Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

The idea of hate crimes seems really screwed up. If somebody bashes somebody else's head in without justification or mitigation, then that person is scum and should be dealt with like scum, period. If it turns out that he did it because he hated the person's race, gender, or religion, should that really make any difference legally? He did what he did for an evil reason. Charging for hate beyond that point is charging for what amounts to a thought crime.

If I got attacked by some freak, I would be more offended if I found out that he did it just because he felt like attacking somebody than I would be if I found out he did it because I'm white. As stupid as that reason is, at least he had something to go on in thinking he was right for doing it. A person who can attack an innocent person without hating him is more cold blooded than a person who has to hate his victim.

Except that a person who specifically targets certain groups is more likely to gain followers and cause copycat or reprisal attacks. Hate crimes are crimes against society rather than individuals.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that a person who specifically targets certain groups is more likely to gain followers and cause copycat or reprisal attacks. Hate crimes are crimes against society rather than individuals.

What does the law change about that? Does it somehow make them less hateful?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What does the law change about that? Does it somehow make them less hateful?

I know that in Canadian law, if it can be proven that a crime was motivated by hate towards a group, it gives the judge justification for imposing a harsher penalty (up to the maximum allowable). It's not that simple though, there's a bunch of other factors to be taken into account.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I know that in Canadian law, if it can be proven that a crime was motivated by hate towards a group, it gives the judge justification for imposing a harsher penalty (up to the maximum allowable). It's not that simple though, there's a bunch of other factors to be taken into account.

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

I suppose it doesn't directly, it just stops people from acting on their hate. In any case that would be the first step to making people less hateful.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I suppose it doesn't directly, it just stops people from acting on their hate. In any case that would be the first step to making people less hateful.

The punishments they get for acting out do the trick equally on their own. Throwing in something about a hate factor does nothing.

EDIT: I was just messing around on YouTube, and I came across an Ann Coulter video from 2007. She is a slippery, dodgy, dishonest bitch in the video. It is ridiculous. I despise Chris Matthews, but he doesn't come close to standing out as the bigggest jackass in the clip. Ann Coulter is such a psychopath. I'm sure she majorly increased her book sales because of the segment, though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

Why does murder carry a harsher penalty than jaywalking? Targeting people because of their group affiliation and either attacking them or inciting attacks is a more reprehensible crime than simple assault, and more corrosive to society, hence more harshly punished. Once upon a time in this country (and to this day, in more than a few places), hate crimes were widely viewed as acceptable or even laudable, and carried out with the support of the justice system. Establishing in law that they are unacceptable does indeed get the message across to a few more people that "hate bad," eroding the network of tacit approval behind those who would commit hate crimes.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Why does murder carry a harsher penalty than jaywalking? Targeting people because of their group affiliation and either attacking them or inciting attacks is a more reprehensible crime than simple assault, and more corrosive to society, hence more harshly punished. Once upon a time in this country (and to this day, in more than a few places), hate crimes were widely viewed as acceptable or even laudable, and carried out with the support of the justice system. Establishing in law that they are unacceptable does indeed get the message across to a few more people that "hate bad," eroding the network of tacit approval behind those who would commit hate crimes.

Murder carries a harsher penalty because there is more of a need to deter it. You can't deter hate. It is not an action. It is an feeling. You can't successfully legislate and deter feelings. It only makes sense to legislate actions. Sending a message of "Hate... bad" does not make anybody less hateful.

Also...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The idea of hate crimes seems really screwed up. If somebody bashes somebody else's head in without justification or mitigation, then that person is scum and should be dealt with like scum, period. If it turns out that he did it because he hated the person's race, gender, or religion, should that really make any difference legally? He did what he did for an evil reason. Charging for hate beyond that point is charging for what amounts to a thought crime.

If I got attacked by some freak, I would be more offended if I found out that he did it just because he felt like attacking somebody than I would be if I found out he did it because I'm white. As stupid as that reason is, at least he had something to go on in thinking he was right for doing it. A person who can attack an innocent person without hating him is more cold blooded than a person who has to hate his victim.

Let's say you got shot and are lying on your death bed about to die in five minutes. Would you rather it be the case that you are about to die because you are a Democrat or because some asshole just felt like shooting somebody for the fun of it? Which involves a lower regard for human life?

I'm pretty sure nobody would care why they were shot, the fact that they were dying would surely be enough, regardless of the reason.

Hate crimes don't occur in a vacuum where the offender's views and actions are fixed from birth. Law can influence attitudes--it can't forcefully alter them to a desired state, but attaching the stigma of criminality to a behavior certainly changes how people perceive it. Maybe you can't deter hate in someone who currently has their mind set on dragging a <epithet> behind their truck, but you might have a shot at the six or twelve year old who sees that guy on the news, or a sixty-five year old who recognizes the stigma and opts not to make the statements that reinforce the worldview behind the sense of self-righteousness that lead the hater to strap someone to his truck.

