Hate speech laws - It is good for Nazis to be terrified

[LDSman]

K man what is your point even?

It's like you think hate speech laws would mean that if anyone EVER says anything hateful, it's against the law.

Well, they are "hate speech" laws so it would be reasonable to think that expressing what someone claims is hate would run a foul of the law. Part of the problem is that hate speech laws are either very specific and useless because people inclined to spout hate find ways not covered by that law to express themselves or they are very vague and easy to interpret any way you want.

Do you know what hate speech laws are usually used for? People in authoritative positions shouldn't use their roles to incite hate and bring people together to take rights away from another group of people.

Says who? All the examples of hate speech laws I've seen are used against everyone, not just supposed authority figures.

<<If you ban certain words or ideas from public discourse, you only serve to keep people who honestly want to learn in the dark. "You see Billy? They arrested John for simply saying something they didn't like. If he was wrong, why didn't they simply tell him so? Look at that law! If I say ******* I go to jail. If he says it or a simpler word directed at me, he doesn't. How is that fair?" >>>

the fact you said this ensures that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact you don't understand it shows me that you don't understand all the ramifications and uselessness of hate speech laws. Did you know that prior to WW2, Germany had hate speech laws comparable to modern day laws in Europe? They even used those laws to jail outspoken Nazis repeatedly. Those vile people used their arrests and courtroom to present themselves as political victims and gain support.

I can teach my kids not to mind what another kid says or a random stranger, but if a teacher at their school, or a doctor, or anyone else with power over them were to say something like that, it is a huge problem. Obviously I'd teach them to understand that people are small-minded and that you either educate them or walk away, but not to incite hate back.

We're going to have to disagree on what a huge problem it is. Teachers should be teaching whatever subject not expressing opinions on what other people do in their private lives. Jail time is not the answer. Complain to their boss, change doctors, etc.

My point is that if rape is easier to prove then why do most get off without consequence? Hate speech crimes, if harder to prove with evidence, would have even lower rates.

So what's the point of having hate crime laws then? To just be able to target preachers you don't agree with?

By claiming lack of evidence? You kinda need that in court to prove something. The absence of proof is not proof.

Ahh, but the ever so wonderful court of public opinion would be able to rip into people for the "hate speech crime they got away with. "

People sue each other over dumb stuff all the time that's immediately thrown out. Like that already happens now.

Civil court. Completely different than criminal court. No one has to put on a job application that they got sued in civil court. Background checks do show arrests.

If she's talking about genocide of something that can't be changed yes.

I know that a lot of trans people would object to the claim that they can't change from being men.

Yeah, the countries that have laws that stop the people from doing anything to the people in power. That's not hate speech that's Fascism.

What's the difference? Hate speech laws to protect the minority from harm. One case it's the people in power, in the other the various groups.

Well Milo Yannopolis is a big thing now, and one of his supporters just shot someone this weekend. Really any US Alt-Right big name person.

At this point, the shooter is claiming self defense and there isn't anything, yet, saying otherwise. I point out the violence and hatred espoused by some in the BLM movement as a counter point.

That's kind of a big leap there. I'm just saying vigilante justice shouldn't be rewarded, but kept in check.

That was how people used to respond to hateful comments and insults. Allowing people to randomly attack people is a step in that direction. You think that the person who punched that idiot in the interview isn't being rewarded right now? He's being praised all over the internet. If he came forward and gets arrested for it, people would be setting up gofundme accounts to pay his court costs almost before the handcuffs ratchet shut. Vigilante justice should not be allowed at all. And before anyone chimes in, self defense is not vigilante justice.

And while most walk away there will be a few who listen and get their minds warped, and eventually one of them will do something horrible to someone.

People already do that for a huge variety of reasons. Only a few due to hate. Sort of sanitizing the internet and completely blocking everything from people and then locking them in their own safety bubble so there is no human interaction, there is really no way to prevent people with bad head meats from hurting or trying to hurt other people.

Like honestly it's the same with MRA types and women. They convince the people who have issues with themselves and warp it to blame the other people, it's not you, you deserve this. It's persuasion 101. That's why they're usually charismatic speakers who never outright say it, they ease people into it.

So how would hate speech laws prevent someone who never says it outright? Right now bigots are free to speak their minds and be mocked and identified by the public.

