@Isaac

Looked around a bit, but I can't find the specific example I was looking for. It had something to do with a woman who posted an anti-gay Facebook post or Tweet and ended up being interrogated for several hours by police. There are plenty of other cases around though, e.g.:



Police were reported to be looking into whether a hate crime had been committed here.

In this case:



there was a prosecution and an £800 fine (statute allows for anything between a maximum of 6 months and seven years imprisonment). I'm having trouble finding good uses of the law that would show why it's necessary to be honest.

In Ireland, we have The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. But the first conviction wasn't until 2000, and it was of a bus driver who told a Gambian passenger "You should go back to where you came from". (Ring any bells Trump fans?) Maybe firing him would have been enough.

Sure. So the reason for it, from the perspective of the code and the enforcement by police, wouldn't be anything like a "balance of harms." In your country, is the code written so that the police were exactly following it when they only said that you had to turn off the music by 11 pm? — Terrapin Station

So, as I said yesterday, I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument.

I don't see what the fact that the reason for the code isn't in the actual code has to do with whether it's intent was to balance harms. Very rarely is the reasoning for a law written into the actual law, they're usually sparse. Most of law here in the UK is case law, various judges interpreting the law, in case law they talk about balance of harms all the time, that and proportionality are virtually the foundation of all case law decisions.

Notwithstanding that, to answer your question, it wasn't the police, it was the council, and no the code was not written in such a way, it's not nearly as good as the NYC code you posted. I can't find an online version, but we got a leaflet which said little more than noise mustn't cause a nuisance.

I'm having trouble finding good uses of the law that would show why it's necessary to be honest. — Baden

The trouble is that proportionality does not always get instigated in the first instance, but it is present in the law. We have laws against littering, loud music, recording music from YouTube, cycling on the pavement, not informing the DVLA of a change of address/name, travelling at 41 mph in a 40mph zone... It is not, and never has been, a requirement of legislation that it prevent something which, if un-prevented, would spell the end of civilisation. The important point is proportionality. Teaching a puppy to raise it's paw when you say "Gas the Jews" is not about to bring back the Third Reich, it's just going to offend people whose family members perhaps died in the holocaust, and it might, if allowed to continue, create an environment where Jews feel less comfortable in public if anti-semitic jokes are considered acceptable again. In proportion to that fairly minor consequence (when considering the single part in that his video plays in that wider picture). That's OK though because he was just fined £800, no prison sentence, no community service. It's less than not paying your TV Licence. The other offence was investigated but not even charged.

So proportionate to the harms, these offences make good headlines, but are pretty minor infringements of public order. They also attract pretty minor punishment, if any at all, so that seems entirely appropriate. Are there times when the police get it wrong? yes, I sure there are, but that's the same with any law.

I'm having trouble finding good uses of the law that would show why it's necessary to be honest. — Baden

As mentioned earlier, the case of Anjem Choudary.

It says that he was convicted of terrorism offences, because they were obviously going to nail him for a more severe crime if they could, but it's hate speech.

It’s well worth reading the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary’s sentencing. Despite only finally falling foul of the law after being found to have pledged support to Isis, Holyrode points out that Choudary used his platform to spread his messages of division and violence long before he was arrested. Choudary is said to have “taken every opportunity to address audiences by various means”. He said to Choudary: “You wanted to address a large audience because you know that you were held in high regard by your followers, and that they could therefore be expected to be influenced by what you said.”

“Those who already held views in favour of Isis would no doubt have been encouraged and strengthened in those views by what you said, and that in itself makes your offending serious; but you were also aiming at a wider audience,” the judgment continues.

Choudary’s views, and more importantly his ability to communicate and share them, led to his extremism being propagated. What’s more, we know they contributed to encouraging others to engage in acts of indiscriminate, abhorrent violence. He was linked to one of the men who killed the soldier Lee Rigby, and the London Bridge attacker, Khuram Butt. His words are said to have influenced at least 100 British jihadists. — The Guardian

From here.

