The way ours is.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Even the more conservative Canadian governments have been more liberal than what we have now.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I read 'hatred' every day, right here on DU. Do you want the republicans and the current Supreme Court determining what is hate speech and what is free speech?
jcmaine72
(1,843 posts)I've made this argument here before and I'll make it again: We're one of the few Western nations that doesn't have some sort of hate speech laws on the books and it greatly diminishes us as a civilized nation. Hate speech is an act of violence and must be dealt with as such. The First Amendment does not protect acts of violence last I checked.
If the people in the U.K. and other parts of Western Europe can make their hate speech laws work within the context of a free, democratic society, I don't understand why we can't. Trump and his legion of white supremacist terrorist deplorables would either be in prison or forced to the extreme fringe of our nation without a public voice, as well it should be, if we had sensible hate speech laws on the books.
It's time for us as a nation to catch up with the rest of the civilized world and ban hate speech once and for all.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)There is a vast difference between speech and acts of violence. We have a First Amendment which protects speech, and that's for a reason.
cilla4progress
(26,525 posts)to violence. Is illegal.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)it's already illegal, then there is no reason to mess with the First Amendment.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)
It works elsewhere with no issues and is all part of living in a society. I find it amazing Americans just let it slide and cite the 1st.
That whole document frankly hasn't aged well.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,932 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)...do you really want a Republican president, house, and Senate able to define what those parameters are? I sure as hell don't.
Or will this work like our plans for the ACA were supposed to, and our version of what is "right" will be so popular that Republicans would NEVER dare to do away with it. And besides we would have a permanent majority because people would be so grateful? (And yes those are all things I heard and read multiple times)
Amishman
(5,928 posts)Free speech should remain broad and unrestricted, well-meaning restrictions could be repurposed into the cornerstones of a despotic 'ministry of truth'.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)Is what allowed a Republican house, senate, supreme court and 33 Govenors to take power.
They won't be there forever though. Politics is a cycle.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
Oneironaut
(6,293 posts)- Criticizing Christianity
- Saying that God isn’t real
- Using any joke that involves Jesus
This is what someone like Pence would consider hate speech. The reason we don’t ban hate speech is because “hate speech” means different things to different people.
Calista241
(5,633 posts)And would you put offenders is re-education camps?
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)Intimidation and violence.
There is a credible threat of violence agansts the press now ..as evidenced by mail bombs
Trump calling CNN enemy after the bombs were sent out should be punsihable by law.
ThirdEye
(204 posts)It brainwashes them into taking political stances that go directly against their personal well being and fills them with falsehoods.
Would we want to put a ban in place that could be used against a liberal president that wished to call out Fox News? No doubt that president would form actual sentences and make a valid succinct point based in the truth, unlike Trump, but nonetheless the right could use the ban as a tool against her or him.
get the red out
(14,031 posts)Because of the first amendment. But I wonder if some kind of measures could be taken requiring online platforms to have some kind of rules? There are words that still can't be said on TV, despite freedom of speech, could that be applied to spreading pure hate online in some way?
ck4829
(37,699 posts)As in people who fire, kick out, or otherwise sanction individuals who make hate speech should be protected.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)You can't rein in dark forces by regulating them out of business. They spring from somewhere and take various forms. Controlling the forms just causes them to seek different forms or to crawl into a cave. I tend to agree that the Internet has allowed these idiots to find their fellow idiots much more easily.
But, no, I don't have an answer. I just don't think regulation will do a damn thing.
bdamomma
(69,532 posts)relevant to the thread, but I found these two articles one from Jan 208 and the other from June 2018 concerning Stephen Miller.
https://theoutline.com/post/3089/does-stephen-miller-have-friends?zd=2&zi=prbsd3nl
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-trump-adviser-rips-into-stephen-miller-he-s-waffen-ss-1.6192214
Captain Stern
(2,251 posts)I get to be the one that decides what hate speech is.....not the government, not some committee, not the general populace....just me.
