What is the proper response to hate speech?

[philosslayer]

The response I'm seeing to the events in Paris on DU are a bit disheartening. Normally, we as a group are opposed to hate speech. We protect the right of the purveyor to actually spew whatever it is they want to spew, but its not something we actually promote. We understand how damaging it can be, and seek to minimize it.

Now, compare that attitude to the response to the Charlie Hebdo murders. Are the murders horrific? Yes. Are they in any way excusable? Absolutely not. Did Charlie Hebdo engage in hate speech? Yes. Its an uncomfortable truth given the events of the day, but its true.

YET, many DU'ers today are aghast at the idea that some responsible newspapers and networks won't show these images. These people want MORE of these images, not less.

We must vehemently speak out against extremism in any form. But we should also act responsibly, and not fan the flames unnecessarily. Putting hateful cartoons on the front page of more newspapers is not the answer.

[Nye Bevan]

1. More speech. Including derision and ridicule when appropriate (nt)

[RobertEarl]

8. DU locks and hides speech all the time

You have a problem with that?

[REP]

9. DU is a private website, not a government

[RobertEarl]

21. So we can put you down as no problem with limiting speech?

[REP]

25. We can put me down as knowing what a private website is

But you are adorable.

[MADem]

67. Newspapers and TV news programs aren't government run in USA either.

In Russia, that's another story.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Nope. Was your OP referring to hate speech on DU?

Or hate speech in general?

Because the proper response to hate speech on DU is to alert it and have a jury hide it.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Interesting...

Why should it be different?

[Nye Bevan]

24. Wow. Why are people having so much trouble with this?

As others have pointed out, DU is a privately owned website whose members have been granted the power to set community standards. Without this power, DU would resemble the cesspit that is Youtube comments, for example.

But in the wider world, things are different. Outside of a privately owned forum would you be happy with being forcibly silenced because 4 out of 7 randomly chosen people didn't like what you were saying?

[whatchamacallit]

33. So you wouldn't advocate censoring

such speech anywhere else it occurs? Describe this "wider world" where it should be permitted.

[Nye Bevan]

41. There's a big wide world out there outside of DU. (nt)

[whatchamacallit]

49. You didn't answer if you find any censorship of hate speech (outside DU) acceptable

?

[Nye Bevan]

59. I agree with NuclearDem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6054337

[RobertEarl]

17. You wrote:

"1. More speech. Including derision and ridicule when appropriate (nt)"

Either it is more speech or less speech. Locking and hides is less.

So are you referring to more or less?

[Nye Bevan]

29. More speech outside the confines of private websites and forums,

which are free to set their own community standards.

Is this really that hard to understand?

[RobertEarl]

42. Are you clear yet?

I was only asking you a question. No need to get uptight and defensive.

[Nye Bevan]

45. You're right.

Sometimes I get too impatient with people who do not understand the basics of the First Amendment. My bad.

[RobertEarl]

48. Right you are

And on DU the First Amendment does not apply. DU does not have totally free speech.

[NuclearDem]

53. No, it doesn't.

Because the first five words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law". Public institutions can't restrict your speech aside from some extraordinary exceptions.

Private groups are free to establish what they do and do not want in their midst (outside of racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination). DU has decided it doesn't want hate speech or advocacy for Republicans in its midst, and everyone who signed up here agreed to those terms.

Same reason I'm totally within my right to kick anyone out of my house who violates my rules.

[MADem]

69. No it is not--Locking and Hiding are forms of speech--not censorship

That's four or more people mocking, ridiculing and deriding the comment of another. The post gets hidden, some of the jurors even tell the poster how lousy their comment was, but if you really want to see the comment, all you have to do is click a link and ...VOILA...all is revealed.

So sorry, that's not censorship--that's just telling someone that their behavior sucked and a majority of people asked to review said behavior agree that it sucked.

Everyone who joins this club knows that if they don't share the goals of the group, and they make a point of being an ass about how they don't share the group goals, they're eventually going to be shown the door. People who come here know this, it's a private club with standards.

