The points you raised in your lengthy paragraph seem reasonable.

What exactly is 'hate speech'? Is the term used outside of polemical discourse, or is it just a snappy way of repackaging the notion of vilification and threats to harm? I guess this discussion will be viewed by some as a tributary of the "woke" thread. Sounds like Jimmy Kimmel has been identified by the Right as a purveyor of hate speech on the Kirk matter.

Let us take an example:

"Kill all the white people!"

Substitute any group you wish. Suppose a person with influence yells that to their people wanting an answer for their problems.

Is that free speech?

If so then "free speech" is the right to say whatever you want to say even if it results in death.

The recent lynching of a black man in Mississippi is free speech under this definition -- it's only the person who pulled the rope that is guilty of murder. We should be free to sing songs of lynching people.

I've given a few extended and considered replies, referencing various external sources and pointing to various arguments., — Banno

And how! Marvelously done, if I might say so. Surely one can lead a horse to water. That's my point.

See how your reply is about me? — Banno

Well, let's be honest. You do tend to steal the show at times. :smile:

My mere suggestion was in regards to your concern that this website has changed from how it first was when you first began posting. You seemed to have expressed a sentiment, perhaps even a longing or sense of nostalgia of how things have changed. I merely reinforced your legitimate view that it might be negative by saying, yes, perhaps logic and "common sense" has fallen out of favor. Don't you agree with this possibility? At least, it's viability? Somewhat?

Is the term used outside of polemical discourse, or is it just a snappy way of repackaging the notion of vilification and threats to harm? — Tom Storm

That's the conflict, isn't it - it's used "outside of polemical discourse", as the UN example shows, but from the sensitivities expressed by some here, who apparently felt offended or vilified by some uses of the term, as itself an artefact of hate speech.

Now and then, I take comfort in in the fact that the law (at least here in God's Favorite Country) has not (yet?) made the use of "hate speech" a crime. But perhaps because we're sadly and self-righteously inclined to equate the law with morality, there are laws which penalize hate of a social group when it motivates commission of a crime. The combination of this kind of hate with an already defined crime results in something described, ingeniously, as a "hate crime."

The United States elevates free speech in a way not seen in other jurisdictions, perhaps to the point of fetishising it. — Banno

In the Trump era, does it?

I think you have a gone way downhill from the past. And I think the American public discourse and media environment is very ripe to lose all those high minded objectives you say you have and cheriss.

If earlier some "woke agenda" and pressure group made the Corporate America to squeal, then it should not come as a surprise that these people will eagerly throw in the towel when it's the Trump administration is calling for it by making threats.

...you... — ssu

Me?

Not I. I drew attention to the fact that the US is an outlier, in not having legislation criminalising hate speech.

What is its true function?
— Roke

To reduce violence and make ordinary people safer. — unenlightened

You’re saying this is the intended function or the actual function? — Roke

No. I'm saying it's the true function.

Are you deliberately fucking about, or is it just incompetence?

I meant the US. In general.

Sorry, you're from the down under Continent. I forgot. :sad:

Oh, I see. Ok.

You might appreciate this.

You might appreciate this. — Banno

I actually had that in mind.

The whimsical thing is that these talk show hosts (Kimmel, Colbert) don't actually rock the boat in any way. For decades all Republican administrations have gone forward with the normal jabs from the mainstream television talk shows. The liberal bias has been evident, but it has been only a bias as typically any administration gets some roasting from the political comedians. The crude and crass actions that the Trump sycophants take when licking their God-Emperors ass is hilarious and likely to be very counterproductive.

Talking as a Finn who has observed just how Finlandization worked to make people in a democracy to self-censor themselves, this all could be done in a subtle and hidden way that only few would notice it. With these actions it's self evident to all. If the reaction is whatever/meh, how passive are the Americans?

Former U.S. president Barack Obama accused the Trump administration of censorship and hypocrisy following the suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show.

"After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like," in a post Thursday to his account on X.

Well, Downunder is pretty much a client state of the US, so it's no joy for us to watch their democracy fail. And no, the irony of the timing of this thread was not lost on me.

Criminalizing the verbal/written expression of hate IN ITSELF is too much like criminalizing thought or feelings, for me. I'd rather avoid implementing thoughtcrime.