I promise I will be fair about it, and that nothing at all can possibly go wrong.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)to define hate speech? Because they and the Republican wacko judges will decide the meaning, its application and constitutionality.Maybe you trust them, I don't. Leave it to them, and full blown slavery will be back.
bakpakr
(168 posts)Speech in any form should never be banned, period. The freedom of speech is one of the bricks that are the foundation of our society. The ability for anyone to spew hate is one of the reasons we have and fervently protect free speech. If we start to regulate speech in any way is a dangerous proposition. We don't have to like or accept what is being said but we MUST protect at all cost the ability for it to be said. All speech no matter how vile does and will have consequences. Lately we have been seeing almost daily the consequences of spewing that which is we find unacceptable. Speech that we find unacceptable has and should be countered by our collective voices. If we start to regulate speech in any form could and possibly silence not only that which we find vile but the voices that are raised in opposition.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I cannot directly threaten you with violence.
I cannot write you a bad check or forge checks.
I cannot engage in false advertising, or a variety of forms of mail and wire fraud.
I cannot solicit an act of prostitution.
There are loads of banned forms of speech in which it would be illegal for me to engage.
Petosky Stone
(52 posts)Just, wow.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)
33taw
(3,334 posts)
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Regardless of how well the law is written, Trump will say, "I hate Trump" is hate speech, and then use it to whip up his weak-minded followers more.
AlexSFCA
(6,319 posts)it’s up to us all to make sure there are consequences for hate speech. Of course all private platforms have the right to ban hate speech as violation of terms of service.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Speech is protected including speech you don't like.
Inciting violence already is A crime
Terrorists who are arrested for talking about planning a bombing get arrested not for speech but doing something.
No matter how you write a law about hate speech it could be applied against DU where hatred against NAZIS and racist is universal.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Precursor to a crime?
So you want to arrest something because they might do something?
I hate intolerant people. I hate NAZIS. Now arrest me.
Making a speech inciting people to attack someone is a crime.
Limitations to the right of absolute speech have been carefully worked out over 240 years. What new limitation do you propose that isn't already in existance?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)are as shortsighted and silly as the freepazoids.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(28,275 posts)lancelyons
(988 posts)There also should be some way to combat what happens at Fox News and the RIGHT WING LYING Media.
They constantly berate the left in general terms. Thats why most on the right HATE liberals/ democrats. Its programmed in hate.
This should not be allowed.
33taw
(3,334 posts)lancelyons
(988 posts)I challenge somebody to prove where CNN is berate conservatives in general.. like those damn lying conservatives, etc.. Or those angry diseased rural trump supporters..
You do see this on Fox.
This would turn out how I want.. and it has to turn out in favor of actual facts.
RichardRay
(2,613 posts)...and im only sort of joking.
Baltimike
(4,441 posts)you can't incite a riot without retribution
bigtree
(94,233 posts)...should be removed from office.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)Start with DU, and find cases that would violate your new law. If you are willing to throw any of your political brethren in jail first, I might listen. Otherwise this is just sophistry to jail people you don't like.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Boy, it sure is funny he was beaten to death!"
Kaleva
(40,352 posts)"Let us assume that there are some clearly defined parameters for identifying hate speech. "
Impossible to achieve.
It's like putting forth a proposition by beginning with "Let us assume the moon is really made of cheese.".
ThirdEye
(204 posts)Reminds me of the right's outrageous stance that liberals' tolerance must include tolerating their intolerance, otherwise we're hypocrites.
Just goes to show you there's too much subjectivity and grey in the realm of speech and the only thing you can do is allow as much of it as possible and win within the market place of ideas.
cilla4progress
(26,525 posts)The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. ... The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
As is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Free speech / first amendment already has reasonable limits.
Problem is now there is no agreement on reason.
Thomas Hurt
(13,982 posts)regardless of the moral or ethical imperative in doing so, they don't work.
