Author
|
Topic: Does the US need anti-hate speech laws? (Read 565 times) |
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
 |
Does the US need anti-hate speech laws?
« on: 2007-08-02 16:00:20 » |
 |
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.
Perhaps I'm just getting to ahead of myself again. So I'll stop.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Does the US need anti-hate speech laws?
« Reply #1 on: 2007-08-02 19:36:28 » |
|
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 (interfered with any church goer's rights recently? There is an American Virian in jail for joking about church goer's) 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."
Hermit
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.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
