Hate Speech Laws

[anphanax]

ISP Fined $5000 For Hate Content
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/11/2046228&from=rss

Curious what people's opinion of this is.

Mine:
People should be able to express themselves non-violently (I don't consider words to be violence) regardless of their opinions, religious choice, sex, sexual orientation, politics, software choices, job, or age.

For instance, take Fred Phelps. I'm pretty sure everyone here is in strong disagreement with this man over a variety of his beliefs, but shouldn't he have the right to express himself? Hate speech laws are dangerous territory, and, in my opinion, scream to be abused (because people are corruptable, for one). Keep in mind, there's nothing that says you can't express your opinion of Mr. Phelps and his opinions.

If you're not convinced:
Although this isn't the best example, take web forums. If the wrong people are mods, and they don't like your opinions, they can simply delete them and censor you. Let's say so-and-so made up a lie about Mac OS X or Linux, and you "correct" them for it. Then your post gets deleted, and you're banned for trolling (even if you were very civil, avoided profanity, etc).

I don't want ever want to be in a situation, where I live in some sort of totalitarian government disguised as one "for the people", and if I speak out against it, I end up in jail for "anti-patriotic hate speech", "anti-government hate speech", etc.

[mobrien_12]

I find it very disturbing that an ISP can be fined for content hosted on it.  I also find it very disturbing that this ISP would host that content in question.

This isn't just a question of simple nonviolent free speech.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/03/11/1482485-sun.html

In the ruling, ex-Londoner James Scott Richardson was fined $1,000 for several Internet postings, including one calling for attacks on Jewish and Muslim agencies, temples and residences.

That's a whole different matter.  If you are actively calling for violent attacks, you are no longer in the realm of nonviolent speech.

[piratePenguin]

I wonder what this means for Google.....

Probably nothing since they're not Canadian. But would they be in trouble if they were?

[mobrien_12]

I wonder what this means for Google.....

Probably nothing since they're not Canadian. But would they be in trouble if they were?

Why?  Does Google host material inciting violence against ethnic groups?

[piratePenguin]

Why?  Does Google host material inciting violence against ethnic groups?

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:oBeCfu9b_0gJ:www.kkk.com/+kkk&hl=en&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox

[Orethrius]

Does anyone else see a quaint trace of humour in the "love the rainbow" bit on their site?  I mean, aren't they supposed to be Bible-twisting bigots?  

[Laukev7]

Freedom of speech is protected by the Canadian constitution, as it is in the United States. In addition, it guarantees freedom of thought and opinion. Incitement to violence, be it racist or not, is a different matter altogether, but I see this law as not only a violation of freedom of expression, but as an attempt to regulate which opinions are correct and which ones aren't.

Even worse are the laws in European countries that criminalise non-orthodox opinions such as Holocaust denial (or revisionism). Believing in a different version of facts than most people cannot be possibly equated to inciting hatred against minorities. The idea that people should be protected from certain ideas is the very definition of censorship, and sets dangerous precedents.

[anphanax]

"Incitement to violence"

My only worry here is that a joke might be taken seriously. E.g. Someone tells people to take our their guns and kill the leaders of their government, in a dry-sarcastic fashion, and it ends up twisted against them. I know these laws were made with "good intentions" in mind, and i'm probably being a bit too tin-foil about this. Yes, I know people shouldn't even joke around about certian things, but they do.

"The idea that people should be protected from certain ideas is the very definition of censorship, and sets dangerous precedents."

Agreed entirely.

[Laukev7]

My only worry here is that a joke might be taken seriously. E.g. Someone tells people to take our their guns and kill the leaders of their government, in a dry-sarcastic fashion, and it ends up twisted against them. I know these laws were made with "good intentions" in mind, and i'm probably being a bit too tin-foil about this. Yes, I know people shouldn't even joke around about certian things, but they do.

Nope, nothing tin-foil about this. In fact, it's already happened; the story of the girl blogger being visited by Secret Service comes to mind.

I think that in the case of incitement to violence, things are less clear cut than in the case of censorship of opinions, but I would tend to agree with you. If someone acts upon incitement, then it is he who is responsible for his crime. If such a law really must be enforced, then there needs to be proof that a crime was committed as a result; otherwise this enters the same shaky order of ideas as the Bushist doctrine of preemtive warfare.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Words can incite violence ... I don't believe it ... unless people believe everything they hear ... well ok I do believe it

[Aloone_Jonez]

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:oBeCfu9b_0gJ:www.kkk.com/+kkk&hl=en&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox

These retards don't even know the colours of the rainbow!

I can't see anyone taking them seriously.

[Jack2000]

there was this great man that said something about those people that
do every thing they wach or read in a movie and etc:
"well ok lets put a suicide sceene in every moovie and book
and that way we will get rid of the all ! "
or something like that