You might appreciate this.

Democracy is at threat when a television show gets cancelled, but when a guy holding a microphone gets publicly assassinated we should refuse to show empathy. Your comments over the past week are a the perfect instantiation of Western political hysteria.

ABC and Disney ended Kimmel because their local affiliates refused to air his inflammatory episode.

I would too.

What I've noticed is that the law is invoked in various circumstances differently. "Free speech for me, but not for thee": anyone who speaks out of turn is punished by some other means by creatively interpreting the law to get rid of them -- or when the law is broken straight up lying to the judge who says "Sounds good to me" because he has to rely upon the police forces' testimony.

When the popo lie together that's where the weather goes.

Which is to say: Thought and feelings are already criminalized. I suppose if you don't say or do anything ever then no -- are you one to hold onto thoughts and feelings "outside" of what you do?

:up:

Defenders of the notion of “hate speech” are also the best defenders of notions like “gender is a social construct”.

Pick a lane.

If something so clear as gender is actually vague and socially constructed, then something so vague as “hate speech” should quickly be recognized as even more vague than gender, so why are we thinking we could define it at all; Or, if you can make “hate speech” a useful term for laws and policies, you should easily be able to at least define “male” and “female” with some measure of objectivity, at least enough for bathrooms and sporting event policies (those should be so simple to the genius who can define “hate speech”). But the defenders of defining “hate speech” laws/enforcement don’t do that.

Utterly incoherent.

Fine if you want to say you can’t define “woman”. But then, you better not define “hate speech” for purposes of making policy, because who should believe anything you say? “Woman” can’t possibly be harder to define than “hate”, or if it is, hate can’t possibly be easy enough to define that we can enforce laws about it.

No self awareness of the in consistencies.

———

If you try to really give the definition and essence of “hate speech” I think you’ll find that it adds nothing to a conversation about political policy.

Hate “speech”, in fact, should be protected by law, not made illegal. (Pam Bondi was wrong.)

Person A murders person B. That’s murder. We have a law against it. Finding hateful motives might help find the murderer, but once you find the murderer, who gives a crap what they hate? Deal with the murder under the law.

The only political issue we should ask about speech is, was it political speech, or was it some thing else? If it is political speech, we all need to protect it, and the government has to stay out of our way. Free political speech is essential to stopping tyranny from taking hold. But if your speech is conspiracy to murder, or inciting immanent violence, or fraud that leads to actual harm, then the government can and should be able to step in a regulate it.

That’s it. Is it speech, or is it some verbal component of some unlawful act.

“Here is the gun I want you to use to murder that guy.” That’s not just speech, and is instead conspiracy to murder. What is the act, and when can/should we regulate acts?

But if the act is giving an opinion on any topic, it’s political speech, and there should be absolutely no governmental limits whatsoever. There can be social limits and private limits, but no governmental limits.

So to be fair, if the FCC or Pam Bondi threatened ABC/Disney’s license in any tangible or specific way in order to silence Jimmy Kimmel, that is a huge problem. That’s tyranny. But if Jimmy Kimmel was privately fired because his private bosses wanted to fire him for their own private corporate policy reasons, that’s called life in the jungle of free people. That’s called the free market of ideas. That’s called living the dream in a free society.

It is the same freedom enjoyed by ABC that allows them give Jimmy a microphone as allows them to take it away from him.

So the problems of all of these people being fired for celebrating Kirk’s death have nothing to do with the issue of free speech. That is about private policy and private employment - not law enforcement, not the first amendment.

How hard is that to understand? Simple consistency, based on the first amendment. Firing Jimmy is as much a freedom protected by the first amendment as was Jimmy’s freedom to talk bullshit about Kirk’s murder.

(And to be fair, if the FCC really did threaten ABC and you don’t like that, where was all of the outrage when so many other governmental interventions in the media occurred? Does anyone think we can find much more threatening statements from many more liberal democratic lawmakers about Fox’s license, about Tucker Carlson’s job, about conservative AM radio? Do you think Pelosi, AOC, Biden (Disinformation Governance Board), and many, many others in progressive government had any opinions about silenced and de-platformed media on the right?)

