[ SECRET POST #2951 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2951 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The To-Do List, Brandy/Willy]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Amazing World of Gumball]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Agents of Shield]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Galavant]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Soukyuu no Fafner Exodus]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jamie Dornan from "The Fall"]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Neil Gaiman)













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 054 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sarillia]

These replies are making me wonder how people here feel about laws against hate speech.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm against them.

Well, depending on what exactly the laws say, but I'm probably against them.

[sarillia]

What about laws against slander?

[(Anonymous)]

I think libel and slander laws are probably reasonable, assuming they're well-formed.

I think that there's a reasonable justification for banning speech if it leads to or immediately encourages concrete real harm. That's obviously hard to turn into a bright line, so there's good arguments on both sides. But for me, hate speech, in and of itself, doesn't cross that line.

[ariakas]

Not to mention threats. Should threats be legal, too?

Most hate speech laws are just making speech that is already illegal (yes, even in the US) like libel, slander, and threats against one person apply to a group of individuals.

Think about it like this: "Jews are baby-eating Jesus murderers who control the world's economy and impoverish good people! They should be rounded up and gassed"

Versus

"Bob is a baby-eating Jesus murderer who controls the world's economy and impoverishes good people! He should be gassed"

Bob would absolutely be able to sue; he'd probably be able to call the police for criminal threats and harassment. So why is it exactly that it's perfectly acceptable when more than one person is the target of libel, slander, and threats?

[(Anonymous)]

Defamation is generally a civil offense rather than a criminal one, though, and to bring a suit for slander the plaintiff usually has to prove "special damages"--to show that the defamatory speech has caused him material harm, like making it impossible for him to find work.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm against laws prohibiting any speech.

The answer to speech we disagree with is not "make it illegal." It's "more speech."

[sarillia]

I just asked the other anon, but what about laws against slander? I'm wondering if hate speech can be considered a kind of slander against a group. Or should slander not be illegal either because no speech should be prohibited?

[(Anonymous)]

Slander and libel are, I believe (IANAL), civil rather than criminal matters. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone going to jail for that, and it's extremely difficult to win a lawsuit claiming such. It would be even more difficult to win a class action suit.

And where do you draw the line? What classes of people get protected? What classes of people don't? I've seen absolutely vile hate speech directed at straight white men, for example, simply on the basis that they are straight, white, and male--not to mention what gets hurled at conservative women of color. I'm not sure that's a path we want to go down.

[(Anonymous)]

What about active threats? Should I be legally free to say I'm going to blow up a school or threaten t murder someone?

I mean, I'm for free speech too, but even as it exists it does have limits, which are more reasonable than not.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm fucking for them, all the way. I don't feel anyone has the right to say me and my friends deserve to die, thnx.

[(Anonymous)]

Give them a chance. They don't believe in your human rights, you don't believe in their human rights... you might find out you have more in common than you think.

[feotakahari]

I think the purpose is better served by punishing stalking, harassment, threats, etc. "Hey, we're totally gonna get together and wipe out some Jews! Any day now!" may be worth watching to see where it goes, but as a direct threat, it's only one step above "Yeah, I'm crazy! I'm so crazy I'm gonna shoot up a kindergarten and eat their hearts!"

[sarillia]

That sounds reasonable, but then we would still get into arguments about where you draw the line between a legitimate threat that should be looked into and pointless violent rhetoric.

Uh...

[(Anonymous)]

Considering that individuals do shoot up kindergartens, the latter threat is something even right-wing law enforcement would investigate.

[siofrabunnies]

I find it very hard to accept violent words as free speech. Anger is allowed, but "I wasn't serious" isn't a valid defense against "I'm going to punch/murder/etc you." I think the line is crossed the second you start talking about "getting rid of them", or anything more overt.

So, "I don't like Jews" gets you heavily side-eyed and avoided. "Let's get rid of all the Jews" should be reported to the police on the lines of "these guys need to be checked out".

[(Anonymous)]

That's more or less what the EU has, I belive. You can say many bad things about entire groups of people, but if you shout in public to the crowd that "all [put here whatever] should be eliminated!" that's tehoretically already punishable by law as "incitement to violence/a crime" (depending on the context). I find it reasonable.

[sarillia]

I'm a total bleeding heart who would have people rolling their eyes (even more) at my naivety and idealism if they knew everything I was thinking. I'm disturbed in general by the level of casual violent rhetoric that is acceptable in our society. People tell others to die over the pettiest shit and it's just accepted as the way things go. I'm not afraid they're actually going to do anything but no one else finds it a tiny bit disturbing that this is what they jumped to in order to express their anger? I've made my peace with basically being a stereotype of a liberal though. If it's just me then I'll just have to deal with it.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, and people do that. They say, "Hey, such and such said "Let's get rid of all the Jews." I think that person should be put on a watch list."

And they would most likely be investigated. (Usually without them ever realizing they are being watched.) And if they seen as a threat, they are put on a watch list. But they aren't arrested until they actually do physical harm.

Look, do you know how many people make threats in the country every single day? Ranging from, "Eat the Rich. Exterminate the poor. Kill Whitey. Lynch Darkie. Eradicate the Jews. Destroy the Muslims." Lots.

99% of it is hot air. People trying to look big and bad. People blowing off steam. But nothing ever comes from it.

There's an American phrase that perfectly sums this up, "Shooting your mouth off." Meaning to talk bad, often violently but as a misstep and not really serious.

Americans like to trash talk. It's a right to do so. But, again, most of it is just nothing but idiotic rambling that should not be taken seriously.

[(Anonymous)]

This may sound ignorant so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't hate speech speech that promotes/incites acts of violence against a group of people?

Harmful ideologies may have the same result, sure, but it's still not exactly the same?

[(Anonymous)]

At least in my experience, it also includes things like using slurs.

Maybe this is a USA / Europe thread? It certainly seems to be what a lot of people are arguing against.

[(Anonymous)]

Hate speech (in terms of "shit that is outlawed in a lot of places already", not the...incredibly stretched internet definition) includes the promotion of violence or other significant harm against protected groups, and is often a rider charge to other illegal activities.

Incitement of violence is a crime on its own, and doesn't bear the protected groups requirement. (It may be bundled with a hate speech charge where applicable, though.)

[cloud_riven]

For and against free speech. /noncommittal

I live in a country where I can be held accountable for what I say, but not penalized (libel and other specifics notwithstanding), and that's a hell of a privilege. However, as much as I believe people should have the right to their beliefs/convictions, it's difficult to support when it's at the expense of others' safety and well-being (eg: propogating negative generalizations about First Nations, women, or whichever group really).

Then again, being able to freely discuss, or challenge, ideas we are not comfortable with is awesome for all sides of everything imo.

[sarillia]

This is basically where I am too. I get where each side is coming from. I'll have to do some more navel-gazing to see if I can come up with an actual strong opinion. :p

[caerbannog]

I'm totally for it and so glad 18c wasn't repealed. :s