Like I've said several times in the thread, it should only be based on things someone is born with and can't change. Thankfully both race and sexual orientation fit that category!

Well, that is more consistent than the people (not necessarily here) that think that hate speech can't be expressed towards straight, white people if the person making the hate speech happens to be a member of a minority group. I would also point out Rachel Dolezal and some of her supporters would disagree that race can't be changed. That would certainly make hate speech laws even more complicated.

Finally an interesting article regarding hate speech laws in Australia.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-go...e-more-in-common-with-fascism-than-democracy/

 

[chess-z]

I know that a lot of trans people would object to the claim that they can't change from being men.

Trans person here! I am not, nor have I ever been, a man.

 

[snorlax512]

so how do you explain the holocaust?

because that's literally what actually transpired.

people seem to think that ideas don't harm people but ideas lead to action. there's always an idea before an action. words have power. language is essentially the way a culture thinks and communicates what to value and not value.

i'm not directly advocating for hate speech laws but I do want these 'first amendment' lovers to understand that simply looking at history, words clearly haven't just been ****ing words. they socialize us. that includes slurs. ask any linguist about how language is essentially one of the most important aspects of controlling culture.

It's a bit different isnt it. Genocide is obviously illegal now but at the time the Nazi's not only advocated it, but did it themselves and told the people to do the same. Right now even inciting something of the sort is illegal.



And bobjr, I suppose we should ban people who make speeches about animal rights because it incites ecoterrorism? Or speak out against political parties because it invites politically influenced murders? What about Religion?

Right now, people are allowed to express their opinions. Hate speech is not illegal, but the people who commit the crimes are responsible.

If someone expresses their views in a way that there is a very high chance of encouraging people to commit a crime, that is called inciting violence and is illegal.

 

[GhostAnime]

If someone expresses their views in a way that there is a very high chance of encouraging people to commit a crime, that is called inciting violence and is illegal.

and what do you think nazis are saying? lol you don't think the simple ideology incites violence?

also, you guys have a strange view on what hate speech laws are. i'm just going to quote what this guy said for emphasis:

People in authoritative positions shouldn't use their roles to incite hate and bring people together to take rights away from another group of people.

Plus how do you decide what qualifies as hate speech and when? White vs black, black vs white, gay vs straight? If it's based on minority/majority status, does that change if you live in an area where you aren't a majority person despite the rest of the country being overall a majority of your group?

Understand that majority/minority status isn't about numbers. It's about power. Politically, institutionally.

There isn't a slur against straight people, nor is there a society out there actively oppressing straight people.

White people have most of the institutional power in the United States, so hate speech doesn't affect them the same way it affects people of color; however, that doesn't mean poc can't still violate other norms. It likely just wouldn't fall under hate speech.

Not that there are many spaces of power black people dominate anyway so it's a moot point.

 

[Pikachu52]

Finally an interesting article regarding hate speech laws in Australia.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-go...e-more-in-common-with-fascism-than-democracy/

I'm Australian and I can tell you it's a terrible artcile for several reasons:

1. It fails to detail what the law is and what the legal tests are. The only actual legislative provision cited is 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The article misrepresents how this provision operates by 1) failing to acknowledge that 18C is subject to the good faith exemptions in 18D and 2) fails to discuss any case law interpreting the provision other than Eatock v Bolt.
2. It disingenuously misrepresents the Andrew Bolt case (Eatock v Bolt). The reason Andrew Bolt's articles were found to have breached 18C was because they couldn't make out the exemptions in 18D owing to the fact that Bolt had openly lied about the plaintiffs, mocked their life stories and ridiculed them. Hence it wasn't in good faith.
3. It makes disingenuous and sweeping claims about Australians and Australian political culture with wild claims such as "Australians generally cannot even fathom the idea that one can disapprove of something without seeking to make it illegal." This is conjecture and completely unevidenced
4. It provides no evidence to back it's contentions about the value of allowing openly bigoted speech as a means of exposing it.
5. It uses hyperbole and sensationalism - at one point implying a comparison between Australia and North Korea
6. It's claim that "Free speech is the most basic human right" is not true. The ICCPR does not rank rights generally. Although it does provide certain rights cannot be limted even in times of war or emergency, Freedom of speech is not one of them. In fact the ICCPR contains a very clear provision in 19(3) that provides when states parties can limit public expression. It also provides that states should ban propaganda for war

In short it does what every conservative/libertarian op-ed does on the topic of hate laws. Fails to consider nuances and context, fails to identify how laws operate or are used in practice, falsely conflates hate speech laws with the most extreme examples of authoritarian government, provides uncritical and unexamined arguments about the value of free speech, selectively chooses cases to make that it sees as backing it's point, creates martyrs out of people in positions of privilege and power and fails to consider the lived effects both personal and institutional that open bigotry has on it's subjects.