[NuclearDem]

32. Last I checked, Skinner and MIRT didn't have the power to fine you or throw you in prison.

[RobertEarl]

37. Yeah

But the way some act and carry on here, I wouldn't want them to know who I am.

So, yeah, lock and hide. In fact, there are some I'd lock and hide right now.

[cwydro]

63. Bingo. nt

[REP]

2. The answer is always MORE SPEECH

These puling murderers can't stand words and pictures? Must we bubble wrap the world so as to not upset loathsome killers? Fuck that noise.

[CrawlingChaos]

6. The cartoons were really hateful. I hardly think we need more of that shit.

I mean, sure they have a right to publish what they want but I think decent people should denounce it. Which is why I have a problem with the "We are Charlie" thing. I would not want to identify with obvious hate speech, even on the day of such a horrible crime. It does not, in any way, help anything.

Freedom of speech, of course, we must protect, but at the same time we should also challenge hate speech.

And in case I need to add this, NOTHING could ever justify the kind of horrific crime that was just committed.

[geek tragedy]

7. So, should we have denounced the Zombie Nativity scene that included Zombie Baby Jesus?

No, because to get worked up over that kind of shit is really juvenile.

[REP]

14. You can call it hate speech, but that won't make it into hate speech

You are aware France has laws against hate speech?

What caused this was hate-filled scum who wanted an excuse to murder. Not WORDS. Not DRAWINGS.

For fuck's sake. Way to lose sight.

[CrawlingChaos]

30. Leering, grotesque caricatures engaged in lewd acts

Very demeaning depictions of a group already facing incredible hostility and discrimination. You think we need more of that?

[geek tragedy]

35. speech is not allowed on a 'do we need that' basis

The Catholic Church did not believe we needed Copernicus or Galileo's work.

[CrawlingChaos]

58. I don't want to restrict free speech

At the same time, I also refuse to pretend that what Charlie Hebdo was putting out was anything other than hateful garbage.

Just because I denounce it, doesn't mean I want to ban it.

[REP]

47. Neither one of us gets to decide that

You can decide if you find the cartoons funny, provocative, incomprehensible, whatever. You can decide to publish your own cartoons.

You cannot decide what another may draw.

Free speech is easy when it's speech you like. Free speech requires some spine and some courage when it's speech that makes you uneasy.

[CrawlingChaos]

51. I'm not trying to decide for them

I acknowledge that preserving free speech often means protecting material we find disgusting. But that doesn't mean we have to pretend what Charlie Hebdo was doing was good and virtuous. It was hateful and awful.

[REP]

57. Who's this "we"?

You don't speak for me. I'll decide for myself what I think of Charlie Hedbo, thanks. I'll let others decide for themselves as well. Hint: there's a wide range between "hateful and awful" and "good and virtuous." Not everyone shares your opinion and that's okay.

[CrawlingChaos]

65. And I clearly wasn't trying to speak for you

But if you need to manufacture an issue so you can shake your fist at me, so be it. Knock yourself out.

[REP]

3. Impiety towards your deity is irreverence, not hate speech

Your thesis is faulty.





*Ambrose Bierce, yes I know

[Fred Sanders]

4. And what is "impiety" to religions not yours, including gross sexual references?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. How in the fuck would any person be able to know all the things that might be 'impious' to some

religious group? Why the fuck should they care to know what sexual references Fred Sanders finds to be 'gross'? Why the hell should someone else's religion set the rules for everyone? On what grounds?

[Fred Sanders]

20. Why do you not ask the fellow who raised the question, why hound me with gratuitous vulgarity?

[REP]

19. Still impiety.

Doesn't matter what form it takes. No one is required to treat anyone else's god/s with respect. I sure don't respect a god so weak he needs mere mortals to defend him from ink and paper. Or anyone who follows such a lame-ass "god."

[philosslayer]

26. One mans impiety is another man's hate.

You don't get to define what is hateful.

[Coventina]

31. Wrong. Impiety is directed at a set of beliefs. Hate is directed at people.

Making fun of Islam, or any religion has no victims.

Saying that Muslims should be killed is hate speech.

Showing the prophet (long deceased and no longer needing legal protection) is not hate speech.