Hate is a moral issue. Not a political one. We don’t need government playing church and choosing who is hateful and who isn’t for us. We need freedom, to fight (through debate and argument) amongst ourselves about what is hateful and who isn’t.

When a politician “spews hate” they typically do so in some substantive context. Like saying “Donald Trump is a racist pig and must be punched in the face and pulled out of office” - sounds like hate, but who cares about that? The question is “what did Donald do that requires we remove him from office?” We can talk about those things. But the hate behind the word “pig” - who really gives a shit? When I hear “that person is a pig” and I also hear “I have no substantive argument, just my feelings.”

———

“Trump sycophants take when licking their God-Emperors ass..”

Everyone is dug in. We are all so superior to those we disagree with. No one wants to actually debate, or just listen.

Hate is a moral issue. Not a political one. [...] — Fire Ologist

Almost sounds as an advocacy for the separation of morality and politics. As though politics ought to be amoral. Is this in keeping with your sentiments?

As sometimes happens, what is your stance on a cohort of humans A articulating that a cohort of humans B consists of subhumans (which, as far as I can see, implicitly mandates that cohort B ought be treated as such with what would then be proportional rights, or the lack of such)? Of itself it is only speech. And, as with a good portion of speech in general, it intends to influence the mindsets of others.

I don’t know what you are getting at.

We don’t need laws telling us what is good or bad. We need discussions and communities deciding what is good and bad. Then we need to agree on laws that support the good and laws that protect against the bad. But I don’t need a law telling me that “murder is bad”, or a law telling me that “cohort B are subhumans” is punishable hate speech and not just some stupid opinion.

I have no problem hearing out someone else’s stupid arguments and opinions. In fact, I want to protect that as a right.

Of itself it is only speech. And, as with a good portion of speech in general, it intends to influence the mindsets of others. — javra

So what? The fact that speech can influence others and lead to laws is how all good things happen too.

Hate speech is dumb and is for dumb people that I can deal with myself and don’t need the government, but the notion of legally defined hate speech is Orwellian.

we should refuse to show empathy — NOS4A2

I'm told that empathy is now an unpopular term. It's application has become quite selective. The opinion piece cited considered more than Kimmel.

It's good to hear that the white middle class males here can handle themselves and are happy to occasionally be offended. No need to legislate, then.

We need discussions and communities deciding what is good and bad. Then we need to agree on laws that support the good and laws that protect against the bad. — Fire Ologist

This then stipulates that laws should indeed be moral: hence, supporting the good and protecting against the bad. Thereby entailing that morality and politics should entwine..

But I don’t need a law telling me that “murder is bad” — Fire Ologist

How does any law against murder not do exactly that?

If a law was made saying that antagonism toward fascism will be criminalized as terrorism, doesn't this newly made law then precisely express that antagonism toward fascism is bad?

Shouldn't decrying others as subhuman - if we happen to both consider that so doing is bad - be something that is not supported but instead guarded against. No, so decrying is by no means as wrong as is lynching others on account of so considering them as subhuman. But, here is a paradox I'd like you to consider and address:

Tolerance for what is bad (including for the expressions that other humans are subhuman) can only lead to proliferation of what is bad at the expense of the good and its very tolerance, eventually to the extent of obliterating that which is good and resulting in an utterly intolerant society that is replete with bad.

As to the legal aspects of hate speech, I'm no expert at all. Granted. And yes, any word can be perversely manipulated in Orwellian manners. Still, for one example, when someone addresses blacks as ni**ers that should all be lynched (I presume most of us have heard this and worse in our lives in relation to one populace or another) and then complains about the social tyranny of not having the freedom to so express, I can readily understand this expression as hateful speech intending to incite unjust violence against other humans. It is not something I deem to merely be a stupid statement, but something which if tolerated can readily beget the lynching of black folk in the community. And, so, like deceptively yelling "fire" in a crowded theater just so as to start a stampede, I so far find such speech something that is best politically mitigated to some extent. I know you disagree. But hey, we're discussing.

ABC and Disney ended Kimmel because their local affiliates refused to air his inflammatory episode. — NOS4A2

Words? Infammatory? Have you seen the light and converted or something?

So he Kirk upset people, and they don't like it, so he shouldn't be allowed to make further comment...?

I hate you.” (Not hate speech?)

