Hacker News Reader

Comment by corporate_shi11 | Hacker News Reader

Hate speech must be protected speech. Keep in mind that all groups suffer from hate speech attacks. Majority groups in Western countries ("white people") are some of the most publicly demonized people of the last few years, so saying that toleration of hate speech - which affects us all - is an opinion that can only be held from the secure position of being in the majority is nonsense.

View on HN

>Hate speech must be protected speech

Hate speech, is protected speech.

If the government has, in any manner, infringed on your Freedom of Expression, Speech, and/or Association, get in touch with your local ACLU affiliate.

https://www.aclu.org/about/affiliates?redirect=affiliates

There are people there who can help you not only with "next steps", but throughout the entire process.

But please realize, they can't help you get your twitter account back, because Twitter has rights too.

> Majority groups in Western countries ("white people") are some of the most publicly demonized people of the last few years

I find this extremely hard to believe.

Major media, journalists, public figures, indeed entire academic fields of study make a habit of talking about the "evils of white people" and demeaning and criticizing people for being "white" and "whiteness" and other such nonsense, without a hint of protest from the same people who would - rightly - foam at the mouth in anger if similar things were said about other groups.

"White people" are the only group it is socially acceptable to be racist towards.

No. There is a crucial distinction here. Hate speech that is only mean is one thing and should be protected. Hate speech that incites violence against a particular individual or group is not protected speech. This includes a few things said by the current POTUS, such as (approximate quote from memory), "maybe the guy should be roughed up", said of a guy who was currently being roughly physically removed from his rally. Speech to incite violence is not protected by the first amendment and should not be.

> Speech to incite violence is not protected by the first amendment and should not be.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with hate speech and is in fact completely orthogonal. There is hate speech that doesn't (immediately and directly) incite violence, and there is non-hate speech that does.

Trump's comment, for example, was inciting violence, I agree. And I agree that it shouldn't be allowed. But it wasn't hate speech. So why are you bringing it up in response to a comment about hate speech?

Hate speech "enhances" the punishment for a crime, but alone, it is not a crime. Another crime must already have occurred for "hate speech" to have any legal impact. The crime you are trying to describe is incitement to "imminent lawless action"[0], and it's already not protected speech, so tacking on "hate speech," as in, "hate speech that incites violence" is unnecessary.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

> Hate speech that incites violence

"Hate speech that incites violence" is not "hate speech". I don't know why you are trying to force the connection between hate speech and violent threatening speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com