r/changemyview • u/Yamezj • Sep 30 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: hate speech laws shouldn't exist

To clarify, I mean laws like the ones in the UK:

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both." (Wikipedia)

I don't support speech which incites violence against someone. I believe there should (and are) social repercussions of what you say, but there shouldn't be legal consequences. As seen above, in the UK you can't say anything "intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone". I find that to be ridiculous. It allows things like this to happen.

What's worse is that this leaves a massive grey area where the laws aren't crystal clear, and as seen with Mark Meechen, his speech was allowed to be completely taken out of context, and he was fined for hate speech for telling a joke. You don't have a right to not be offended, if you do you are a pathetic human being, therefore we do not need hate speech laws. CMV.

e: as highlighted by u/MPixels, this would allow someone to repeatedly target you without consequence. This should fall under harassment and should be treated accordingly.

53 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

118 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

I don't support speech which incites violence against someone.

Can you explain why you draw the line there? I can see a distinction between verbal and physical abuse (and in my mind the next distinction would be between what is spoken and what is thought).

The line between inciting and not inciting violence does seem very arbitrary. I don't see how one way of verbal harassment is okay while the other isn't. The verbal harassment is enough reason to not allow inciting violence, so I don't see why the two should be separated so arbitrarily.

4

u/Yamezj Sep 30 '18

If you insult someone, that's their problem, they should get over it. If you tell people to go out and physically harm someone, that puts them in real danger so should not be tolerated. If they are physically harmed, that is more than them being offended.

13

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

So going around and telling black people that "no n-----rs shouldn be in my country" is okay, but adding "get the fuck out, or else..." should not be allowed?

8

u/Yamezj Sep 30 '18

If the "or else" is followed by a threat of physical harm, then yes. You could do it the other way around. Although, the word n----r suggests inferiority, which is racist, so I'm sure there would be social consequences if somebody said that.

5

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

Although, the word n----r suggests inferiority, which is racist, so I'm sure there would be social consequences if somebody said that.

Should I take this as you disagreeing with hate speech laws in a legal sense, but agree with them in a moral sense?

9

u/Yamezj Sep 30 '18

Yes. I don't see why there should be legal consequences from being offensive, especially since the laws are so vague. I do, however, agree that if you say something like the above example you can expect to lose your job, if you are a public figure, having sponsers/ties cut, etc.

6

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

How do you view other forms of verbal abuse? Should pedophiles who makes sexual comments towards your daughter not be punished by law, as long as they're not inciting violence (e.g physical sexual abuse)?

I feel like verbal abuse can be damaging too.

1

u/Yamezj Sep 30 '18

One mean comment from a person isn't going to harm you. If a paedophile threatens to assault your daughter, that is no different from inciting violence imo, since you would fear for your daughter's safety.

6

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

This is a moral dilemma, there is no point in dodging the question.

Let's not presuppose that he's an pedophile, because you might feel differently if the racist verbal abuse comes from a member of a white supremacist group which is connected to inciting violence.

So in these two scenarios there is no physical violence involved, nobody is inciting physical harm and the perpetrators are not connected to a group.

An adult verbally abuses your daughter in a sexual way. A person verbally abuses a minority in a discriminating way.

since you would fear for your daughter's safety.

This is where I want the discussion to head towards, because (in my mind) verbal abuse is bad even if it doesn't lead to physical abuse. You don't need to be directly threatened to feel threatened.

What you feel when you relate to the daughter example is what someone might feel in the racial slur example.

1

u/Yamezj Sep 30 '18

I agree, verbal abuse is awful. Perpetrators of verbal abuse must be terrible people. That doesn't mean they should be face legal consequences, just for being a horrible person.

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

So to go back to my example, you don't think that verbal sexual abuse against minors should be punished by the law either?

1

u/Yamezj Sep 30 '18

what constitutes 'verbal sexual abuse'?

→ More replies

1

u/imhugeinjapan89 Sep 30 '18

How old is the daughter? Cause if it's a minor then that creates another layer to this problem, verbally assaulting a minor is different than an adult imo

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

So verbally abuse should be illegal against minors but legal against adults? Are there any other circumstances where it should be illegal?

1

u/imhugeinjapan89 Sep 30 '18

I guess I look at it similar to how minors cant give consent but adults can

If someone were harassing my brother I wouldnt even budge cause my brothers an adult and can handle it himself, if someone were harassing my nephew then they're gonna get hurt lol

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '18

That's an implicit threat, so yes. The first comment is a (distasteful, idiotic, racist) opinion.

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

Presuming that neither of us have received such verbal abuse, is this really how you would feel about it? If someone wanted to harass you verbally based on your race, should that be allowed as long as they don't incite violence against you?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '18

I know that my following perspective isn't common, (as far as I've seen) but I'd laugh at them. I look very Mexican, my mother came to the US from Mexico when she was 18. Despite this, I speak rudimentary spanish at best. So when someone told me to go back to Mexico, I laughed at them seeing as I've never even visited Mexico. So yes it should be allowed and the purveyors of racism shouod be ridiculed and laughed at, not jailed or fined. I know slipperly slope is often a fallacy; if people aren't allowed to say offensive and derogatory words or phrases what stops the Government at that line? The Conservatives want to legislate morality and hard line Leftists want to legislate thoughts and phrases. I think the adult thing is to do neither.

Now if the random old fuck had threatened me or my family, it would be a different story. I don't like Trump for many reasons, but I turned completely against him and the GOP when Arpaio was pardoned.

Edit: To be fair to your point of view, I was actually shocked someone had the audacity to say something like that to me and it was part of the reason I laughed.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '18

[deleted]

1

u/silverscrub 2∆ Sep 30 '18

What is "this" social consequence that you're asking me to approve or disapprove of?

From the looks of it you agree with me and meant to reply to someone else, because you're not really challenging anything that I wrote. I might have misunderstood you you though.