Safe Zones and Political Correctness

[blah the Prussian]

there is no reliable way to keep that line from being crossed. anywhere, ever, with any government.

Then why has it not been crossed in any government that bans hate speech?

[Anouleth]

The Communists were not guilty of hate speech. Once again, you absolutely need to have a very clear line that cannot be crossed, and that line should be hate speech. Hitler was very clearly violating the German constitution, and it was the duty of the Reichstag and the German people to not let him get away with it, but they were absolutely on board.

I thought you earlier said that Lenin should have been censored? And now you accept that a hate speech law as narrowly defined as the one you suggest would not have actually criminalized Communists (even though as political movements go, Communism was pretty damned dangerous).

And what exactly would a hate speech law have done to stop Hitler? Giving that Hitler was already openly ignoring the law in order to subvert the democratic process, what makes you think that another law would have suddenly solved the huge problems of Weimar Germany?

I recall in my own country, a few years back there were scandals surrounding the illegal actions of some tabloid papers in order to gather stories, mainly illegal bribes to the police and voicemail hacking. Huge outcry, cries of "Something Must Be Done", demands for increased regulation of the press. Except that everything that had happened was already against the law, it's just that the police weren't interested in enforcing it! There's a temptation, and it's a terrible one, to create new laws to fix problems when all the tools to fix those problems already exist within the law.

[blah the Prussian]

I thought you earlier said that Lenin should have been censored? And now you accept that a hate speech law as narrowly defined as the one you suggest would not have actually criminalized Communists (even though as political movements go, Communism was pretty damned dangerous).

And what exactly would a hate speech law have done to stop Hitler? Giving that Hitler was already openly ignoring the law in order to subvert the democratic process, what makes you think that another law would have suddenly solved the huge problems of Weimar Germany?

I recall in my own country, a few years back there were scandals surrounding the illegal actions of some tabloid papers in order to gather stories, mainly illegal bribes to the police and voicemail hacking. Huge outcry, cries of "Something Must Be Done", demands for increased regulation of the press. Except that everything that had happened was already against the law, it's just that the police weren't interested in enforcing it! There's a temptation, and it's a terrible one, to create new laws to fix problems when all the tools to fix those problems already exist within the law.

Another idea I've been thinking about is banning all political parties who want to abolish democracy. This would apply to both the Nazis and the Communists. The problems in Wiemar Germany all stemmed from the issue of enforcement. Hitler, however, was actually very committed to the idea of coming to power in Germany within the framework of the law, so I don't know what you're talking about there. The Nazis came to power entirely legally, until they changed the law of course, but they did that legally, too.

[Moblin Major General]

Here are my issues with PC and other things:

• PC implies my politics and my beliefs have to be in line with each other, lest I appear hypocritical. I can be a liberal and still think abortion is wrong, even though I can except it in instances of unwanted sexual contact and health endangerment.
• Offense is apart of life. It's called "freedom" of speech for a reason. I don't like to offend people, but it can happen, and sometimes I don't have the chance to correct my mistake.
• White privilege is a thing, as is male privilege.
• The disabled have no advantages whatsoever, because ADA doesn't apply to hiring.

I hate that I benefit from racism and sexism in equal measure, and even though I have an Autism Spectrum Disorder, the only way it shows itself in public is in ways that people can identify with common psychological issues. It's wrong, but it's human nature to be biased. And human nature doesn't change.

[Anouleth]

Hitler, however, was actually very committed to the idea of coming to power in Germany within the framework of the law, so I don't know what you're talking about there. The Nazis came to power entirely legally, until they changed the law of course, but they did that legally, too.

Well, except for setting the Reichstag on fire. And trying to organize a coup. And sending thugs to beat up and harass political opponents. Except for the time when he was actually imprisoned and the Nazi Party banned.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, except for setting the Reichstag on fire. And trying to organize a coup. And sending thugs to beat up and harass political opponents. Except for the time when he was actually imprisoned and the Nazi Party banned.

Firstly, the Reichstag was not set on fire by the Nazis. Secondly, I am aware of the Beer Hall Putsch. That was what convinced Hitler that he needed to obey the law. And like you said earlier, laws mean nothing if nobody enforces them, and obviously nobody is enforcing whatever law was against the Brownshirts.

[Phoenix Wright]

Then why has it not been crossed in any government that bans hate speech?

what constitutes a "crossing"?

[amiabletemplar]

what constitutes a "crossing"?

Moreover, if this is about preventing specific examples of speech from being seen by the general public...how would you know the line was crossed?

I know that there have been numerous court cases in the US where such restrictions on speech have been challenged--some of which even went up to the Supreme Court.