See the difference?

[geek tragedy]

34. Now your sophomoric attempts have been exposed, you're trying to deem blasphemy against

any religion as unacceptable hate speech.

Feel free to move to Saudi fucking Arabia, but no we will not let you try to import their rules here.

[REP]

39. You don't get to define it, either

You're terrible at words and their meanings.

[geek tragedy]

5. blasphemy is not hate speech. learn the difference.

Muslims have a right to avoid discrimination.

They do not have a right to prevent public airing of blasphemy against Islam.

It is rather sad that so many on the so-called left think that offending religious fundamentalists is some kind of heinous offense.

[REP]

22. This, a billion times.

Thank you. I'm having a ragesorrowstroke and haven't been able articulate this nearly as well as you did.

[RobertEarl]

28. Can we do so to the Jewish religion?

I find the true believers of the Old Testament to be non-progressive.

[REP]

36. Judaism

Knock yourself out! Remember, though, how Matt Groenig, Seth MacFarlane and Mel Brooks were murdered because of The Hannukah Zombie, "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," and Jews in Space.

[Drunken Irishman]

66. A Family Guy episode this past XMAS portrayed Jesus as a player...

Who used women for sex by pretending to be a virgin. There's really no commentary on Christianity or anything ... just a crude joke.

No one went down to FOX and opened fire. Funny how that works.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. We can do so to any religion. But you instantly went after the believers in the religion not the

religion. Taking issue with or the piss out of a religion or philosophy is not the same thing as taking issue with people because they believe those things. Your comment does not take issue with nor the piss out of Judaism at all. It does the other thing.

[seveneyes]

10. What is the answer to all of the above

Hate is a defect, love is the propagator of the future. No answer can sometimes be the right answer.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. More speech. First you have to make a case that mockery and derision of a religion is 'hate speech'

and not just good comedy, heresy or blasphemy. You have made no such case.

[MineralMan]

12. As an atheist, my life is blasphemous.

Blasphemy is not hate speech. It is simply a denial of deity. I will deny deity readily. Should I be shot by some religious believer? Think! If I make fun of deities, can they not strike me down? Are they so powerless that they need followers to do that? If so, how are they deities at all? I scoff at deities. Yet, here I stand.

[RobertEarl]

27. Can we make fun of atheists?

What could we say to deride them? What would we call making fun of non-believers? Is there a word like blasphemy for atheists?

[MineralMan]

40. Sure, as far as I am concerned.

Mock away. I'll just ignore you. Mockery does me no harm.

[RobertEarl]

43. Don't take it personal

Just asking a question. Y'know, free speech and all that.

[alphafemale]

18. Life of Brian is also hate speech. Are atheist billboards hate speech?

What utter nonsense.

[CrawlingChaos]

44. No, it wasn't

Life of Brian was very provocative satire. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were grotesque, leering caricatures engaged in lewd acts. Very deliberately demeaning to Muslims and very hateful. And it's not like Muslims in that country aren't already coping with incredible hostility so even though the crime was horrible and wrong on every level, I don't think we should celebrate what Charlie Hebdo was doing either, even if they had a right to do it.

[alphafemale]

50. Is this hate speech?

Similar to some of the Hebdo stuff.

I don't consider Life of Brian hate speech.

Sometimes I think sarcasm is obvious.

[CrawlingChaos]

55. No

That is an obvious commentary on American conservative culture.

Have you seen the worst of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons? Their only point was to portray Muslims in a grotesque and demeaning manner.

[alphafemale]

60. It was to portray the most extremist, violent Muslims in a demeaning manner.

As they should be.

There should be no Sacred cows.

Sorry, Hindus.

[egduj]

71. Life of Brian is not hate speech.

The purpose of Life of Brian was to entertain. The purpose of Charlie Hebdo, according to François Cavanna, is to offend.

[alphafemale]

72. I don't thing Life of Brian is hate speech. But some do.

Some think saying Happy Holidays is hate speech.

And mocking the bad and stupid things about a religion is not hate speech.

