Maybe, maybe not. my question to you is, will you be with the crowd who will force the New One WOrld Religion down everyone's throat, and outlaw "sectarian hate speech"? Do you believe in relgious freedom or totalitarian conformity?
[hide]
[edit] Legal aspects
In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot.
Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views.
Where such laws exist they are limited by the constitutional rights to freedom of expression. For example, the German constitution is subtly more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups, and revisionism, as in France under the Gayssot Act, is prohibited under those grounds.
[edit] Speech codes
? This article or section may contain original research or unverifiable claims.ld only be interpreted as a direct personal threat. They also argue that students should be confronted with perspectives they can find repulsive, as it will help strengthen their own arguments and ultimately achieve a more sturdy, well-rounded understanding of the issue.
One organization active in opposing campus speech codes is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE.
[edit] Laws against hate speech
In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.
Some examples:
* In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.
* In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
* In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."[1]
* In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
* In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
* Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
* New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
* France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension. [citation needed]
* Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the Law of Singapore.[citation needed]
* In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[2] In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentinian police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared -- the users have re-created the same sites on American domain. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crackdown these sites, but the FBI denied claiming that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.
* Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[3]
* Finland prohibits hate speech, kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan/hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.[4]
* Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[5]
* Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.[6]
* Serbia - Serbian constitution guaranties freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.[citation needed]
* The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (
www.coe.int/ecri ) which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
[edit] Arguments for laws controlling or prohibiting hate speech
Proponents of limitations on hate speech argue that repeated instances of hate speech do more than express ideas or expresses dissent; rather, hate speech often promotes and results in fear, intimidation and harassment of individuals, and may result in murder and even genocide of those it is targeted against. As such, historical revisionism is thought to be a form of propaganda which, deleting memory of real events, allows them to repeat themselves.
According to Richard Delgado, it is possible to identify hate speech on the use of certain key-words, arguing that "Words such as 'nigger', 'spic', 'kike', 'chink' and 'wop' are badges of degradation even when used between friends: these words have no other connotation." Therefore, the act of calling someone a name should be censored if the name used belongs to a previously-identified hate speech. However, Judith Butler (1997) claims that "this very statement, whether written in his text or cited here, has another connotation; he has just used the word in a significantly different way." (Butler considers that "mentioning" a word is an effective "use" of the word in another context)[7] On this basis, Butler claims that words do not have an absolute meaning, but one that depends on the context. She thus underlines the difficulty of identifying a hate-speech. Ultimately, the state itself defines the limits of acceptable discourse, according to her. However, Butler takes the precaution to explicitly deny being against all forms of limitation of discourse, the object of her book being only to point out the different issues at stake when one address the problem of hate speech and censorship. She points out, for example, that the very act of forbidding hate-speech reconducts this hate-speech, as quoted by juridical authorities, thus leading to a proliferation of this discourse - Butler's reasoning here follows Michel Foucault's statement according to which sexuality has not only been censored during the Victorian era: it was also put in discourse through a "sexuality dispositif", thus transforming "sex" into what the West names "sexuality". In this case, censorship of sexuality has made the discourse of sexuality proliferate, with the constitution of a large amount of scientific or pseudo-scientific literature on "sexuality", conceived as the secret of our own personal identities.
[edit] Arguments against legal restrictions
? This article or section may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
There are a number of arguments suggested against prohibition of hate speech:
* As a form of censorship, prohibiting hate speech would interfere with the right of free expression and free discussion of opinions, as well as with freedom of the press.
* The difficulty of defining "hate speech". A legal definition would need to provide clear guidance to an individual speaker or writer, and to prosecutors, judges and juries involved in the prosecution of "hate speech". Any ambiguity or lack of clarity and specificity in such definitions would necessarily result in arbitrary and unpredictable decisions. Judith Butler thus argues that, in the US, it is jurisprudence which defines "hate speech", and not always in a "progressive" way.
* Specifically, prohibiting "hate speech" would effectively invest government prosecutors with wide discretion to persecute and silence expressions of certain opinions as "hate speech" based on political convenience while ignoring equally "hateful" expressions which have the support of vocal or violent groups.
* Freedom of speech is argued by many writers to be the most basic freedom. The essayist and novelist George Orwell said “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Orwell argues that a society that is too careful not to offend cannot be truthfully expressive, artistic, or diverse. Taking offense to speech is an arbitrary response. To account for every possible way a phrase may be found offensive is not only impossible, but a hindrance to freedom of expression and even thought.
* Hate speech restrictions would be attempts to control not only the relevant speech actions, but the thoughts of individuals, and would thus be an attempt to create a kind of thoughtcrime.