“That girl I made out with at the bar turned out to be a tranny!” (Hate speech?)

The word “hate” is a generally well-functioning word. Intense dislike. It’s your prerogative to intensely dislike people, and to say as much. — Roke

I think that the difference you are pointing to here, is the difference between how we speak to another individual, and how we speak to a group of people. There is a big difference here because it is necessary that we continually have interactions with individuals on a regular basis, daily, while we much more rarely need to address groups.

In our day to day interactions with individuals, our emotions influence us immensely, and often we are inclined to say hateful things to another. Because of this influence of emotion, and passion of the moment, the tolerance level, what is socially acceptable to say to another, is quite high. That is simply because most of us do not have complete control over our emotions, and we cannot punish everyone who loses a little control over one's tongue in the spur of the moment.

On the other hand, when we address groups and types of people, our actions and words are usually well thought out in advance, premeditated, and planned. Emotion does enter into this form of "speech", as this is what constitutes an impassioned orator, but the tolerance level of what is socially acceptable is much stricter due to the fact that the speech is deliberate.

The reason why the tolerance level of acceptability in prepared, deliberate speech, addressing a multitude of people, differs from the tolerance level of acceptability in the spontaneous speech of day to day interactions between individuals, ought to be obvious to you. There is no difference in the meaning of "hate" here, just a difference in the social acceptability of different types of demonstrations of hate.

It’s your prerogative to intensely dislike people, and to say as much. — Roke

The pivotal point being the ambiguity in "dislike people". To dislike a person, and to tell them this, is socially acceptable. To do this to multiple "people" is also in principle ok, though it may indicate that you have a problem, and you are not actually ok. To dislike people, and tell them this, is definitely not ok.

My reference was to @NOS4A2 claim elsewhere that anyone could say anything because it was just words. Thus becoming inflamed at someone's words is entirely voluntary and should not lead to censure let alone censorship.

Not my own position. But my position in general is that the right to free speech is not the same as the right to free broadcast or publication. We appear here, or not, at the whim of the site owner and the running dogs he allows to control his territory. That's the constitutional position, and if folks want to change the constitution, or change the site owner, they have some work to do that won't be done by posting on this site - if you see what I mean.

laws should indeed be moral — javra

Yes of course. To promote good and prevent or redress badness. But we look to the government to tell us what the law is, not what morality is.

good to hear that the white middle class males — Banno

Wait, should “good to hear” and “white middle class males” even be allowed in the same sentence? Sounds like a hate-filled dog-whistle. :joke: Do we need a law to ban such obviously hateful juxtapositions in our thinking?

Or should no law abridge free speech?

liberal bias has been evident, but it has been only a bias as typically any administration gets some roasting from the political comedians. — ssu

“Some” roasting? Demonstrably, stupendously false. Biden wasn’t roasted until the democrats rammed Kamala Harris down everyone’s throats. Liberals are shocked to hear right wing ideas because they hear them so infrequently in the media. Main stream media is normally a safe space. Like the university classroom.

To a liberal, a simple right wing idea is hate speech. “Deport illegal immigrants.” That’s hate. Even though it was the policy of Obama and Biden. Trump’s somehow just different.

Ridiculous. Inconsistent. Incoherent.

The truth of the deep leftward bias of all legacy and main stream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Wash. Post, CNN, all things Hollywood) is the fulcrum behind Trump’s continued success and appeal - since 2016.

Libs refuse to see it. It’s a total blind spot. It’s why dems will continue losing outside of the areas where Al of their sheep flock.

The current legacy news media death rattle is due to their own inability to self-reflect honestly. They pander to half of the population. They are so biased. The right remains a sleeping underground of our culture. Even with Trump in office. It’s been stomped underground by the media for 30 plus years.

It’s still hateful to be republican. At least according to the media. And to expert libs.

And libs are so scared because of all the media bogeymen - instead of just talking to a right winger, like Kirk. Instead of talking to him, people are happy to celebrate his death.

The democrats have lost on substance with regard to immigration and the border, the economy, foreign policy, Ukraine, patriotism. The dems have no policies that address anything that matters to the country. And they are (currently, probably temporarily) losing the tactical advantage of being able to rely on the media to uncritically telegraph and parrot their agenda. It’s not because the media is moving right, but because the media is losing credibility. It’s because Jimmy Kimmel squandered his position. The media doesn’t know how to be fair about anything - they aren’t used to it. If they wanted to be fair they would have to fire half of their people, because everyone is a progressive. Absolute echo chamber.