[msanthrope]

23. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. nt

[LittleBlue]

46. I don't see how this changes anything

We have free speech and the government won't take that away from us.

What we all have to ask ourselves is whether what we say carries a risk outside of the legal sphere. Will that guy at the bar beat me up for saying a certain word? Will I be fired for voicing my politics at work?

We can protect government interfering with free speech, but only fear of the law shields us from the consequences. What we know is that under certain circumstances, some are willing to face life imprisonment or death to kill you for saying certain things. That's really no different than before, except now you can add Muhammad cartoons onto the deadly insults list. Say it to enough people and the chance of getting the attention of a murderous whackjob increases proportionally.

[HERVEPA]

52. I think yopu need to learn what hate speech is.

[Xithras]

54. Mohammed was a mentally ill pedophile. <-- That's not hate speech.

It's an OPINION. There is a difference.

Part of the problem with the argument today is that we have allowed people to redefine "hate speech" to include speech that merely offends. The original definition of hate speech was text or images that are designed to INTIMIDATE a group, or to provoke hatred against them. A cartoon Mohammed, or a statement that Jesus Christ was as real as Santa Claus, does neither of those.

Charlie Hebdo did not engage in hate speech. They did not whip people into a frenzy of hatred against Muslims, and certainly didn't advocate violence against them. They simply published things that some Muslims disagreed with and were offended by.

OFFENSIVE speech is the most important kind there is. It is the kind we liberals must be most vigilant in protecting.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

56. He satirized a lot more than Islam

Including other religions and politics.

The satire was more extreme than we generally see here, but apparently this form of criticism is more accepted in France.

[on point]

61. Charlie did not engage in hate speech. I challenge your precept

But when encountering hate speech challenge it on factual foundation and let it be known not acceptable

Just to help clarify things for you, poking fun at silly ideas, eg religion, is not hate speech, but shining a light into a dark corner

[MADem]

62. Well, obviously not wholesale slaughter.

However, "lumping" isn't appropriate either.

I'm seeing a lot of "those people" type posts, and I'm rather sickened by the broad brushing, too. I always thought "progressives" were better at NUANCE--after all, they are supposed to have a forward-looking point of view. Unfortunately, I'm finding out that a few self-styled progressives are in actual fact xenophobes, and I find that troubling.

If people want to see the images, they're out there--Google is everyone's friend. Perhaps people don't realize that a lot of the images aren't just hateful conceptually, it's not just about a "draw Mohamet" thing, but they're also pornographic (if a cartoon can be pornographic). I don't like looking at images of butt-nekkid bozos, no matter who is depicted, and even if they do have a gold star over their cartoon bunghole. A lot of the images just aren't "family friendly" and newspapers do have to appeal to a wide swathe within a "standards and practices" framework.

I will say this horrible event brought out the worst in a few people--and I'm not just talking about the shitheads who committed the heinous crime, either.

[LostOne4Ever]

64. One thing that is not a proper response is victim blaming (nt)

[tritsofme]

68. Speech restrictionists are far more dangerous than those who draw pictures of fictional characters

from literature.

Charlie Hebdo was not hate speech. Ridicule is healthy. Your premise is flawed.

[egduj]

70. Charlie Hebdo is a hate speech rag.

On that we can agree. But to conflate that fact with today's events is irresponsible and inappropriate.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Define "hate speech".

[LanternWaste]

74. One might imagine your augment against Volatire is absurd and lacks rational thought. I certainly

" But we should also act responsibly, and not fan the flames unnecessarily. Putting hateful cartoons on the front page of more newspapers is not the answer..."

One might imagine your augment against Volatire is absurd and lacks rational thought. I certainly do.

[prayin4rain]

75. Criticism and ridicule are equivalent to hate speech??

Then almost everything that is not encouraging and agreeable is hate speech. If instead of drawing a cartoon, they had instead pointed out with words that clinging to faith has no affect on the tangible world, would that be hate speech? This hate speech proposition is ridiculous. I cannot believe how much support it's getting.

[Sunlei]

76. I disagree with you, Hebdo did NOT engage in hate speech- political/ religious cartoons are NOT hate