Laws against hate crime don't just deter hate crime, they stigmatize and thereby reduce the societal attitudes that promote hate crime.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I'm pretty sure nobody would care why they were shot, the fact that they were dying would surely be enough, regardless of the reason.

Knowledge of your own death due to an attack does not make your anger over the attack go away. It increases it. You would be thinking really hard about why you are about to die if you were in that situation.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hate crimes don't occur in a vacuum where the offender's views and actions are fixed from birth. Law can influence attitudes--it can't forcefully alter them to a desired state, but attaching the stigma of criminality to a behavior certainly changes how people perceive it. Maybe you can't deter hate in someone who currently has their mind set on dragging a <epithet> behind their truck, but you might have a shot at the six or twelve year old who sees that guy on the news, or a sixty-five year old who recognizes the stigma and opts not to make the statements that reinforce the worldview behind the sense of self-righteousness that lead the hater to strap someone to his truck.

Laws against hate crime don't just deter hate crime, they stigmatize and thereby reduce the societal attitudes that promote hate crime.

Teaching that hate is bad does the same thing. Making hate illegal doesn't add a thing. It just makes an emotion illegal, which is absurd.

What is your answer to my question about being shot? Which type of person has less regard for human life?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Teaching that hate is bad does the same thing. Making hate illegal doesn't add a thing. It just makes an emotion illegal, which is absurd.

You're missing the point UM. Hate isn't illegal. The emotion isn't illegal. They can't read your thoughts. It is illegal if you post a video on youtube saying "all <epithet> should die" and then go out and shoot a <epithet>.

Watch it, tommo. I know you were making a point, but you still don't get to use that word, and as you see, the point can be made without it.

As a rule of thumb, most people of any complexion sound like assholes using that word in public, regardless of context.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Watch it, tommo. I know you were making a point, but you still don't get to use that word, and as you see, the point can be made without it.

As a rule of thumb, most people of any complexion sound like assholes using that word in public, regardless of context.

Ahhhh you PC asshole.
Seriously, and I've seen that epithet thing in someone else's post too in the past few days.

I don't "get" to use that word?
What does that even mean?
I can use any word I want. Given no one has fried the language center of my brain.

People saying words don't sound like assholes, people who take away their right to use those words are assholes.

Should we erase the word nigger from the dictionary? No, because it's important that people know their history. Telling people not to say or write it is equivalent to saying none of this widespread racist shit ever happened.

It's kind of hilarious coz we're in a free speech vs hate speech thread and you're oppressing my free speech OF hate speech.

(Well, hate word, not hate speech, I wasn't hating, but it's less pithy if I explain all that.)
It's just hilarious. I mean, we're discussing where the line is between hate speech and free speech and you've just drawn the line, and tainted the discussion.

Also, 'nigger' is not offensive if you're using it as an example. It depends entirely in which context you use it.

Originally Posted by tommo

You're missing the point UM. Hate isn't illegal. The emotion isn't illegal. They can't read your thoughts. It is illegal if you post a video on youtube saying "all nigger should die" and then go out and shoot a nigger.

Yes, hate laws ban hate, though not across the board. Let's say Bob shoots Fernando because Bob likes shooting people. He is a murderer and is dealt with as a murderer. Now let's say Bob shoots Fred in exactly the same way under the same surrounding conditions because likes shooting people AND because he hates Mexicans. You say the latter should be treated as a more serious crime. Right? Well, what is the difference between the two situations? There is only one difference-- hate is involved in the decision. If you think that variable alone should carry a harsher label and penalty, then you support treating hate as a crime when it is accompanied by certain other circumstances. That would make the hate aspect of the situation illegal. It involves the banning of an emotion in certain situations.

I still want somebody to clear up my earlier issue. If person 1 murders because he likes murdering and person 2 murders because he hates homosexuals and thinks they're evil, which person has less regard for human life?

Whatever, tommo. It's a generally offensive term that adds nothing to your point. I say you don't "get to" use it because it seemed very much like you were fishing for an opportunity to "get away with" using the word. It's not necessarily racist behavior, just a racially insensitive variety of adolescent boundary-pushing for boundary-pushing's sake.

You can use that word in private any way you like, whether analytically, congenially, or in outright racism, but this is a public forum, and using it here you're about 99.97% certain to come off as either

1) a racist
2) someone trying to establish license or cred to use the word

While #2 is arguably a mere douchebag, I would call both varieties of asshole.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still want somebody to clear up my earlier issue. If person 1 murders because he likes murdering and person 2 murders because he hates homosexuals and thinks they're evil, which person has less regard for human life?

Your point is obvious, and I agree with it. In the specific scenario you created, person 1 is a probably a sicker human being and has a lower regard for life in general. But these things are not as black and white as that.

In all reality, person 2 would get an increased sentence in a maximum security prision. Person 1 would very likely be able to pull an insanity plea as a sociopath out of his ass, and get sent to the loony bin. Murdering for the sake of murder, or murdering for the sake of hatred. Jesus, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Except its murderers.

Equality for murderers! I'll start making the pickets