As to the justification for the belief that such randomness exists: There is currently no explanation for why some behaviour on the microscopic scale appears random. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the randomness observed is ontological randomness. — Echarmion

Thats not a valid justification, it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the answer isnt known doesnt mean you get to just insert one, even if its possible or plausible.

This issue doesnt seem as complicated as its being made out to be. The speaker is responsible for what they say, the listener is responsible for what they do in response. Just stop and think about what it would be like if the speaker could be held responsible for the actions of others who hear him. It might not be a problem in a world of some kind of objective interpretation, but we dont live in a world like that. Who knows how someone could take something. You might think its obvious in some cases like Hitler, but that simply isnt going to be the case most of the time. Someone is going to have to be the arbiter and that's not a level of power that im willing to give anyone, and certainly not something I would want enforced by law. Why? Because even if the best, most fair and wise person for the job takes their place at the head of the Department of Ok Speech, having that department as part of the system means someone else can eventually take over who isn't so wise and benevolent and use it for something else, something horrific perhaps. Maybe something like a holocaust. Just. Like. Hitler.
Controlling speech is the first and most powerful move of all the most horrific nightmares of human society. Its not something we should play with just because we dont like hearing racist trash come out of someone's mouth.
You think hate speech is going to spread hate and violence? Think of the KKK in the states. No hate speech laws. There was a time when the KKK was wide spread and powerful, in the south openly gathering in large, powerful groups. Free to spout racist garbage and recruit. Now, they are powerless by comparison. There are way bigger problems nowadays than white nationalism, where as at one time that might have been the biggest one. What happened? Society said “no”, and things changed. The power is in the people, and its the people that decide which direction to go. Its their responsibility, not some asshole full of hate.
Anyway, I obviously made a mistake, it is complicated. Thats the longest post ive made in this forum. That was a dumb thing to say and I retract it. I was wrong.

But people can only blur lines if they were clear beforehand.

Granted, people have always attempted to blur that line, even as far back as Ancient Greece.

I know I'm going to regret this, and I shouldn't let you bait me, but here is the standard work on the causes of hate crime from the Human Right Commission. — Isaac

Scanning through that, I don't actually see any comments on correlations between hate speech and hate crimes. It's obviously about hate crimes, and it mentions hate speech, but I don't see any sort of research into/statistics for actual correlations. Am I just overlooking the relevant section?

Section 2 "causes of hate crimes" discusses external causes. The subsection on family and educational factors list research by Judith Harris on the effect of peer opinions (verbalise).

As I said, I'm not going to hand-hold you through this. Read the paper and links if you're interested.

Here is a more up to date paper focussing on Germany. — Isaac

That actually has some correlation statistics, but I'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many of those people committed some sort of hate crime. (Also, they don't seem to even confirm that the people who committed the hate crimes saw the speech in question, and there's no mention of whether the perpetrators might not have been the same people who posted the speech, even.)

Section 2 "causes of hate crimes" discusses external causes. — Isaac

I looked through that, but I didn't see anything about correlation studies.

I'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many of those people committed some sort of hate crime. — Terrapin Station

This is important, by the way, because if a huge number of people saw the messages but very few of them committed any sort of hate crime, it suggests that the speech/action connection is very low, maybe negligible.

Again, you're merely speculating on the consequences which such censorship as we're discussing here might have. That's fine, but for the fact that you're simultaneously dismissing any similar speculation on the consequences of hate speech as unproven. — Isaac

I don't believe I have dismissed them, I just am pointing out that giving authorities the tools to "protect" us by silencing others has a greater potential for long term harm and casualties than hate speech does..

You asked for evidence, I gave it to you, nothing came of it. You insist correlation is causation, especially concerning your argument, but it's merely speculation on mine, there's nothing I can do here.

No-one is talking about censorship on this scale. You cannot simply rely on 'slippery-slope' arguments absent of any justification for invoking such a thing. You might as well argue that we should have no laws restricting people's actions because how easy it would be for them to lead to draconian laws telling us what we can and cannot do. all laws could lead to more authoritarian versions of the same law. Why are laws prohibiting speech acts any different in this respect from laws prohibiting action? — Isaac

Didn't I point out to the role religion has had in hindering science via censorship? Heresy has parallels with hate speech in this particular case. I could also point to authoritarian regimes in Venezuela and Cuba, which were assisted by censorship of detractors. If you're just going to cherry pick from the stuff I post, and request answers only to ignore them, maybe I'm wasting my time?

Why do you not see censorship of ideas as inherently draconian?

Do you not see censoring as burying the problem? Censoring hate speech may protect people, but without giving them the means to protect themselves, they are only protected within the power scope of authorities.

Nazi leaders embraced, encouraged and recommended hate, using the communications medium of (hate) speech, and violent acts of hate were subsequently enacted. There is a causal connection here. It is not formally causal, nor is the connection always direct, but it is there. This can be verified by empirical examination, using sociological and statistical tools. For we all know that hate speech cannot and does not infallibly lead to violence. It relies on certain aspects of humanity, i.e. the way that we can be provoked beyond endurance. It is easy to argue that we should not act in this way, but that's the "ought", where the "is" is that we do act in this way quite often. Often enough that we need to consider it, which is what we're doing here. — Pattern-chaser

Again, it wasn't just hate speech, it was hate speech made relevant to the sociological factors at play back in that era. And I have to emphasize, it was hate speech that went uncontested i.e. They had control of the narrative. And as they gained power, they could let the compelling power of authority do the rest. Take the Milgram experiment as a reference.

Censoring can lead the ignorant to consider that maybe censorship occurs because hate ideology is irrefutable ergo the truth, which it isn't. Might as well just refute it as often as it takes.

