[Cell]

Many countries already have them.

I remember arguing this with a few people the other day where one person said "No. Your own ignorance in hating is punishment enough."

Which I replied with something alone the lines of - I don't see how this makes sense. Is ignorance punishment enough for skipping school? Then he just got snippy.

But anyway. Why allow free speech if you'll only allow the 'right kinds' of free speech? No country has absolute free speech, however. For example, slander and libel are illegal. But no viewpoint is currently illegal in the United States. If I say that I honestly believe Whites are inherently better than Asians, should I not be allowed to express this opinion? Should it fester under the surface like antisemitism has done in Europe? And in case you're wondering why libel is illegal, its because it's paraded as fact in an attempt to harm someone's character and good name. As Daeres pointed out, saying "Daeres is an idiot" is an opinion, whereas "Daeres has an IQ of 20" purports to be fact.

Saying, "whites are the supreme race" is an opinion. Saying "Condoleeza Rice scored a -500 on her SATs" is a false statement intended to harm someone's character. It doesn't matter how it is written. If I say "Invading Iraq was the right choice." And you say "no, you're wrong." No one's going to pretend I'm guilty of lying. They might say I'm mistaken in my opinion. But there are clear legal and epistemological differences between fabricating information and stating held opinions as fact. But then, segregation did "officially" end with the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's.

Some reasoning:

Hate crime legislation necessitates "thought policing". It's impossible to prove in court, and even if you can, does it really matter if the victim was killed for being black or simply because the defendant was bored?

On the other hand, racial hatred is a lot more harmful to society than a bored person. In other words, there is a chilling effect generated by hate-motivated crimes. The KKK wielded power because it scared people with its hate, not merely because it was killing innocent people. In that respect, it makes sense that the negative effects on society should be considered when a case is sentenced.

Thoughts?

[Jin]

Hate crimes in general make no sense. It's supposed to protect tolerance, but it's hypocritical to support tolerance by promoting the fact that we are different. If someone kills someone, they should by tried for killing a human being; not for killing a white, asian or black man.

On to the freedom of speech part, I'm all for letting people say what they want. That ignorance is their own punishment comment made no sense whatsoever, but neither does limiting what we can say to positive things. I think slander is an idiotic concept as well. It's kind of like treating people as if they were constantly under oath, yet only if they say something negative. It boggles my mind how in a democracy, someone can sue me if I say in public that his business sells cocaine to school children. The same is true for racial slander. I'd think anyone that said they were a superior race has delusions of grandure, but that's their right.

Ah well. C'est la vie.

[Nin`]

The US already has hate speech legislation disguised as other things. For example most prosecutions based on infringement of civil liberties are founded on things alleged to have been said or done by the defendant, or imagined by the prosecutor. After all, for something as woefully inadequately described as "hate speech, " anything can be "proved" to be, or not be a case of "hate speech" as well as ":hate crime" legislation.

The idea that constitutional protections, like "freedom of expression (not just speech), are still meaningful is a very common, strongly held but highly erroneous American delusion. For a few hypothetical examples, if you tried to call for a boycott of products from Israel you could, and if AIPAC hears about it, you probably would, be arrested on Federal felony charges. Shout demanding to speak to a manager in any US Airport and you will be arrested in minutes (and probably roughed up too). Ask why the police are arresting people for demonstrating (The Washington PD just paid over a million dollars to victims of that policy in Washington (They now have better legislation in place specifically banning various forms of hated speech except with a permit) - and you are likely to join the throng. Suggesting that the President should be treated as Mark Twain recommended be done to all the lawyers in Washington and you may need to explain your words to the Secret Service. Read(!) liberal articles, like "Weapons of Mass Distraction" in public, and be threatened by the FBI! The list goes on and on.