* Even if used, hate speech does not necessarily lead to actions, and that where actions are carried out, the speaker of those words cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Critics of this position hold that position depends on denying what they argue as historical truths (i.e. that hate speech in practice has been used to incite murder and genocide). They also underline that the definition itself of "hate speech" entails a continuing line between words and acts, generally following J.L. Austin's performative concept of speech acts.
* Prohibiting hate speech would do nothing to change the ideas that give rise to the opinions behind the "offensive" terms. On this view, it is agreed that hate speech may be dangerous and should not exist, but suggested that we should not attempt to end it by legislative action, as opposed to debate and discussion. The antirevisionist Nizkor Project follows such a stance.
* In some cases it is held that prohibiting hate speech would be part of a campaign of political correctness intended to censor any expression of certain ideas, even if there is no accompanying incitement to hatred or criminal action. In addition, criminalizing hate speech could lead to a "slippery slope" effect where other groups currently not considered to be "protected minorities" (such as fat people or people from lower socioeconomic classes) could be given protected status and therefore protected from hate speech directed toward them.
* Hate speech would not necessarily lead to racial hatred. Some argue that people's common sense makes them repulsed by hate speech, which should therefore be openly expressed. Justice Brandeis, who endorsed this view, famously wrote, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." This argument may be tied to Habermas's theory of a transparent discourse, where pure rationality leads to a final consensus (i.e. he trusts rationality to crush hate speech). Critics of this position argue that hate speech, such as the Nazis' anti-Semitism, were undisturbed by logical reasoning. Or, as Slavoj Zizek puts it:
"How are we to combat effectively this Id-Evil [reference to Freud's Id and maybe Kant's radical evil] which, on account of its 'elementary' nature, remains impervious to any rational or even purely rhetorical argumentation? That is to say, racism is always grounded in a particular fantasy (of cosa nostra, of our ethnic Thing menaced by 'them', of 'them' who, by means of their excessive enjoyment, pose a threat to our 'way of life') which, by definition, resists universalization. The translation of the racist fantasy into the universal medium of symbolic intersubjectivity (the Habermasien ethics of dialogue) in no way weakens the hold of the racist fantasy upon us."[8]
* Prohibiting hate speech can produce sympathy for its promoters, on the argument "If they are trying so hard to suppress it, there must be something in it".
* Prohibiting hate speech is not always supported by those whom it aims to protect. Especially in the U.S., many hate speech victims have voiced that they would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of "too much" freedom (i.e. total freedom of speech and the possibility of verbal assault that it implies) than to the inconveniences of too much security (i.e. hate speech legislation).
[edit] Differing concepts of what is offensive
? This article or section may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
A central aspect of the hate speech debate is that concepts of what is acceptable and unacceptable differ, depending on eras in history and one's cultural and religious background. For example, personalised criticism of homosexuality (e.g., expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values; to others, however, it is an expression of homophobia and is therefore homophobic hate speech. Prohibition in such cases is seen by some as an interference in their rights to express their beliefs. To others, these expressions generate harmful attitudes that potentially cause discrimination.
Furthermore, words which once "embodied" negative hate speech connotations, such as 'queer' or 'faggot' against homosexuals, 'nigger' against people of African origin and 'bitch' against women, have themselves been "reclaimed" by their respective groups or communities, who attached more positive meanings to the words, so undermining their value to those who wish to use them in a negative sense. Significations differ following the context, as Judith Butler argues.
Concepts of what qualifies as hate speech broadened in the late twentieth century to include certain views expressed from an ideological standpoint. For instance, some feminists consider jokes about women or lesbians to be hate speech. Recently, the Canadian government added sexual orientation to the list of relevant characteristics eligible for protection from hate speech. Not everyone accepts that there is a difference between classic forms of hate speech, which were incitements to hatred or even to physical harm, and the use of language that merely shows disrespect. Some discussions between politically right wing and left wing can be viewed as hateful, even though the language used by both sides is not normally classified as hate speech. However, some argue that such comments demean and undermine the individuals and so should qualify as hate speech.
Attitudes towards controlling hate speech cannot be reliably correlated with the traditional political spectrum. In the United States, there is a general consensus that free speech values take precedence over limiting the harm caused by verbal insult. At the same time, some conservatives believe verbally expressed "discrimination" against religions such as blasphemy, or sometimes "morally incorrect" or "unpatriotic" speech which opposes deep-seated sociocultural or religious mores, and national interest, should be condemned or prohibited, while liberals feel the same way about verbal "discrimination" against identity-related personal characteristics, such as homosexuality and language of someone who happens not to speak English (in the US and Canada when it comes to bilingualism).
[edit] See also