This article I feel is better:

https://rewire.news/article/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5/

 

[snorlax512]

and what do you think nazis are saying? lol you don't think the simple ideology incites violence?

also, you guys have a strange view on what hate speech laws are. i'm just going to quote what this guy said for emphasis:





Understand that majority/minority status isn't about numbers. It's about power. Politically, institutionally.

There isn't a slur against straight people, nor is there a society out there actively oppressing straight people.

White people have most of the institutional power in the United States, so hate speech doesn't affect them the same way it affects people of color; however, that doesn't mean poc can't still violate other norms. It likely just wouldn't fall under hate speech.

Not that there are many spaces of power black people dominate anyway so it's a moot point.

The nazis weren't just spewing hate speech. They were telling their people to round up Jews and performed the genocide themselves. That is a step above inciting violence, which is already illegal in the us today.

 

[lemoncatpower]

Here are good examples of hate speech laws being used to prosecute people in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

Note the neo-nazi one, I'm from Winnipeg and remember this case in particularly.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-law-on-hate-speech-is-the-embodiment-of-compromise/article22520419/

This link shows how hard it can be to prosecute someone with hate speech.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/if-donald-trump-were-campaigning-in-canada-could-he-be-charged-for-hate-speech

the point is it's not so black and white, there is a large grey area that people don't seem to see.

 

[Pikachu52]

The fact you don't understand it shows me that you don't understand all the ramifications and uselessness of hate speech laws. Did you know that prior to WW2, Germany had hate speech laws comparable to modern day laws in Europe? They even used those laws to jail outspoken Nazis repeatedly. Those vile people used their arrests and courtroom to present themselves as political victims and gain support

This one example doesn't make all Hate Speech laws redundant. A lot of things had to go wrong to see the Weirmar Republic become the Third Rheich - War reparations and public debt, inflation, the Great Depression, unemployment, the willingness of right wing and centrist parties to agree to Hitler's challelorship and the enabling act. It's likely that more "free speech" wouldn't have prevented Hitler's rise. That the Nazi used hate speech convictions to Martyr themselves is probably immaterial given Hitler was using his imprisonment for an attempted coup agaisnt the republic in a similar way.

 

[chess-z]

The nazis weren't just spewing hate speech. They were telling their people to round up Jews and performed the genocide themselves. That is a step above inciting violence, which is already illegal in the us today.

My man, what do you think neo-nazi are advocating for? They started with the rhetoric, got into power, and then rounded up the jews. Please take a look at a timeline of the rise of nazism.

 

[GhostAnime]

The nazis weren't just spewing hate speech. They were telling their people to round up Jews and performed the genocide themselves. That is a step above inciting violence, which is already illegal in the us today.

but how did it *GET* to the point of rounding people up? It started with normalizing the hate speech.

 

[LDSman]

and what do you think nazis are saying? lol you don't think the simple ideology incites violence?

Certainly debatable is simple ideology incites violence. Some people can believe and never hurt a soul and others believe and decide to hurt those that don't believe.

also, you guys have a strange view on what hate speech laws are. i'm just going to quote what this guy said for emphasis:

How is it strange? Research the various hate speech laws overseas and you should see that a large number of places have laws that are worded about expressing hate, insults, derogatory comments against anyone.

Understand that majority/minority status isn't about numbers. It's about power. Politically, institutionally.

Okay, then to rephrase the question. Do the hate laws change if you move from an area where your skin tone has more representation in politics to one where you have less?

There isn't a slur against straight people,

Breeders, cis-het scum are two I've heard.

nor is there a society out there actively oppressing straight people.

You want actual oppression before you consider it hate?

White people have most of the institutional power in the United States, so hate speech doesn't affect them the same way it affects people of color; however, that doesn't mean poc can't still violate other norms. It likely just wouldn't fall under hate speech.

