ClumsyMonkey.net

by INENT did you mean intent?

Yeah but where do you draw the line! And how do you measure "inent"?

Yes, let's attack typos and not the issue.

Anyways:

hate speech
n.

Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

Wiki:

"Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication."

Yes, let's attack typos and not the issue.

Oh I was only kidding

Okay, I could see those definitions.. But what about free speech?

What about it?

The problem with the second definition is, how would you prosecute people? It's impossible, because they can maintain they were voicing their own opinion.

As for inciting violence, if violence did occur, and was blamed on some hate speech, it doesn't cut it. Its like when people blame videogames for violence, or Mariyn Manson, or Eminem. It doesn't hold up.

Personally, I'm a believer that free speech should have limits. If you're speaking with the direct intent to harm or offend someone, you should shut up or be shut up. No one has the right to attack another person - certainly not on the grounds of an arbitrary "right" to say whatever half-baked idea comes to mind. I'm talking on more univeral moral grounds than law, because obviously it's not feasible to enforce laws against bigoted speech.

I don't quite follow your argument on inciting violence. If hate speech encites violence, it's usually something like

A speaks hatefully against B
B violently attacks A

So, for an example like Eminem, it would have to be something like him speaking hatefully about his wife leading to his wife physically attacking him.

Hate speech is not a reasonable excuse for violence. Then again, I don't think there are many reasonable excuses for violence.

wait a tick, I think I understand what you mean.

If Eminem wrote lyrics with the intention of getting people to go out and kill Jews, that would be hate speech.

Again, not a reasonable excuse to go on a Jew-killing rampage.

Axtech wrote:Personally, I'm a believer that free speech should have limits. If you're speaking with the direct intent to harm or offend someone, you should shut up or be shut up. No one has the right to attack another person - certainly not on the grounds of an arbitrary "right" to say whatever half-baked idea comes to mind. I'm talking on more univeral moral grounds than law, because obviously it's not feasible to enforce laws against bigoted speech.

Have you ever heard of the Jim Keegstra case? R v Keegstra was a case where a history teacher in highschool taught his students that the holocaust never happened and forced antisematic views upon his students. If they disagreed on tests he would mark them wrong. He was then tried for this and used free speech as an excuse to do so. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the Charter did not sanction his hate speech, and in this case free speech had to be limited. It then defined what hate speech was.

Robbo, I understand what you mean, and although I am unsure as to whether I agree with you or not(I am undecided on the issue), it is irrelevant. It is nearly impossible to prosecute hate speeches/hate literature under the law, because it is such a subjective gray area. Having a definition doesn't do anything to help, really, because there are such expansive loopholes.

That is why there is case law otherwise known as common law. These cases set precedent for other similar cases.

And whenits the first case?

The technical first case was R v Keegstra and precendent was set by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the judge takes into consideration that it will set precedent and make his or her judgement. Of course this can be appealed to a higher court, which will then make precendent, but the Supreme Court is as high as appeals go.

Rusty wrote:

Axtech wrote:Personally, I'm a believer that free speech should have limits. If you're speaking with the direct intent to harm or offend someone, you should shut up or be shut up. No one has the right to attack another person - certainly not on the grounds of an arbitrary "right" to say whatever half-baked idea comes to mind. I'm talking on more univeral moral grounds than law, because obviously it's not feasible to enforce laws against bigoted speech.

Have you ever heard of the Jim Keegstra case? R v Keegstra was a case where a history teacher in highschool taught his students that the holocaust never happened and forced antisematic views upon his students. If they disagreed on tests he would mark them wrong. He was then tried for this and used free speech as an excuse to do so. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the Charter did not sanction his hate speech, and in this case free speech had to be limited. It then defined what hate speech was.

I agree, he should not have been allowed to teach that. And he wasn't.

Exactly.