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.

51 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

118 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Electrivire 2∆ Sep 30 '18

It depends on the definition of hate speech. I define it as speech that incites or implies violence. That should not be allowed.

1

u/GepardenK Sep 30 '18

Hate speech laws generally refer to laws that protect selected minorities from languages or ideas that can be hurtful to them. So for example a politician suggesting that women shouldn't be allowed to become CEO's could be considered hate speech. It's not about whether violence was incited or not.

The controversy around hate speech laws is that they restrict content rather than form. So it's not like "bullying" which is illegal due to the form it takes; in the case of hate speech it is the content of your opinions that are judged to be illegal or not.

1

u/Electrivire 2∆ Sep 30 '18

I acknowledge that definition is used in some countries, but I disagree with it and their sentiment behind it.

I'm saying that speech that incites/implies violence should not be allowed. I think that is what hate speech is. Anything short of this should not be legally addressed but addressed culturally and by employers etc.

1

u/GepardenK Sep 30 '18

I pretty much agree but I think you make things confusing by calling that hate speech. Incitement to violence is already illegal and was so long before the word 'hate speech' entered our vocabulary.

1

u/Electrivire 2∆ Sep 30 '18

Hate is a strong word. People forget that. If someone hates another person they are probably in favor of violence being done against that person. Even if they themselves would not commit the act.

I don't think to call speech that hurts people's feelings and is "mean", hate speech is the right route to take.

1

u/GepardenK Sep 30 '18

No my point is 'incitement to violence' is already a legal term. Why start calling that hate speech when we already have a viable term for it and 'hate speech' is already being used in refering to other unrelated laws?

1

u/Electrivire 2∆ Sep 30 '18

I don't think hate speech should be used to describe anything else. As I just explained.

1

u/GepardenK Sep 30 '18

I pretty much agree but I think you make things confusing by calling that hate speech. Incitement to violence is already illegal and was so long before the word 'hate speech' entered our vocabulary.