Bull crap. Tell that to the child who has to ask his parent why the other kids hate him and call him "white n***er" and make wild claims about being there to steal their jobs and make them slaves.

Not that there are many spaces of power black people dominate anyway so it's a moot point.

So you want a set of laws that would really only be enforced against white people?

The nazis weren't just spewing hate speech. They were telling their people to round up Jews and performed the genocide themselves. That is a step above inciting violence, which is already illegal in the us today.

And the nazis are vastly outnumbered in the US. They would not succeed today.

 

[GhostAnime]

I can't continue any discussion with you if you don't understand how institutionalized and systematic oppression works and sincerely think whites can be oppressed... or that cis-het 'scum' is a slur lmao

 

[chess-z]

"Breeders" lmao.

Before we go any further, the alt-right are neo-nazis seeking political power, and the president is sympathetic to them. That's how nazism gets power.

I mean, it's not like any hate speech laws are getting passed in the US until Trump leaves office or the Republicans no longer hold a majority, so most of this stuff in the states is hypothetical.

 

[bobjr]

It should be noted that Hitler himself said resistance could have beaten him if they did at the start, and it was people being passive and accepting it that got things where they were.

Seriously, read any Jewish refugee's writing from the time where they talked about how people just ignored people being taken out of their homes and pretended it didn't happen, because it wasn't a threat to them yet.

MLK even wrote about the same thing, how "white moderates" were some of the most annoying people because they were all for civil rights if you talked to them about it but did not other action, and would take the "Well both sides have a point/are wrong in some way" line.


" I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
-- Martin Luther King Jr

 

[LDSman]

I can't continue any discussion with you

Your choice.

if you don't understand how institutionalized and systematic oppression works

Oh, I understand how people claim it works. I don't necessarily agree with all the aspects of it. I think that is a completely different topic than if the US should have hate speech laws and if said laws are constitutional.

and sincerely think whites can be oppressed... or that cis-het 'scum' is a slur lmao

I don't see where I said white people can or can't be oppressed? Calling someone a "cis-het scum" certainly isn't intended as a nice thing. Swap out cis-het for some other word indicating a minority and see how upset people get.

"Breeders" lmao.

Hmm, yes, coming up with new terms to label people based on biology is funny. Amusing to you, meant as an insult by others. Granted, not many but people will find a way to put down others.

Before we go any further,

Seems like a different topic.

I mean, it's not like any hate speech laws are getting passed in the US until Trump leaves office or the Republicans no longer hold a majority, so most of this stuff in the states is hypothetical.

Even democrats would have a very difficult time getting hate speech laws passed what with the First Amendment being about free speech and all the court cases that support the right to free speech even if it was offensive to someone. And isn't most debate on here hypothetical? Not like any of us are policy makers.

It should be noted that Hitler himself said resistance could have beaten him if they did at the start, and it was people being passive and accepting it that got things where they were.

A brief perusal of the internet shows an interesting thing. That the quote is often used in an incomplete manner.

https://zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/
(if you have a better source, I'd like to see it.)

As often shared

“Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.

Complete quote

Only one danger could have jeopardised this development – if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

Seems Hitler thought that the group would have failed if people had simply ignored them. Edit: Even then, the quote would indicate that people would have needed to murder all the people involved in a brutal manner. What kind of government gets away with brutally murdering its citizens based on what they might do? end edit


So it could indeed be argued that using Hate Speech laws to repeatedly jail nazis only served to strengthen their resolve. It made them martyrs and gave them a chance to reach even more people.

Seriously, read any Jewish refugee's writing from the time where they talked about how people just ignored people being taken out of their homes and pretended it didn't happen, because it wasn't a threat to them yet.

Yep. Started happening after the nazis won power over the government. It serves as a fine example to all the armed citizens of the US about why you don't allow the gov't to take weapons away or to start deporting legal citizens because eventually they come for you.

I would also point out that a tactic of Hitler and his people was assaulting people that didn't agree with them. There's a quote about not becoming what you fight against. Don't feel like googling it.

MLK even wrote about the same thing, how "white moderates" were some of the most annoying people because they were all for civil rights if you talked to them about it but did not other action, and would take the "Well both sides have a point/are wrong in some way" line.

