Hacker News Reader

Comment by randyrand | Hacker News Reader

I don't like the other responses to your comment.

> It's an incitement to violence

No, it's not. Otherwise, wouldn't that imply we should outlaw being mean altogether? Is being mean always an incitement for violence? Yes/No? I think it's clear, it's not.

> it's horrifically bad for the mental health

Citation needed.

> as a form of discrimination against those people

Again, no. Discrimination requires that it be 'unjust or prejudicial treatment', hate speech does not. Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race.

View on HN

> Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race.

Part of the problem in this discussion seems to be that people have different definitions of 'hate speech'. That definition could be applicable to their country of origin or personal belief but it's pretty clear that definitions aren't even remotely compatible and it makes any sort of level-headed debate very difficult.

The real problem is that the concept of "hate speech" is nonsensical. It is a term created exactly to polarize debates and prevent rational discourse. Calmly explain that to any one that attempts to use the term - or ask them to clarify exactly what they mean. We must reject politically engineered attempts to ruin the public debate.

You're taking your own definition of 'hate speech' which is irrelevant mostly. The important definition if you have an issue with laws limiting speech (through limits on hate speech) is the definition used by those. In most western democracies speech is only limited to prevent, as the parent said, incitement to violence and even then there should be protections in place to prevent abuse of those laws (and there are).

>> No, it's not. Otherwise, wouldn't that imply we should outlaw being mean altogether?

I don't understand what you're trying to imply here, it doesn't seem to make sense. Being mean could be telling someone they look ugly in those clothes. No incitement to violence. "All minority are evil, kill all *minority" would be an incitement to violence. Pretty clear cut. Being 'mean' has nothing to do with it.

>> Hate speech could be as little as explaining factual reasons you don't like another race.

Citation needed. Where is this law or definition of hate speech?

If someone is yelling "Kill all $racialslur" are they practicing hate speech yet? They are most certainly openly advocating violence against a specific group not just "being mean" Hate speech can indeed be quantified. Though definitions will vary (as with anything.)

Incitement to violence, specifically saying stuff like "kill all X, tomorrow, and at this location" should and IS already illegal.

We don't need hate speech to cover that. That's just called incitement to violence.

Incitement to violence requires intent for the violence to actually occur. I believe this distinction is why you get things like pastors of megachurches who advocate for the idea that all gay people deserve to be killed, but they're not actually intending for any specific act to be carried out and therefore aren't technically inciting violence.

So if a University Professor said, "$race people may need to die to achieve $goal" would that be free speech or hate speech?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com