Before Colbert and Kimmel (who aren’t making very much money, which affects the answer to the question: “are they worth all the grief?”), Roseanne Barr, was fired for saying some ignorant crap about the Obama administration and for sounding like a racist. Who gave a shit about democracy then? Who celebrated then? Was that so different? Was it any different? It was even ABC.

happy to occasionally be offended. — Banno

Offense is so done as a motivator for political action.

“Hate speech” is a joke, right? It’s not a law in the US because we all love to spew hate speech, right? From all sides. We love to offend. Almost as much as we cherish taking offense.

Offense is like pure gold for the left. No one ever cares how anyone else feels, but here is how I feel, and the more offended I am, the more interesting my instagram account will be.

Like adolescents. “You just don’t understand how much it hurts me….” And “this time it’s different.”

It’s no different. If Trump is limiting free speech, that is gravely bad. But what is so new to you libs? You who didn’t care about Biden’s Orwellian “Disinformation Governance Board”?

Government should stay out of all of it. Media should consistently and fairly report the facts. But they never did. Because libs give the government too much power, too many passes, and do not hold the media accountable at all.

Total irresponsibility.

so he shouldn't be allowed to make further comment...? — Banno

Kimmel hasn’t been arrested and thrown in jail. He was fired for being a highly paid ABC employee and talking shit too many times to too many members of ABC’s audience. He is going to make a ton of further comment. He is going to make a ton of money. He is an absolute rock star for the left now. Unless he begs for his job back. Because he is free to do that too.

If you are worried that the people are not being “allowed” to comment, were you concerned about speech when Kirk was shot? Oh that’s right, you reminded everyone Kirk supported the freedom to own guns.

Are you saying everyone needs to own a microphone and have a TV show?

Or should Twitter not be allowed to suspend Donald Trump’s twitter account? Are you saying that?

Zero coherence. Zero rigor in the analysis.

Shooting Kirk is just bad. For all of us. For all politics. For all cultures. It’s an easy topic. The left won’t look directly at the world they have created.

Are you saying everyone needs to own a microphone and have a TV show? — Fire Ologist

I mean, shoot. You basically need a phone to have a job, to basically even exist these days. $0 down for the latest iPhone, last I checked. Just pop open your Camera, start talking about whatever, and put it on YouTube or TikTok. Before you know it, you're an "influencer." You are the TV show.

There are many people who are highly influential in shaping minds young and old alike who have never appeared on a syndicated cable television network.

To the point, everyone already does have these things. Just not quite the same audience, of course.

The left won’t look directly at the world they have created. — Fire Ologist

People have been offending and taking offense since even before the beginning of language. Let alone any form of government or political aversions. They have also been killing just as long.

Are you suggesting the assassin of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand let alone believe his own opinions and was simply pseudo or "de-facto" brainwashed by groupthink and mob mentality? I.E. A sort of "all my friends think this so I do too" kind of mindset that absorbed any other sort of free will or opinion?

Are you suggesting the assassin of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand — Outlander

No. I’m talking about people and the media not understanding how bad it is to see a guy shot for having a discussion. Probably not something to treat callously. The same people who think firing Jimmy Kimmel is a travesty of justice and fills them with fear for democracy.

If the dictator of "The Democratic Nation of Grôôôh" declares that those with red hair are evil and must be dealt with, then that's hate speech.

Should someone say that Trump is a reprehensible criminal and must be sentenced, then that's not hate speech.

Then there are the in-betweens, special cases, maybes, perhaps depending on context, that seemingly require a case-by-case assessment. A discussion could take some of these up.

Is it possible to come up with one concise definition of hate speech, covering all, that we can go by? I doubt it (but maybe that's just me). For starters, (I think) the moral aspect requires assessment anyway. Largely, lying won't get you jail time (evidently), similarly for insults. We'd have to go by the spirit of a definition (versus freedom of expression), with the usual elements of harm, discrimination, incitement of violence, motives, dignity, ... Abuse of hate speech law is a real possibility. No easy general solution.