I said ripe for abuse, not that they will be abused. In any case, I haven’t heard of country with hate speech laws that hasn’t been abused in some form. Even in America, we don’t have those laws, but that hasn’t stopped the government from trying.
We don’t have those laws in the form of legislation necessarily in the US but we do have bars on what is covered by the first amendment according to case law.
That is not saying that Germany is abusing the law, just that they have an ineffective implementation that shitty countries could use as an excuse to enact their own abusive practices.
Honestly, I’d rather deal with people abusing hate speech laws and punishing them for abuse than to not have legal protection from hate and discrimination.
The past 200+ years have shown that the founding fathers’ absolutism and interpretation of social matters in terms of speech alone is faulty. It didn’t take into consideration the failings of the people as a whole and allowed for genocide, slavery and civil war, and enabled the very same tyrannical government they sought to oppose.
And this is because it’s not a speech issue. It’s an intent issue, and society needs to be completely restructured to account for intent, which despite popular belief is actually pretty easy to determine.
Banning Nazis is the first step toward that necessary change. And if social and moral progress is to continue, it must.
Here’s the thing. I used to think freedom of speech was a good idea. Then I saw the rise of fascism in the U.S., saw how close to genocide we are, and saw those same Nazis were establishing the very authoritarian government the Constitition claimed to prevent with its own tenets like freedom of speech, and realized preventing tyranny is not as simple as that.
The Nazis you’re protecting already are in office and defining acceptable speech, like Florida, where one of your own is having LGBTQ+ books banned outright.
If this was about freedom of speech, you’d be calling for the Nazis to be banned on those grounds, yet here we are.
With you defending your brothers exploiting our greater understanding of social dynamics to subjugate and kill us all.
Here, I’ll prove it to you. Answer this question honestly, no vagueries, something specific, quantifiable and easy for other people to determine:
What words could we say to you right now to convince you to stop commenting in the thread and go away silently?
God I’m so tired the wannabe tyrants on lemmy. Y’all do realize you’d wouldn’t be in the party, right? At best you’d be ignored and working in some sweatshop, and worst you’d be against the wall.
And don’t think I didn’t notice the casual white washing of Nazis, you anti-Semite.
The United States. Speech that is used to incite violence, commit fraud, or is perceived to be a true threat are not protected under the first amendment.
I don’t know about that. I think the more appropriate stance is that it’s almost impossible to have people appropriately prosecuted when they do violate the law. Federal courts are afraid to be the court that starts the chain reaction of more appropriately defining how violation of the law and prosecution should work.
The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King’s anti-racism speech was, as charged, “hate speech”.
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn’t define what ‘hate speech’ was and so decided that it shouldn’t be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That’s why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with ‘hate speech’ and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
And by that I mean be socially intolerant of intolerance. Personal morals and actions don’t need to and shouldn’t be held to the same standard as the US Federal government.
Individuals do have more freedom to discriminate and show “social intolerance”, but that obviously doesn’t extend to punching people they disagree with. Or violent responses in general.
I’m not morally obligated to debate someone arguing in favor of genocide, for instance. Is it legally assault to punch them, sure. Would I want the government to come in and boot stomp them, probably not. Is punching them morally wrong, nope.
The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It’s your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You’re the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.
You’re right. There’s nothing that can be done. Racial slurs and regressive language should be taught in schools because you can’t fathom a world that has a slight amount of respect based regulation.
So what exactly is the alternative? Pass hate speech laws? Because that is ripe for abuse.
Some countries already have hate speech laws that are limited to inciting violence and they aren’t being abused.
I said ripe for abuse, not that they will be abused. In any case, I haven’t heard of country with hate speech laws that hasn’t been abused in some form. Even in America, we don’t have those laws, but that hasn’t stopped the government from trying.
We don’t have those laws in the form of legislation necessarily in the US but we do have bars on what is covered by the first amendment according to case law.
By your logic we should get rid of traffic laws because we know they are abused.
That is an inciting violence law.
Name one.