Booze, narcotics, abortion, guns, birth control, hate speech, historical ineffective.
Not to mention if you do manage to suppress it, you just drive it underground.
Finally in a big slice of irony........isn't this exactly what that fn facist pig in the WH is saying about the press and liberals.......isn't he complaining about "hate" speech, at least what is hate speech as far as he is concerned.
Do we really want an escalating war on speech.
Just saw a comment on the Hill by a cultist, stating flat out that another comment without any threat of violence, mere disagreement was indeed violent and hateful.
They are pushing that big lie hard just as the Dear Leader does.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,479 posts)"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." - Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Justice Louis Brandeis was entirely ignorant of what we are now learning about how people's brains work.
Faith in this model of speech is as rational as religious arguments for one policy or another. It is simply re-stating a doctrine itself as an argument in favor of the doctrine.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,479 posts)
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)It could easily be turned against the Left.
For example...
Some Christians think the speech of Atheists criticising and denigrating Chritianity and Christians is Hate Speech is hate speech.
See how easy that was?
Separation
(1,975 posts)But its should also not be condoned, i.e. If a "CNN Commentator" was hired by the Heritage Foundation, or "Evil Soros Butlers lawyer" we should know.
When Kellyann Mushmouth Conway goes on a diarrhea ladened for 15 minutes and there is only a 30 blurb from the reporter to "counter her" that's wrong.
There is a difference between lying and not lying to a mass audience and then giving somebody the platform to do it u checked. It's so weird that its come down to that simple quality of just not to lie.
Azathoth
(4,677 posts)speech they didn't like.
sarisataka
(22,670 posts)For all of the reasons listed plus would require an amendment changing the First Amendment.
As for the idea that it would only apply to politicians would it go against the Fourteenth Amendment. Also that brings up a whole other set of questions. are elected officials restricted in their speech? Appointees? What about candidates for office, can they say whatever they want but then are restricted after the election?
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)that social media sites, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the rest are either unwilling or incapable of enforcing their own terms of service. I do not believe hate speech should be protected speech. I would prefer shaming and shunning offenders.
There would be a fight all the way to the SCOTUS even if Congress was willing to pass such a law.
elleng
(141,926 posts)There AREN'T, and practically CAN'T be.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)The 1st should be modified to ban hate speech of any time.
The 2nd should be clarified that owning guns is a collective right, not individual.
There are plenty of examples of free countries where this is in practice and they have not suffered (i.e. todays Germany)
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)I see no reason why we shouldn/t
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)Holocaust Denial is a crime in Germany.
trackfan
(3,650 posts)No.
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)It's how we know who the crazies are. As others have said, it is already illegal to use speech to incite violence, so we don't need to curb free speech any further.
onenote
(46,135 posts)Specifically, that there "are some clearly defined parameters for identifying hate speech."
That's a pretty significant assumption and I've yet to see those "clearly defined parameters" spelled out here. Why? Because it probably isn't possible (beyond the already existing parameters for incitement).
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)Once we poke a hole in free speech in the USA, the right will use it against us to further their Christian Dominionism. I guarantee it would happen.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Cause by this time next year I would be jailed for criticizing Christians. And the constitution. And same sex marriage. Get the idea?
Let’s instead focus on gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,526 posts)
Celerity
(54,348 posts)
Raine
(31,174 posts)
DeminPennswoods
(17,483 posts)1st Amendment notwithstanding, it's far better to have this stuff out in the open than hidden under a rock.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)at the minimum places like twitter & face book should move hate groups to their own clearly marked area. stop letting people spam messages too.
SPAM
noun
noun: spam; plural noun: spams; noun: Spam
1. irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.
•unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet.
"an autogenerated spam website"
2. trademark
a canned meat product made mainly from ham.
verb
verb: spam; 3rd person present: spams; past tense: spammed; past participle: spammed; gerund or present participle: spamming
1. send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.