Nice quote. I don't agree that MLK was advocating for hate speech laws or, since he was a big proponent of non-violent protest, that he'd support punching offensive racists in the mouth. I see that quote as more of reference to the people saying "don't rock the boat and give it time" and how stupid and useless that is. I'm not saying that. Rock the boat all you want. Confront racists and bigots. Disagree with them and show other people how wrong those idiots are verbally. Expose them like the WBC group. I don't know of anyone who admires them.

Don't expect violence or jail time to change minds.


So as a final question, is there any evidence that hate speech laws prevent or lower hate crimes? I can show where hate speech laws don't stop racists IE Germany in the 1930s. Are there places where hate speech laws were enacted that have had those crimes decrease?

 

[GhostAnime]

since he was a big proponent of non-violent protest, that he'd support punching offensive racists in the mouth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ghts-movement-did-too/?utm_term=.d38931bc0035

 

[bobjr]

Seems Hitler thought that the group would have failed if people had simply ignored them. Edit: Even then, the quote would indicate that people would have needed to murder all the people involved in a brutal manner. What kind of government gets away with brutally murdering its citizens based on what they might do?

If you ignore a problem it doesn't go away, that's what the Nazi's wanted, and how they succeeded. But I'm talking less about government brutally murdering it's citizens and more the citizens standing up for human rights.

So it could indeed be argued that using Hate Speech laws to repeatedly jail nazis only served to strengthen their resolve. It made them martyrs and gave them a chance to reach even more people.

I mean I prefer the German method of just beating the shit out of Nazi's in the street, but I'll admit I have some bias there.

Yep. Started happening after the nazis won power over the government. It serves as a fine example to all the armed citizens of the US about why you don't allow the gov't to take weapons away or to start deporting legal citizens because eventually they come for you.

And that acceptance got them into power in the first place. You keep going on about the government when I'm talking about hate groups vs those who are against them. Also the dumb "Our guns!" argument is BS because any civilian uprising finds its way into weapons.

I would also point out that a tactic of Hitler and his people was assaulting people that didn't agree with them. There's a quote about not becoming what you fight against. Don't feel like googling it.

"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them"
-- Assata Shakur

It's almost like the hate group in power abused it. Like the concept doesn't work as much when it's a hate group making the rules.

Nice quote. I don't agree that MLK was advocating for hate speech laws or, since he was a big proponent of non-violent protest, that he'd support punching offensive racists in the mouth. I see that quote as more of reference to the people saying "don't rock the boat and give it time" and how stupid and useless that is. I'm not saying that. Rock the boat all you want. Confront racists and bigots. Disagree with them and show other people how wrong those idiots are verbally. Expose them like the WBC group. I don't know of anyone who admires them.

Don't expect violence or jail time to change minds.

The Civil Rights movement has been whitewashed in a way to make current minority rights groups look worse. They try and make it look like MLK and the other leaders were nothing but passive in a peaceful way and the opposition were misguided people who were shown the light, when in actually civil rights fighters gave blood sweat and tears and were sometimes killed, and they didn't take it lying down. Like GhostAnime posted, they weren't much different from BLM today.

Only about 1/4th of white people thought what MLK was doing was right, and a majority thought he was too violent and aggressive in his ways.

So as a final question, is there any evidence that hate speech laws prevent or lower hate crimes? I can show where hate speech laws don't stop racists IE Germany in the 1930s. Are there places where hate speech laws were enacted that have had those crimes decrease?

Well since Brexit hate crimes in the UK have risen, and I'm sure the US will see a rise. It's almost like I would rather have the rights of those who don't have them protected rather than hold onto outdated concepts.

Also Germany was also a completely different time period and social situation, where a group decided to become a hate group and then make the rules. Of course when Nazi's are in power I'm sure their concept of hate speech laws are going to be messed up.

Like this is more about what these hate groups are saying more than anything. It's the content itself that matters.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3ExMYQVMAENcqY.jpg

This sums it up.

 

[snorlax512]

Ironically there were hate speech laws in the Weimar democracy. Nazis were arrested, and they just use their trial platforms as political stages to further their ideology and label themselves as martyrs. That didn't stop their rise to power.

Hate crimes are done because people are bigots, because of prejudice. If hate speech leads to hate crime, it is usually only reinforcing the preconceived view they already have. What suppression and thought control does is burrow the anger underground and let it continue to grow, it does not solve the problem.