And from the same article linked above, with regard to Darren Osbourne, perpetrator of the Finsbury Park mosque terrorist attack:

Police say it took just three or four weeks for Osborne’s extremism to emerge – evidence from devices he used show that he accessed posts by Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others. — The Guardian

And oh, look:

Tommy Robinson banned from Facebook and Instagram over hate speech

Jayda Fransen: Ex-Britain First deputy leader convicted over hate speech

I don't see what the fact that the reason for the code isn't in the actual code has to do with whether it's intent was to balance harms. — Isaac

I never said anything at all about "intent."

What I said was that I would do is no different than the way it works now. The way it works now is what happens when you call the police with complaints about it.

This is why I keep making comments about reading. I'm repeating stuff I've already said a few times above. You don't even know what I'm talking about, though. You think I'm saying something about intent.

I never said anything at all about "intent."

What I said was that I would do is no different than the way it works now. The way it works now is what happens when you call the police with complaints about it. — Terrapin Station

Yes but you can't "do" a "way it works". A "way it works" is a state of affairs, to do is a verb, you "do" actions, or activities, not states of affairs.

I'm not going to respond anymore to these arrogant presumptions that, in cases of misunderstanding, the problem is always with the comprehension skill of the reader and not your terribly poor communication skills.

You two are on a bit of a tangent, anyway. Forget about noise complaints and plaid shirts for just a minute.

The crux of the matter is whether or not you're in favour of the major benefit of preventing terrorist attacks and other serious crimes, at the minor "cost" of not being free to spread condemnable hate speech.

The crow and the vampire are insane enough to be against, and are stubborn enough to ardently resist having the good sense to ever change their minds on the matter, whilst the rest of us do not block out what reason and common sense have to say on the matter, and are therefore in favour.

That's all there is to it. Finito.

The crux of the matter is whether or not you're in favour of the major benefit of preventing terrorist attacks and other serious crimes, at the minor "cost" of not being free to spread condemnable hate speech. — S

I don't think it's so simple. You gotta word that law and then the courts wil interpret it and it will change over time and interpretations will vary. Why doesn't the pro-limitation side come up with a version of the law and we can see what that might lead to.

I don't think it's so simple. You gotta word that law and then the courts wil interpret it and it will change over time and interpretations will vary. Why doesn't the pro-limitation side come up with a version of the law and we can see what that might lead to. — Coben

It doesn't need to be foolproof. It just has to work well enough, which it has done in securing convinctions like that of Jayda Fransen and others. What's the alternative? Have nothing in place because it isn't perfect? And Isaac has cited the definition in full multiple times now.

Oh, sorry. what page is it on?

Page number thirty-find-it-yourself.

I thought you might know where, thanks for the charitable interpretation of my question not request and the sweet message, role modeling future discourse for us all.

It doesn't need to be foolproof. — S

Sure. I believe what I said was it was not so simple. You couched the issue in utterly simplistic binary terms.

What's the alternative? Have nothing in place because it isn't perfect? — S

The alternative is when discussing the issue to not make it all simple and binary.

I found a definition Isaac relayed, I don't know if it the main one. It didn't seem to include discrimination around sexuality or sexism, so perhaps there is a more general one somewhere.

"forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism,discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin"

The courts specifically state " authorities should, in particular, give careful consideration to the suspect's right to freedom of expression given that the imposition of criminal sanctions generally constitutes a serious interference with that freedom. The competent courts should, when imposing criminal sanctions on persons convicted of hate speech offences, ensure strict respect for the principle of proportionality" and, "the standards applied by national authorities for assessing the necessity of restricting freedom of expression must be in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10". Article 10 is the right to freedom of expression.

I would want to see what is considered inciting hatred. With a stress on that verb and also to see how the courts would or would not let the law slide or expand over time before couching the options we have in such simplistic terms you did. I have seen the way, for example, criticism of Israel gets turned into hate speech as anti-semitism and I have seen policies at universities that shut out vast swathes of potential and actual dialogue. I have seen people with economic concerns about immigration labelled racists, including immigrants who had those concerns, and seen them lose jobs. (I am in a European country right now though ex pat american.)

I worked in an organization that had a similar policy, though broader, including gender and sexuality and religion. I was appointed the person to deal with complaints. It certainly did help in some situations, but it became clear that almost everything was open season and I was pressured to censor and censure people who, I felt, were not inciting hatred against groups, but one could interpret the rule to include their speech acts.