Germany
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/11/un-human-rights-committee-criticizes-germanys-netzdg-letting-social-media
Try again
That is not saying that Germany is abusing the law, just that they have an ineffective implementation that shitty countries could use as an excuse to enact their own abusive practices.
you can’t bring facts and actually reading their source to the discussion, you are supposed to just agree!
Norway
Honestly, I’d rather deal with people abusing hate speech laws and punishing them for abuse than to not have legal protection from hate and discrimination.
The past 200+ years have shown that the founding fathers’ absolutism and interpretation of social matters in terms of speech alone is faulty. It didn’t take into consideration the failings of the people as a whole and allowed for genocide, slavery and civil war, and enabled the very same tyrannical government they sought to oppose.
And this is because it’s not a speech issue. It’s an intent issue, and society needs to be completely restructured to account for intent, which despite popular belief is actually pretty easy to determine.
Banning Nazis is the first step toward that necessary change. And if social and moral progress is to continue, it must.
Here’s the thing, I agree that hate speech is bad. But then I look at countries like China and think “I like having freedom of speech”.
How about when a republican gets in office, and he gets to define hate speech?
Here’s the thing. I used to think freedom of speech was a good idea. Then I saw the rise of fascism in the U.S., saw how close to genocide we are, and saw those same Nazis were establishing the very authoritarian government the Constitition claimed to prevent with its own tenets like freedom of speech, and realized preventing tyranny is not as simple as that.
The Nazis you’re protecting already are in office and defining acceptable speech, like Florida, where one of your own is having LGBTQ+ books banned outright.
If this was about freedom of speech, you’d be calling for the Nazis to be banned on those grounds, yet here we are.
With you defending your brothers exploiting our greater understanding of social dynamics to subjugate and kill us all.
Here, I’ll prove it to you. Answer this question honestly, no vagueries, something specific, quantifiable and easy for other people to determine:
What words could we say to you right now to convince you to stop commenting in the thread and go away silently?
God I’m so tired the wannabe tyrants on lemmy. Y’all do realize you’d wouldn’t be in the party, right? At best you’d be ignored and working in some sweatshop, and worst you’d be against the wall.
And don’t think I didn’t notice the casual white washing of Nazis, you anti-Semite.
Don’t worry, I’m more than willing to just go.
The United States. Speech that is used to incite violence, commit fraud, or is perceived to be a true threat are not protected under the first amendment.
And it is almost impossible to break that law.
I don’t know about that. I think the more appropriate stance is that it’s almost impossible to have people appropriately prosecuted when they do violate the law. Federal courts are afraid to be the court that starts the chain reaction of more appropriately defining how violation of the law and prosecution should work.
Canada.
You realize such laws have existed in most countries for a very long time, right?
Hate speech is illegal in most of the modern world, and has been for quite some time.
The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King’s anti-racism speech was, as charged, “hate speech”.
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn’t define what ‘hate speech’ was and so decided that it shouldn’t be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That’s why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with ‘hate speech’ and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
Yet we have good and clear ideas of what hate speech is now, so in whatever new government we build, it needs to be banned.
Yeah, they used to be called Blasphemy laws. Still doesn’t make it excusable.
Punch Nazis is a good start.
And by that I mean be socially intolerant of intolerance. Personal morals and actions don’t need to and shouldn’t be held to the same standard as the US Federal government.
Individuals do have more freedom to discriminate and show “social intolerance”, but that obviously doesn’t extend to punching people they disagree with. Or violent responses in general.
I’m not morally obligated to debate someone arguing in favor of genocide, for instance. Is it legally assault to punch them, sure. Would I want the government to come in and boot stomp them, probably not. Is punching them morally wrong, nope.
The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It’s your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You’re the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.
At least then they’re busy fighting me and not furthering the cause of horrific systematic injustices against those that can’t defend themselves.
You’re right. There’s nothing that can be done. Racial slurs and regressive language should be taught in schools because you can’t fathom a world that has a slight amount of respect based regulation.
Not have those laws is also abusable
Not as easily by the government
abuse by governemnt, neglect by government. The problems can happen either way but with a change in law at least there is attempt to make it better.
Neglect by the government is a good thing. I think we disagree on a fundemental level.
Sounds like they have some level of knowledge of history and have remotely thought their views through yes.