No. “Hate speech” is an intentionally broad term designed to be abused and weaponized against unpopular speech.
A better approach would be more specific. No racist speech. No homophobic speech. No misogynistic speech. Etc. Leaving it open ended and subjective is setting up for failure.
No they don’t. The argument is that good actors get overly punished for doing things that shouldn’t be illegal yet are. You’re not even being logically consistent in your arguments.
They absolutely do. One of the best ways to get a community banned on these platforms is to get the rules as ambiguous as you can, and then flood the community with bots breaking the rules.
At the societal level with hate speech laws you can’t use bots though. You’re going to have to waste the courts time by wasting real people’s time dragging them in front of judges for protest actions. Eventually the courts will just make it a fine that police can quickly issue.
Sure you can. These bots are called “lawyers.” Zionists and Scientologists being extreme examples of abusing the courts and ambiguous laws to produce similar results.
Every single western country outside of America has hate speech laws without issue.
A) they are not that open ended and subjective
B) the idea that laws can’t be open ended, subjective, or governed through intent and spirit of the law, is only the case in the dumbass American legal system that has been intentionally ruined by simple minded Republicans, which insist on every edge case being explicitly covered by a law or legislation because they know that makes it impossible to effectively write laws or govern.
Those would not be considered hate speech laws in other countries, just normal no-uttering-threats laws. Hate Speech laws typically protect against inciting hatred or violence against an identifiable group, actually uttering threats is typically a different broader law.
The UK is the weird outlier but there is still a defense of truth in the UK. The difference is that the person accusing you of defamation doesn’t have to prove that you’re wrong and you do have to prove that you’re right.
Love the timing making it so easy to disprove your argument. Just look at the flood of European countries abusing broad and ambiguous hate speech laws to crush dissent and crack down on criticism of Israel.
These are mostly incidents of people publicly expressing support for Hamas, and being arrested for expressing support for a designated terrorist organization, and pretty much all confined to the UK, which has some of the weakest individual protections in the EU / western world.
They also don’t have Nazi parades down their streets in 2024.
No. “Hate speech” is an intentionally broad term designed to be abused and weaponized against unpopular speech.
Ur absolutly right.
A better approach would be more specific. No racist speech. No homophobic speech. No misogynistic speech. Etc. Leaving it open ended and subjective is setting up for failure.
Unfortunatly that can be abused just as easily and an overly broad term.
Thus i would personaly draw the line at preventing speach that calls for or incites actionable physical violence.
No. “Hate speech” is an intentionally broad term designed to be abused and weaponized against unpopular speech.
A better approach would be more specific. No racist speech. No homophobic speech. No misogynistic speech. Etc. Leaving it open ended and subjective is setting up for failure.
Having a specific list always misses something, and bad actors will find ways to abuse the gaps in that list.
Bad actors also abuse the rules when they’re too broad.
No they don’t. The argument is that good actors get overly punished for doing things that shouldn’t be illegal yet are. You’re not even being logically consistent in your arguments.
They absolutely do. One of the best ways to get a community banned on these platforms is to get the rules as ambiguous as you can, and then flood the community with bots breaking the rules.
It’s Twitter, there are no communities, what are you talking about?
Speaking broadly about social media.
At the societal level with hate speech laws you can’t use bots though. You’re going to have to waste the courts time by wasting real people’s time dragging them in front of judges for protest actions. Eventually the courts will just make it a fine that police can quickly issue.
Sure you can. These bots are called “lawyers.” Zionists and Scientologists being extreme examples of abusing the courts and ambiguous laws to produce similar results.
Completely and utterly false.
Every single western country outside of America has hate speech laws without issue.
A) they are not that open ended and subjective
B) the idea that laws can’t be open ended, subjective, or governed through intent and spirit of the law, is only the case in the dumbass American legal system that has been intentionally ruined by simple minded Republicans, which insist on every edge case being explicitly covered by a law or legislation because they know that makes it impossible to effectively write laws or govern.
So does the US. Just not for ordinary people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officials_of_the_United_States
Those would not be considered hate speech laws in other countries, just normal no-uttering-threats laws. Hate Speech laws typically protect against inciting hatred or violence against an identifiable group, actually uttering threats is typically a different broader law.
You get crazy things in other countries though, like truth not being a defense for libel\slander.
In which countries is that the case?
UK is the notable one.
The UK is the weird outlier but there is still a defense of truth in the UK. The difference is that the person accusing you of defamation doesn’t have to prove that you’re wrong and you do have to prove that you’re right.
Love the timing making it so easy to disprove your argument. Just look at the flood of European countries abusing broad and ambiguous hate speech laws to crush dissent and crack down on criticism of Israel.
You’re talking about the one instance of Germany ruling that a single controversial slogan was hate speech?
LoL. One instance?!
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-new-laws-police-palestine-protests-would-damage-free-speech-watchdog-warns
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/eu-pledges-help-israel-suppress-criticism
https://truthout.org/articles/jewish-anti-zionist-activist-describes-his-arrest-under-uks-anti-terror-law/
https://www.newarab.com/news/uk-israeli-academic-arrested-after-speech-gaza-protest
These are mostly incidents of people publicly expressing support for Hamas, and being arrested for expressing support for a designated terrorist organization, and pretty much all confined to the UK, which has some of the weakest individual protections in the EU / western world.
They also don’t have Nazi parades down their streets in 2024.
Ahh. You’re a hasbara bot.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-far-right-britain-lawyer-keir-starmer-violence-liverpool-muslims-cardiff/
Ah, you’re so terminally online that you brand anyone who mildly disagrees with you a ‘bot’.
Tho fair point about the EDL.
No, not at all.
Ur absolutly right.
Unfortunatly that can be abused just as easily and an overly broad term.
Thus i would personaly draw the line at preventing speach that calls for or incites actionable physical violence.
Makes sense to me.