Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptah | Hacker News Reader

yes, i think this is a serious flaw in the US constitution. other countries are more sensible and reasonable when it comes to dealing with hate speech

View on HN

Strange. As someone from a developing nation, this is one aspect of US which I respect the most. The ability to say your mind without repercussions even if it is not politically correct.

In India, the governments are known to use sedition and other laws pretty liberally to silence free speech.

I'd rather that this "serious flaw" remain, than the US too become the same as any other nation, where posting a joke on the PM can lead to jailtime.

There is a middle ground. Germany is choke full of jokes and even hateful comments about politicians like Angela Merkel, and no one went to prison for it as far as I'm aware.

But intentionally inciteful hate speech against racial/religious minorities can (and occasionally does) lead to fines or jailtime.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/german-comedian-...

Fortunately, with the benefit of hindsight, we can know how this story actually played out.

> On 15 April Merkel announced in a press conference that the German government had approved Böhmermann's criminal prosecution, but would abolish the respective paragraph 103 of the German penal code before 2018. Intense criticism followed the Chancellor's decision, with speculation that she decided to allow the prosecution in order to protect Germany's refugee deal with Turkey.[3] The case was dropped in October 2016.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair

Free speech in Germany is a joke.

https://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/206-you-can-s...

https://www.dw.com/en/is-it-illegal-to-call-someone-a-nazi/a...

So what happens when Germany gets a Chancellor that comes from a racial minority?

We already know the answer: they will claim that attacks on them are racially motivated (regardless of the truth) and shut them down. Plenty of examples of that sort of thing going on today outside of politics.

Probably depends on whether the attacks focus on the chancellor's race or on their policy. Criticising the government's policy is absolutely vital to a democracy. Criticising someone's skin colour is not.

Though if the target is a politician, I'd expect them to prefer to err on the side of allowing it.

they would deal with racism probably the same as obama did when he was in office and was subject to such attacks

This 'freedom' of speech in America doesn't exist. It never has existed and the fact that people prop up the charade of it is disappointing to say the least.

We see outrage here when a site like 8chan is rightfully lambasted for sparking various terroristic attacks. But not when a woman is arrested for laughing at a politician. Or when a black man is killed for acting or saying the wrong thing to a police officer. Or the local government deciding not to step in and display an episode of a TV series showing a gay couple which is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

These freedoms only go in one direction and I only wish those who were ardent fighters of freedom of speech would be consistent in what and who they fight for.

Consider that every limitation to the first amendment ever allowed by SCOTUS was the government limiting the speech of a minority, and never the speech of a popular majority to protect a vulnerable minority, and then what you advocate for becomes empowering powerful people to silence the powerless.

I don’t consider being against that a flaw.

Reference: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gu...

I don't understand your argument: are you saying that allowing hate speech (speech denying the humanity of, and inciting violence towards, certain groups) is good because SCOUTS has historically only limited the speech of minorities?

I am saying that the majority will brand minority speech “hate speech” and use it as a bludgeon.

That is historically plain wrong, the oppressive majority typically invokes public safety to suppress the speech of the oppressed, not "hate speech".

Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".

That's because "public safety" was the tool they had at their disposal. Unless you think their claims that public safety was threatened were credible, what makes you think that when they can use "hate speech" AND "public safety", they'll just use "public safety"?

Wait, let's not think about hypotheticals. Let's think about actual restrictions of rights and how they've played out. Who gets arrested for racist speech in the UK? Nigel Farage? UKIP members? Nah. Some college student who, as admin of an organization, said white people shouldn't come to her minority events.[1]

Well, that's a bummer. But surely Germany knows how to handle hate speech right? Well, unless you offend a friendly head of state; then my dear, it's a legal process for you! [2]

Man, you know what's awesome? Ensuring that the state doesn't take religious sides. For that, we shall ban all religious symbols in schools, as France did. Surely this will not affect members of a minority religion, right? Certainly Muslim schoolgirls won't be suspended over headscarves. [3]

If you give the state the power to deny rights, they will deny them to the people it's easiest to deny them from.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahar_Mustafa_race_row

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_F...

You seriously argue that Nazi Germany was forced to invoke "public safety" because of legislative impediments to using "hate speech" as a basis? They were free to choose any basis, and the one chosen clearly contradicts your original argument.

I guess I should not be surprised by the cherry picking that follows, where you appear to find one discontinued investigation among the 66000 recorded that year[1] a compelling story on how hate crime legislation is only used to persecute minorities.

It is depressing how you use examples of prejudice by state representatives as a basis for arguing against the protection of those being persecuted.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Thanks for calling me out on the cherry picking. It was unserious of me to do that.

I started out convinced I’m right. You haven’t changed my mind, but I need to look up some info to have a firmer grasp of consequences.

Informally, hate speech laws are a tool that can be wielded by whoever is in power. Either that power is trustworthy enough, or it isn’t. You haven’t given me reason to believe it is, but you’ve made me seriously question why I think it isn’t.

Re: Nazis—again, it’s a tool for whoever has power. If hate speech had been a concept in the 30s, I can’t imagine Nazis not prosecuting dissenters for hate speech against them.

You don't think "hate speech", as currently defined in popular culture, is being presented as a public safety issue?

Just look at this very article:

> we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design

No, it is clearly about the safety of specific, persecuted, groups.

I'm confused. Are you saying the safety of specific, persecuted groups doesn't fall under the category of "public safety"?

It would be foolish to think the US founding fathers did not think of hate speech. There was plenty of hate speech directed toward Britain at that time.

Have any of those "other countries" used similar laws in the past 100 years for political suppression and consolidation of power?

Not a flaw, intent. Freedom implies freedom.

It requires a great deal of ignorance of US history to make such a claim regarding “intent.” The Sedition Act of 1798 was passed by Congress less than a decade after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and many of the same venerated founders who were instrumental in creation and passage of the latter bore equal responsibility for the former. The founders most certainly did not intend the sort of free speech that is enjoyed today, so the “intent” of the first amendment means little.

You're conflating the Federalists with the Democratic-Republicans. Madison and Jefferson, who were largely responsible for the first amendment, objected strongly to the Aliens and Sedition Acts. The Federalists were voted out of power in the next election, and the sedition laws were allowed to sunset quickly.

is that like "brexit means brexit"? :)

If you only support free speech when it's speech that you agree with, you don't actually support free speech.

There’s a serious flaw in the US constitution, but perhaps it’s the bit about the right to bear arms, not about the right to speak/write words

There is a process for amending the constitution. If enough citizens feel it should be amended, it can be. It's happened a number of times in the past (although not recently). The big danger is in thinking "we don't like that process, let's circumvent it". Selective circumvention of the law and the constitution eventually will lead to anarchy.

Or more likely to tyranny, as it's those in power that will do the circumvention and they will do that to remain in power. Dictators rewriting the constitution to remain in power is such recurrent event it's practically a cliche by this point.

The only freedom worth anything is the freedom to be wrong.

Freedom, like the song says, isn't free. But the cost isn't the wars we fight, the cost is the potential for that freedom to be used for nefarious ends.

I'll take hate speech. Slurs. Insults. Incitements to violence.

If it means that I cannot be arrested for voicing my displeasure of the government when my government steps out of line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com