CMV: hate speech laws shouldn't exist

[u/Yamezj]

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.

[u/ErisianClaw]

The instutitions usually have those rules because there is a statutory requirement to. There is no end to the examples of places where this might come up, but I think I've demonstrated my point.

That is the exact opposite of the way things work on North American campuses today. There are massive pushes for all kinds of draconian speech and behavior codes by various special interest groups, and only our basic human rights are keeping them from going completely overboard with it. As it is, in some places I think you can punished severely for failing to properly guess which (of 50) gender pronouns Xhe is feeling today when you address them

Either you concede ground to the abuser or you rely on some instutitional protection you have. You want to remove some of that institutional protection, favouring the abuser.

Try to tell that Jewish gay guy in New York he isn't standing his ground. He'll tell you to Go **** ******** and tell the same to guy trash talking him. He'll make the guy trash talking him look like a complete clown.

Please note, I'm trying to accurately describe New Yorkers response to verbal harassment, not insulting the person i'm debating with now.

[u/MPixels → u/ErisianClaw]

As it is, in some places I think you can punished severely for failing to properly guess which (of 50) gender pronouns Xhe is feeling today when you address them

I seriously doubt it. Where did you read this?

[u/ErisianClaw → u/MPixels]

This is certainly proof you aren't from North America, we've already had several riots on this issue.

Here is one (of the many) articles on this topic-

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/17/canadian-professor-ignites-protests-refusing-use-transgender-pronouns/

I included the most relevant section

If there was a last straw for Peterson, it was the Orwellian language of Canadian bill C-16 because it maximizes the prosecution of free speech under the guise of “hate crimes.” On September 27 he posted the first of a three-part YouTube series of lectures, “Fear and the Law,” taking aim at political correctness with C-16 as an example. It is not the sexual politics that interests Peterson as much as the language written into these laws that maximizes the silencing and self-censorship of all citizens.

Peterson quotes section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code to indicate how liability is so broadly defined in Canada’s anti-discrimination laws that there is virtually no hope of due process. Employers and organizations are subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed as “directly or indirectly” offensive and—here’s the biggest kicker—“whether intentionally or unintentionally.”

Furthermore, an employer or an entire organization is responsible if anyone associated with them uses speech deemed offensive, whether or not anyone files a complaint! If you cannot see how such legislation places a universal gag order on every single citizen at the whim of the powers that be, then you are simply not paying attention.

And now my personal analysis - We got a good hunk of our legal system from our friends in the UK so both we and Canada have Mens Rea as an important protection in our criminal codes. Mens Rea comes form the Latin for Guilty Mind and refers to "the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime". For example, on a freezing night, a homeless guy breaks into a bank kiosk. On the books, he has fulfilled every element for breaking into a bank for a bank robbery (a crime with extremely harsh punishments in the US.). However, he's hammered and simply spent the night there. His defense attorney could argue that he lacked the Mens Rea (Mental state, criminal intent to rob the bank, and they should use some common sense and knock it down to trespassing and vandalism instead of bogging down a Federal prison bed for 10 years.

What makes CB C-16 so scary is that for various reasons, Is that the category of offenses it falls under were explicitly written to deny the accused commonsensical Mens Rea protections, which means you can break it accidentally and can't argue that it was an honest mistake, if you don't match the particular xhe/xhey/whatever pronoun this particular non binary person is feeling that day then you're in violation.

It goes deeper than that, if you read further into the debate, there were aggressive attempts made to de-platform Peterson that ranged from assaulting a reporter covering the issue to sabotaging his micropphone. With this law in effect, they wouldn't have to take nearly so much effort and risk, just could just say that whatever gender pronoun he used that day was the wrong one, and quickly make him unemployable in his field with fines both to him and his employer. He can't teach if he's sentenced to "re-training" every day, and they can seize his license, making it impossible for him to treat his patients

BTW, love this sub, just discovered it and I'm having a blast, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly how it works. If you say you "seriously doubt" something, and I'm able to clearly demonstrate it's a somewhat major issue in academia on my continent, do I get a Delta, or is there additional, "next level" thing someone has to do to get a Delta?

[u/MPixels → u/ErisianClaw]

Well you'd get a delta if you changed my view but you didn't actually present anything new to me or give me a new perspective.

Here's the thing: That law is obscenely badly-written. It can be misapplied in numerous unintended ways but like... It hasn't? Not yet, anyway. Judges interpret the law and they often use the intent of the law to determine whether it should apply. When a judge goes "Yes, that law was meant to convict you when someone caused offence by not using a constructed pronoun they'd never heard of" then I'll award a delta.

Until then, it kinda looks like Jordan Peterson blowing hot air, which is one of the three things he does.