And if you wanted an example, Blah? Consider England's blasphemy laws--remembering that "blasphemy" is a form of hate speech! In 1977, a British gay activist wrote a poem in which he described Jesus as homosexual and highly sexually active (including an encounter with a Roman soldier during the crucifixion, from whose perspective the poem was written). A woman found this grievously offensive, and undertook a private prosecution against the author for blasphemy; not only was the author (and the magazine in which the poem was published) convicted of blasphemy, but the case also established that intent to offend was not required--and it was upheld in Britain's highest court at the time (the Law Lords, which have since been replaced by a Supreme Court). Even the Council of Europe's Commission on Human Rights declared the case inadmissible, essentially agreeing with its verdict.

That's the kind of thing these laws enable--removing speech that expresses an offensive opinion because someone was offended. That is what I would call an example of restricting appropriate speech. Speech I don't personally agree with--speech I find highly offensive, in fact--but speech that I strongly believe the author had a right to publish and share with the world.

Edited December 22, 2015 by amiabletemplar

[blah the Prussian]

Private individuals should not be able to prosecute legal cases, just civic ones. Furthermore, my definition of hate speech is speech that incites to violence, not speech that offends.

what constitutes a "crossing"?

I would say when the law is extended to include speech that is milder than hate speech.

[amiabletemplar]

Private individuals should not be able to prosecute legal cases, just civic ones. Furthermore, my definition of hate speech is speech that incites to violence, not speech that offends.

I would say when the law is extended to include speech that is milder than hate speech.

"Private prosecution" in the United Kingdom simply means that the state isn't the one providing the lawyers nor is doing the investigation. It would be equivalent, in the US, to hiring your own lawyer and a private detective.

As for your definition of "hate speech," well, you are using a definition which is meaningfully different from the definition used by most "hate speech" laws. The British Parliament passed a law, the Public Order Act of 1986, which included (in its Part 3, section 18, regarding hate speech) the following text (emphasis mine):

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

This remained on the books, unchanged, for over 20 years--and it took a concerted campaign by numerous people, including Rowan Atkinson, who became sort of the "face" of the campaign, to get the "insulting" part removed. The ruling party-coalition at the time was surprised by this reaction, as they had opposed the removal of the "insult" clause, but had not prepared for such a concerted response and thus (by a slim margin) allowed the amendment removing that language to stand.

The Penal Code of France currently includes provision (article R.624-4) for fines and/or imprisonment for insulting a person on the basis, real or supposed, of their membership or non-membership of any ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. group, or on the basis of disability or sexual orientation.

In Poland, the singer Doda was fined 5000 złoty (approximately equivalent to $1280 USD, €1177, or 31800 Kč) for insulting Christianity and Judaism by saying, and I'm assuming this was translated from Polish, "it is hard to believe in something written by people who drank too much wine and smoked herbal cigarettes." The law also provides for a term of imprisonment (a maximum of 2 or 3 years--there's some inconsistent evidence and I'm finding it hard to track down the specific statutes for it), though the court chose to apply the fine instead/only. The Constitution of Poland also provides prohibition for political parties that keep their membership secret in some of the same passages related to preventing hate speech (as well as outlawing parties "based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism...")

In Australia, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states that it is "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group." (Again, emphasis mine.)

Based on the above examples, I think it is fairly easy to establish that "hate speech" has a well-established association with causing offense or insult. The association with direct calls for violence or the like is minimal at best. In sum, incitement [of others] to violence is not hate speech--after all, the United States has no "hate speech" laws, yet incitement to violence is not considered protected speech here, despite the prominence that freedom of speech has here. And substantive threats--things that reflect a clear and present danger to specific, real people--are not protected speech either.

So I'm left wondering, what is captured by your definition of "hate speech" that is considered protected speech in the US? And how much of the more common definition of "hate speech" isn't prohibited by the definition you're using?

[Fala]

I think safe spaces are dumb because in a sense, nowhere is safe. Not even home. Someone or something can end your life and you can't do shit about it.

Safe spaces as being able to express your viewpoints without being challenged is sketchy to me as if they get used to having everyone in their group agreeing with them and they go somewhere where they have people will disagree with them, it's like their setting themselves up to be triggered.

[Life]

I think safe spaces are dumb because in a sense, nowhere is safe. Not even home. Someone or something can end your life and you can't do shit about it.

Safe spaces as being able to express your viewpoints without being challenged is sketchy to me as if they get used to having everyone in their group agreeing with them and they go somewhere where they have people will disagree with them, it's like their setting themselves up to be triggered.

The idea of a safe space is a place where you can isolate yourself from discourse because you may be "offended". Which is utterly crap.