Not only is it infringing upon the freedom of speech, what banning hate speech does is not solving the problem. What America should do is tackle the root of the problem - which is education. Not supressing people's voices after they already have bigoted views in their heads, because when a lot of people hold these views that they can't express, they get angry, and no speech law can prevent the anger of the public.

 

[Pikachu52]

Ironically there were hate speech laws in the Weimar democracy. Nazis were arrested, and they just use their trial platforms as political stages to further their ideology and label themselves as martyrs. That didn't stop their rise to power.

Hate crimes are done because people are bigots, because of prejudice. If hate speech leads to hate crime, it is usually only reinforcing the preconceived view they already have. What suppression and thought control does is burrow the anger underground and let it continue to grow, it does not solve the problem.

That the Hate Speech laws in the Weimar Republic didn't prevent the rise the Nazi's doesn't make them redundant. By that logic you could say it's useless to have Treason or sedition laws because Turkey had a failed Coup.

The laws don't have to be completely effective in preventing hate speech for them to have a purpose - there is evidence to demonstrate that simply having the laws in place can make vulnerable people feel safer even if they never have the intention of brining a complaint.

Self-Martyrdom when taken to task for breaking a law designed to protect a marginalised group doesn't mean the law is wrong or shouldn't be in place. The view that civil rights protections for marginalised people are an attack on the privileged comes up all the time - It seems to have been a driving force in Donald Trump's campaign.

Not only is it infringing upon the freedom of speech, what banning hate speech does is not solving the problem

The First Amendment except, Freedom of Speech in International Human Rights law and within the internal laws of many democratic nations, freedom of speech isn't necessarily so broad as to exclude hate speech laws. If you look at Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), you see it gives quite a wide latitude to states to limit public expression:

The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Similarly Article 20 directly asks states to prohibit certain forms of hateful expression towards minority groups:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Also have a look at the considerations of the HRC in Ross v Canada, in particular the Commitee's noting that discriminatory speech in particular context can harm the human rights of others:

When assessing whether the restrictions placed on the author's freedom of expression were applied for the purposes recognized by the Covenant, the Committee begins by noting (8) that the rights or reputations of others for the protection of which restrictions may be permitted under article 19, may relate to other persons or to a community as a whole. For instance, and as held in Faurisson v France, restrictions may be permitted on statements which are of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feeling, in order to uphold the Jewish communities' right to be protected from religious hatred. Such restrictions also derive support from the principles reflected in article 20(2) of the Covenant. The Committee notes that both the Board of Inquiry and the Supreme Court found that the author's statements were discriminatory against persons of the Jewish faith and ancestry and that they denigrated the faith and beliefs of Jews and called upon true Christians to not merely question the validity of Jewish beliefs and teachings but to hold those of the Jewish faith and ancestry in contempt as undermining freedom, democracy and Christian beliefs and values. In view of the findings as to the nature and effect of the author's public statements, the Committee concludes that the restrictions imposed on him were for the purpose of protecting the "rights or reputations" of persons of Jewish faith, including the right to have an education in the public school system free from bias, prejudice and intolerance

 

[lemoncatpower]

Ironically there were hate speech laws in the Weimar democracy. Nazis were arrested, and they just use their trial platforms as political stages to further their ideology and label themselves as martyrs. That didn't stop their rise to power.

Hate crimes are done because people are bigots, because of prejudice. If hate speech leads to hate crime, it is usually only reinforcing the preconceived view they already have. What suppression and thought control does is burrow the anger underground and let it continue to grow, it does not solve the problem.

Not only is it infringing upon the freedom of speech, what banning hate speech does is not solving the problem. What America should do is tackle the root of the problem - which is education. Not supressing people's voices after they already have bigoted views in their heads, because when a lot of people hold these views that they can't express, they get angry, and no speech law can prevent the anger of the public.

From what I've read, Most people who commit hate speech are past the education will save them point. They are usually grasping onto really weird ideas, like society is evil and we're the only good ones or other nonsensical ideas likes that. From my experience, when someone says something derogatory, they're confronted up front by whoever is around them and usually they will be educated and the problem doesn't occur too often, but habits happen and people slip. You're allowed to say whatever, you'll just face the consequences if it goes against someone else's right to feel safe and secure in their own country. Not sure why you think that you have an inherited right to say whatever is on your mind (very very very selfish) and that everyone has to listen and accept it without confronting you or reacting to it. Oh how Americans take the 10 amendments WAY too far.