Just to be preemtive: just because I say these things does not mean there should be no law. This is all in response to your simplistic version of the options.

Yes but you can't "do" a "way it works". A "way it works" is a state of affairs, to do is a verb, you "do" actions, or activities, not states of affairs. — Isaac

"That way it works" - what actually/practically happens.

But I didn't just write that. I talked about what happens when you call the police about this stuff many times.

States of affairs are dynamic, by the way.

I'm not going to respond anymore to these arrogant presumptions that, in cases of misunderstanding, the problem is always with the comprehension skill of the reader and not your terribly poor communication skills. — Isaac

It doesn't matter how simply I write something. You don't understand it.

The crux of the matter is whether or not you're in favour of the major benefit of preventing terrorist attacks and other serious crimes, at the minor "cost" of not being free to spread condemnable hate speech. — S

I'd try to prevent terrorist attacks in some ways, not in other ways.

For example, if no one were able to congregate in public places, that would go a long way in preventing terrorist attacks. But I'd not prohibit congregating in public places just to avoid terrorist attacks.

I'd not prohibit any speech just to avoid terrorist attacks, either. (Assuming that there were any evidence at all that prohibiting some types of speech avoids terrorist attacks, by the way.)

I thought you might know where, thanks for the charitable interpretation of my question not request and the sweet message, role modeling future discourse for us all. — Coben

You're welcome. :ok:

Sure. I believe what I said was [that] it was not so simple. You couched the issue in utterly simplistic binary terms. — Coben

I put it just fine, and you responded with unconstructive worries. "Ooh, but what if the wording isn't quite right?", "Ooh, but what if someone interprets it all funny like?", "Ooooooh...". :scream:

The alternative is when discussing the issue to not make it all simple and binary. — Coben

Writing laws is best left to professionals, not members of a philosophy forum. There's hardly a better example than if it was down to someone like Terrapin Station.

I would want to see what is considered inciting hatred. — Coben

Then look up the case history. I've already given examples. What more do you want? Here's an idea: why don't you do your own research?

With a stress on that verb and also to see how the courts would or would not let the law slide or expand over time before couching the options we have in such simplistic terms you did. I have seen the way, for example, criticism of Israel gets turned into hate speech as anti-semitism and I have seen policies at universities that shut out vast swathes of potential and actual dialogue. I have seen people with economic concerns about immigration labelled racists, including immigrants who had those concerns, and seen them lose jobs. (I am in a European country right now though ex pat american.)

I worked in an organization that had a similar policy, though broader, including gender and sexuality and religion. I was appointed the person to deal with complaints. It certainly did help in some situations, but it became clear that almost everything was open season and I was pressured to censor and censure people who, I felt, were not inciting hatred against groups, but one could interpret the rule to include their speech acts.

Just to be preemtive: just because I say these things does not mean there should be no law. This is all in response to your simplistic version of the options. — Coben

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, if you're arrogant enough to think that you can do better, then be my guest. But there's no way that I'd trust that responsibility to you over the actual professionals whose job it is to come up with this sort of legislation.

I'd try to prevent terrorist attacks in some ways, not in other ways. — Terrapin Station

Right, so in your world, law enforcement is out of the window with regard to terrorist inspiring hate speech produced by the likes of Anjem Choudary, Tommy Robinson, and Jayda Fransen, so you'd do what exactly? Ask them kindly to stop?

I put it just fine, and you responded with unconstructive worries. "Ooh, but what if the wording isn't quite right?", "Ooh, but what if someone interprets it all funny like?", "Ooooooh...". :scream: — S

Hopefully you'll one day be able to use the quote function so you don't have to make up so much bullshit. I know you find it hard to believe, but application of abstract ideas is part of what makes things less simple then your aggressiveanyone who disagrees with me is an asshole approach to a philosophical discussion. I mentioned some the problems I had experienced with similar laws and rules and what happens over time. But you avoided that. Might have taken a few too many emoticons to make you think you actually made a point or dominated me or whatever your goal is.

Writing laws is best left to professionals, not members of a philosophy forum. — S

Great, when I suggest writing laws, rather than discussing issues related to law, I'll think back to how prescient you were.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, if you're arrogant enough to think that you can do better, then be my guest. But there's no way that I'd trust that responsibility to you over the actual professionals whose job it is to come up with this sort of legislation. — S

And more strawman stuff to get you to posture more. You are precisely the kind of person who probably thinks they are doing noble things, but via all the snarkiness, oversimplification, shifting of focus and irrelevant crap makes any tensions over an issue even worse.

