[ 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]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

The fear and emotional damage caused by hate speech constitutes "concrete real harm" as far as I'm concerned.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem that I have with that argument is that there are all kinds of fear and emotional damage that can be caused by language that no reasonable person could possibly consider hate speech.

I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

Should I suffer legal penalties for saying, "The Jews own all the banks"?

How about using the word "Gypsy"?

What's the statutory penalty for saying "darkie"?

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

If you say that those groups should be killed and incite other people to join you, then yes, you should suffer penalties IMO. People DO get killed by hate groups in the present day. It's not some bizarre thought experiment.

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

There's fine-grained distinctions here, though.

I'll certainly agree that if you're saying "Let's all go, right now, and kill these specific people from a minority" that should be actionable. But what about "It would be a good thing for society if there were no more minority"? I mean, there's some tricky lines to draw. Which is why drawing a line at concrete harm makes sense to me - it's a reasonably clear standard to use.

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, making active threats isn't (and doesn't) fly. That's actually illegal. And how many official white supremacist groups have rallied in public or marched, chanting about all the murder they are planning on doing? pretty sure even the KKK doesn't "officially" sanction violence anymore.

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

OK, that's a lot clearer. But that means defining "hate speech" so as not to include slurs and stereotyping in general. And that's a much narrower definition than I have taken the term to mean.

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

That's not considered hate speech in any place that has laws against hate speech. People will think you're an utter fucking asshole, but you won't be arrested for it.

Now, if you're banging out pamphlets about how someone should kill all the Jews, or if you're heavily using slurs in a verbal attack that's likely to get you written up for harrassment anyway, you'll suffer legal penalties under anti-hate speech laws. And yes, you absolutely should.

[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)]

Maybe because it's a whole lot easier to make a credible threat against Bob The Individual than it is to make an actual credible threat against, you know, millions of people.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know, genocides are a thing worldwide.
And somehow I don't feel that threatening millions of Jews is actually that incredible, considering it happened not that long ago...

[(Anonymous)]

It's not incredible that genocides could happen. It is incredible that a single person's speech about them is equivalent to a credible threat, for the most part.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate to be obvious but Hitler...

perhaps 'uncommon' rather than 'incredible'?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure uncommon captures the rarity. Can we say "extremely rare"?

[(Anonymous)]

I am okay with 'extremely rare'. I do accept your premise, that it's definitely far from the norm, but I also think that it's important to learn from WWII and part of that is recognizing that this is a thing that can happen. So obviously I'm not saying we should panic at everything and overreact, but awareness is important imo

[(Anonymous)]

I definitely agree but I think that awareness is best expressed through making sure people are aware, not through banning certain forms of speech.

Similarly, I think the best way of fighting hate groups is building a society that's tolerant and that rejects hate groups, not outlawing them.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I'm an American, and I'm used to our crazy liberal speech laws, but I don't think this argument holds water.

It's pretty easy to caricature entire cultures.

[(Anonymous)]

terrorism threats aren't taken seriously now?

[(Anonymous)]

Because there is a difference between slandering an entire group and slandering a specific individual.

[(Anonymous)]

IANAL but I'm not sure that applying standards of libel and slander to hate speech would actually result in most of it being outlawable, at least not in the United States.

[(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.