What do you think of hate speech laws?

[lightningandsnow]

I've been pondering this lately, and I can't say I support them.

I live in a country that has them, and one thing I noticed is that they are applied very unevenly. Hate speech against gays and lesbians, people with disabillities, pagans, and women, for example is so much more accepted than hate against certain ethnic and religious groups. Personally, I think they're all equally bad and should be treated as such.

Also, even though I think hate speech is absolutely reprehensible, I don't believe in censorship of speech on a state level, because it's a slippery slope. I think the decisions about this should be left to individuals and corporations - i.e. I think civil suits, corporate boycotts, or an internet service provider deleting a hate site is, of course, fine by me. I'm just not sure that the state should get involved.

When hate arises, I think the best thing to do is fight back - through speech. Let people know how ridiculous and evil their point of view is.

What are your thoughts?

[Jawja]

1. Freedom of Speech.

'nuff said.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

2. I'm against it. They're bigoted douchebags, but as long as they don't

cross the line into harassment, I think that we have to put up with them to preserve our freedoms.

[ivycat]

3. against it as well

when you start criminalizing speech, where does it stop?

[mvccd1000]

4. My mom taught me, "Sticks and stones may break my bones...

...but names will never hurt me."

I'm nearly impossible to offend with words, because they do not affect my paycheck, my relationships with the people I care about, how my food tastes, or how well I sleep at night.

The world would be much more pleasant if people did not go looking for things to offend them (and politicians did not insist on making "offensive" the same as "illegal").

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. The speech most worth defending is bad speech. Also, not all "hate speech" is bad.

There's little point defending the right to be right, because there's little need to. If people don't have the right to say things that are wicked and untrue, then you don't have freedom of speech.

Incitement to criminal behaviour, including violence, should be illegal. Other than that, hate speech should be defended.

I support the right to say "All redheads are miserable sinners who deserve to burn in hell for eternity". I do not support the right to say "Go out and attack redheads", or - crucially - to say "While I of course condemn violence, if people were to go round to Mr Frank Redhead's house, number 17 Park St, with a loose back window, and attack him, I would be able to understand why they were doing so".

Also, if ones provides an accurate portrayal of various religious groups, mainly but not exclusively Islamic groups, one is in some cases coming perilously close to what gets branded "hate speech", without doing anything wrong.

[BoneDaddy]

8. Excellent point

and I think the laws cover inciting violence that way. There is no need to have a "hate speech" division.

[Echo In Light]

6. Freedom of speech has to allow for despised views, otherwise meaningless

And given the totalitarian slope our govt is sliding down, it seems reasonable to weigh the concern of potentially using such laws against political dissidents.

[BoneDaddy]

7. Hate speech depends upon

who you are. If you are part of the establishment and the power base it is inappropriate. If you are not, it is acceptable.

The word and thought police in here practice it all the time.