You probably think you are making things better, but you actually just love the hate, keep it all us them and harsh. And the irony is lost on you.

I'll ignore you from here on out.

You've offered no constructive criticism. Could hate speech legislation be improved? Possibly. And the way to go about that would be to get expert advice and then to build a case. A bunch of complete amateurs discussing the matter on a philosophy forum isn't going to achieve anything. You mentioned criticism of Israel being misconstrued as hate speech. And this is based on what exactly? Your personal opinion? We have procedures in place for the reporting of alleged crimes, for law enforcement, for courts, sentencing, appeals. It isn't simply a matter of opinion. Your little anecdotes are worthless, and have no bearing on anything. Get a sense of perspective.

Maybe this one:

Mother arrested in front of her children for calling a trans woman a man on Twitter is charged with trolling

The UK has lost it. How the mighty have fallen.

so you'd do what exactly? — S

Intelligence work seems to be doing the job fairly well.

Intelligence work seems to be doing the job fairly well. — Terrapin Station

Intelligence work failed to prevent the acts of terrorism mentioned in The Guardian article, whereas the enforcement of hate speech law at an earlier stage might have done.

Intelligence work failed to prevent the acts of terrorism mentioned in The Guardian article, whereas the enforcement of hate speech law at an earlier stage might have done. — S

The idea isn't that intelligence work would be infallible.

Again, there's zero evidence that controlling hate speech would have anything to do with controlling terrorism.

Terrorism isn't the primary problem we've had in the U.S. over the past 20-25 years anyway. It's violence related to other crimes (the illegal drug trade, gangs, etc.) and loony locals who want to shoot up folks for all sorts of reasons . . . or no reason at all in some cases.

The US has no hate speech laws and less terrorist incidents than the UK.
The UK has hate speech laws and more terrorist incidents than the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_terrorist_incidents_by_country

The idea isn't that intelligence work would be infallible. — Terrapin Station

I know. The idea is to prevent terrorism, and where intelligence work can and does fail, there are other potential means.

Again, there's zero evidence that controlling hate speech would have anything to do with controlling terrorism. — Terrapin Station

No, there's not zero evidence, there's zero evidence that you're willing to acknowledge as evidence because you're biased.

Terrorism isn't the primary problem we've had in the U.S. over the past 20-25 years anyway. It's violence related to other crimes (the illegal drug trade, gangs, etc.) and loony locals who want to shoot up folks for all sorts of reasons . . . or no reason at all in some cases. — Terrapin Station

Whether that's true or false, it's irrelevant. It doesn't have to be the "primary" problem.

The US has no hate speech laws and less terrorist incidents than the UK.
The UK has hate speech laws and more terrorist incidents than the US. — NOS4A2

And that's not enough of a basis to reasonably draw any relevant conclusion. If we didn't have hate speech laws in the U.K., then we might have had even more terrorist incidents. And if the U.S. had've had hate speech laws, then they might've had even less.

No, there's not zero evidence, there's zero evidence that you're willing to acknowledge as evidence because you're biased. — S

So what evidence is there that having hate speech restrictions controls anything about terrorism?

You can just give me anything academic that even suggests that (as long as it's specifically suggesting that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism.) I won't even comment critically on it. I'm just doubtful there's anything academic that would even suggest this.

Yes, hate speech laws have little if anything to do with terrorism. But censoring someone like Choudary leaves us all ignorant of his extremism.

So what evidence is there that having hate speech restrictions controls anything about terrorism? — Terrapin Station

Do you think that you know better than the judge that presided over the court case of Anjem Choudary?

Yes, hate speech laws have little if anything to do with terrorism. — NOS4A2

What on earth are you saying "yes" to? Are you talking to yourself? Because I said nothing of the sort.

But censoring someone like Choudary leaves us all ignorant of his extremism. — NOS4A2

No, it wouldn't. Think it through. The media publishes news about censored content all the time. We don't need to know the full details of his hate speech to be informed that he committed that crime.