The whole silly mess is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding by people with insufficient analytic capacity to figure out that offense cannot be given only taken, and the acquisition or dissemination of knowledge or expression of opinion, does not imply intent. A little comprehension of the theory of information would cause the realization that everything significant, outside of constructed logics, about which something can be expressed, is expressed as a result of an opinion. Some well supported opinions might approach certainty, but that still doesn't prevent them from being opinions. Unfortunately, the simple fact is that an American jury is unable to comprehend this (remember that international testing reflects the lamentable lack of logical and mathematical capability in the products of the US schooling system), probably lacks the verbal and comprehension skills to be taught this even if the court permitted it (unlikely), would tend to resent being taught anything meaningful (more studies), and generally goes with the prosecution (numerous legal studies show this) even if it means swallowing blue whales wearing pink pajamas whole before breakfast in order to do so. So if the US passed even more blatant "hate speech" laws it would result in people who did not share the prejudices of the jury going to jail, and people who did, going free.

And never doubt the ability of the "Good Old Boys" to call an all white jury - or select one - in any case they needed to. Given that this is still a regular feature of murder, rape and other such cases in the South of this sad country, I'm sure it could be easily arranged for mere "hate speech."

Nin`

PS Neither libel nor defamation are illegal. Both may cause harm to another, and if a tort can be proven to a court, damages, actual or punitive, together with costs, may be awarded.

PPS I suspect that Miz Rice would be flattered if somebody imputed her with having more character than a common or garden Electrolux.

[maxpower]

As Nin' states we do already have a form of hate speech legislation that in someway limits our speech. I mean just look at some of the lawsuits that the ACLU has been involved in for just those kinds of cases.

However the problem with any law that encroaches on our freedom of speech is that you have to ask when is it enough? I mean it would be great to have a rule that states that you can't be racist but then can I speak out against illegal immigration if I want to ? And then do we make it illegal to speak out against religions that you disagree with? And if so which ones? Can I state that polygamy is wrong or is it hate speech against Polygamists? Is it my right to disagree with the brothel down the road or do people have the right to sale whatever they want? How about television. Is it hate speech to show the news? Can we show old movies like sound of the south and gone with the wind or books like Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Tom's Cabin be banned? Can I teach my kids that we don't agree with homosexuality or is that going to be illegal?

And then you have to ask who is in charge of deciding these things? Do we trust the government to make these decisions? Do we want the congress to tell us what we can and can't speak about? Do we want to give the government more power? Currently it would seem that most of the things that America won't portray on television (sex and violence) is monitored by public outcry. I myself think that people are mostly smart and will monitor those few that do think outrageous things. However it is all one persons opinion and who has the right to decide that one opinion is wrong while yours is right. I can name many ideas that I think should be considered hate speech but I would much rather let those people that believe them be able to speak out than limit my freedoms and give more power to our government.

[Angantyr]

As somebody who is constantly in political discussions I can see the flaws quite clearly in both banning the freedom of speech and letting anybody say what they want. Rather than banning things people need to be made aware which currently is one sided especially by many which leads to a form of corruption in ones morality leading them to confusion.

The issue of Racism is extremely over blown and believe me... banning racist speech would be the worst thing they can do, why? Because they feed off it! Jews love anti-semitism because it gives them more power, blacks love racism because it gives they use it as a reason to justify their absurd behaviour and blame whitey. The issue lies in the fact that anti-racism and all this bullshit is used as a tool to impose multiculturalism which is destructive to itself blending the differences till every shares the same drone like thought and fuels the basis of capitalism which I know not everybody is keen on. Racism only became an issue as post-war propaganda because Germany the Fascist Nation lost... so up till the cold war there was no critical thought on the purging of millions upon millions who didn't agree with communism. Had Germany won the war it would have been the opposite. The same goes for fascism ignoring half the bullshit stated on wikipedia.

However that's not to say I would like to see us run as a police state with thought control as they have in places like Germany and the like. Actually speaking of which that is when its used in the opposite sense, I had a German come to me the other day on an unmoderated chatroom who came to me in private scared that he'll get thrown in Jail for expressing his views on the Polish people and I didn't even realize "******" was considered a racial slur. On top of that people who did research... yes genuine research into it got thrown in Jail!

It's a sticky one I'll tell you that, banning it leads to a police state which I would not want how ever keeping it legal gives people an excuse to whine and bitch it to they get to leech much as they can. I do not believe real "freedom" exists because of thought control... anybody who comes into power who has any fascist beliefs is automatically going to be slandered by the media to hell and back and persecuted by the idiotic masses. Lose/Lose situation here we have with today's modern fucked up society.