Any and all actions following hate speech, whether violent, hateful, or otherwise, begins with the listener, not the speaker. This is true of any reaction to speech. — NOS4A2

So? That's obvious and beside the point. The fact that it's a reaction to the speech means that the speech had an affect on the listener. And that's a basis for the law being as it is with regards to hate speech.

This is important, by the way, because if a huge number of people saw the messages but very few of them committed any sort of hate crime, it suggests that the speech/action connection is very low, maybe negligible.

That’s why I asked another poster if they themselves were “incited to hatred” by hate speech. The fact that hate speech is particularly reviled among the vast majority of civilized human beings should throw some doubt on the claim.

So? That's obvious and beside the point. The fact that it's a reaction to the speech means that the speech had an affect on the listener.

But the speech had the same effect on the listener as any other sound.

But the speech had the same effect on the listener as any other sound. — NOS4A2

How absurd.

So, let's say that a young man who became engrossed with and joined a far-right anti-Islam group has just been convicted of a hate crime where he committed acts of violence against Muslims, and the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him.

Are you telling me that you'd argue that a video of a cat playing with a ball of string, which was also found on his computer, had the same effect on him? It wouldn't have mattered which video was used as evidence against him in court? They could have used the video of the cat instead?

I’m talking of real effects, as in cause and effect, not the specious “effects” you have in mind. Yes, light and sound have certain effects on the body. In that sense the effects are the same.

I’m talking of real effects, as in cause and effect, not the specious “effects” you have in mind. Yes, light and sound have certain effects on the body. In that sense the effects are the same. — NOS4A2

I'm talking about real effects, too. It'd be daft to suggest that only sensory effects, like light and sound, are real. Hate speech can change one's opinion, how they judge a group of people, what they believe, and that in turn can cause them to commit crimes which they otherwise might not have committed. That's cause and effect. That's shared culpability between the authors of hate speech and the perpetrator of hate crime.

Now it’s on you to explain how one combination of words can move someone differently than another combination of words. But that’s to argue for sorcery, which I believe is impossible.

Now it’s on you to explain how one combination of words can move someone differently than another combination of words. But that’s to argue for sorcery, which I believe is impossible. — NOS4A2

No, it's not sorcery. You're being utterly ridiculous. The speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Hitler literally changed the world, and in significant ways, as did the writings of Karl Marx.

That wouldn't have happened if they had been replaced with Harry, Niall and Liam from One Direction.

Are you telling me that you'd argue that a video of a cat playing with a ball of string, which was also found on his computer, had the same effect on him? It wouldn't have mattered which video was used as evidence against him in court? They could have used the video of the cat instead? — S

What is the video supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

What is the video supposed to be evidence of, exactly? — Terrapin Station

Which video?

Thats not a valid justification, it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the answer isnt known doesnt mean you get to just insert one, even if its possible or plausible. — DingoJones

But it's not inserting an answer. It's taking the experimental result at face value. Supposing there are unknown causal factors at work is inserting an answer.

Which video? — S

Sorry, was referring to this: "the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him."

What would that be evidence of?

'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many of those people committed some sort of hate crime. — Terrapin Station

I looked through that, but I didn't see anything about correlation studies. — Terrapin Station

This is what I wanted to avoid. Of course you don't see anything about correlation studies. There's an entire history of behavioural psychology which is assumed in studies which refer to authorities. If you don't trust those authorities then the only alternative is to re-do all that research history yourself. My background (with regards psychology) is social psychology. I'm not a behavioural psychologist, I'm not a neuroscientist, and I'm not even that up to date with social psychology research. I can't conduct a short course on behavioural psychology.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you will find flaws in whatever research I present. There are flaws in it. If you want to maintain a position in areas where evidence is weak, you can obviously do so. I've no doubt a few minutes Googling will bring you a haul of research supporting your theory.

None of this is the point. The point is that these people are very obviously at least your epistemic peers. If it is possible for them to be wrong but still think they are right, then it follows that it must be equally possible for you to be wrong.

Given that possibility, what do we do as a community about jointly making laws. That is the debate here as I see it.

Sorry, was referring to this: "the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him."

What would that be evidence of? — Terrapin Station

Hate crime, obviously, which is defined as
a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.

This is what I wanted to avoid. Of course you don't see anything about correlation studies. — Isaac

:confused: okay, but that's what I was asking for.

Hate crime, obviously, which is defined as
a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds. — S

I'd never consider a video like that to count as evidence of motivation, but at any rate, I'd not classify anything as a "hate crime" in the first place.

No, it's not sorcery. You're being utterly ridiculous. The speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Hitler literally changed the world, and in significant ways, as did the writings of Karl Marx.

That wouldn't have happened if they had been replaced with Harry, Niall and Liam from One Direction.

You can’t make something true by sheer force of repetition.

You can’t make something true by sheer force of repetition. — NOS4A2

That's a red herring which fails to address the content of my reply. If you don't accept what I said as true, then make your case. But if you're going to argue against that, then what else are you prepared to argue against? Do you believe that World War Two never happened? That we do not reside on planet Earth? That the present year is not 2019?

I'd never consider a video like that to count as evidence of motivation, but at any rate, I'd not classify anything as a "hate crime" in the first place. — Terrapin Station

That's because you have bizarre fringe views which are far removed from the reasonable standards of a court of law.

That's because you have bizarre fringe views which are far removed from the reasonable standards of courts of law. — S

Well, I don't go along with the crowd just to go along with the crowd, at least.

If the mere act of asserting the claim justifies it, I’ll just assert the opposite. Those books and speeches metaphorically changed the world.

Well, I don't go along with the crowd just to go along with the crowd, at least. — Terrapin Station

Neither do I. But you do seem to deliberately go against it, even when doing so is going against good sense.