Even if the motivation is survival?
1 Like
Survival through self-defense or survival through cannibalism?
If a woman is standing over a dead man (bloody knife in hand) and “claims” he tried to rape me…
She is no longer the potential victim, she is the criminal. The dead man is the victim. She as a criminal has definitely impacted his life.
This issue has been beaten with clubs into a fine pulp on this forum. So obviously time for another round—
My position on hate speech has remained unchanged. To be called free speech a person must have the right to offend and use ‘hate speech’. The caveat is that freedom of speech does not infer licence. The inciting of violence is not acceptable.
My county has anti hate speech laws. I do not support them.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
In The Friends of Voltaire , Hall wrote the phrase: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”[4] as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs.[5] This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[6][7]
1 Like
In the video the speaker says this freedom includes the right to say “Kill 5 million”. This type of rhetoric became daily fuel for Rwanda way before the action of genocide. I’ve heard and seen the post the only good Democrat (insert any other) is a dead one. The first promotes killing, the second is an opinion (did the Democrat die of old age?). Also context, speaker and audience are important factors.
I don’t like sweeping black and white statements. Lol (my sweeping black/white statement).
Offensive speech isn’t hate speech. There is a difference.
1 Like
In Oz , ‘hate speech’ is defined as:.
“Hate speech is speech or expression which is capable of instilling or inciting hatred of, or prejudice towards, a person or group of people on a specified ground. Hate speech laws are usually directed to vilification on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, country of origin, ethno-religious identity, religion or sexuality.”
Hate speech, free speech and human rights in Australia | Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia
Pretty broad definition I think. Seems to include what one might call ‘hurtful comments’.
As I said, I do not support our anti hate speech laws. I consider them a form of censorship
I don’t know what the answer is, but hate speech and hate crimes go hand in hand. Before jews were being rounded up and sent to death camps there were people vilifying them and saying they should be rounded up and murdered. It doesn’t just happen out of the blue. I think groups promoting hate should certainly be kept an eye on. Do we really have to wait until they actually kill someone before anything can be done?
Here in the U.S. we’ve had a sharp rise in attacks on asians. Mostly on women. I guess if you’re going to be a bigoted asshole you might as well be a coward too. Trump repeatedly calling the covid virus the Chinese virus isn’t helping matters. Never mind that most of those attacked aren’t even of Chinese descent, and zero of them have anything to do with the virus. The 6 asian women killed in Atlanta supposedly weren’t targeted by race. Instead it’s being claimed that the man who killed them was very religious and tormented by guilt for using their services. UGGGGGGGGHHHHH. On a happier note, a 75 year old Asian women in San Francisco beat the snot out of her attacker. A video shows her hopping mad, holding a big stick, and still trying to get around the police to get at her attacker who’s on a stretcher. Hahahahahahahaha. A later interview does show the whole side of her face swollen and her daughter saying her mother was very traumatized. I hope they throw every law on the books at that man. If calling it a hate crime will get him a longer sentence, good.
2 Likes
I agree that there is a correlation, but I’m unconvinced there is necessarily a causal connection. Evidence please.
In this case, the term ‘Godwin’s Law’ is appropriate. Using the Shoah as an example is fatuous nonsense.
The nazis did not invent antisemitism. They simply used a prejudice and hatred which had existed for over 1000 years in Europe. Much deriving for the Christian church, which taught jews were ‘christ killers’
Pogroms, or attacks on Jewish communities, with murder, go back at least until the 11th century. EG It was common practice for Knights going off on crusade to first murder the local jews. (who were coincidentally their creditors)
Pogroms were still occurring in Russia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century . That is a major reason so many Ashkenazi Jews migrated to the US from the nineteenth century.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Godwin’s law , short for Godwin’s law (or rule ) of Nazi analogies ,[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler becomes more likely.[2][3] That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which usually dampens discussion.
Causal? Nah, I see history is brewing with acceptance and Christian love and equality, and the murder as history records of Jews were just “un-caused”. Hate speech throughout history has been fairly harmless. I mean it’s just as easy to get people to kill the “others” you respect/value/love as it is to get them to kill the “others” you blame/hate/degrade.
This is the definitions under law in Canada regarding “hate” speech.
Myself, I value “freedom of speech” and the ability to express oneself. Educational purposes, “hate speech” can be used.
But lying propaganda of hatred towards anyone with the intent to harm? To build through lies, hatred, dehumanizing fear mongering (and usually presented as a threat) is a recipe for continued genocides and, yes, hate crimes.
The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code , and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
Now, I did look up your link, Cranks, and the wiki on Australian Hate Speech. Some differences - Australia is very specific and I could definitely see where it is open to misuse or abuse. From your Act
** The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.”[1] An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission.**
Ahhh 
fuck, now I see why you link “offend” with “hate speech”. We focus on propaganda. I definitely value you opinion, and felt I was missing “something” here.
Shit yah - I would be against this type of sloppy writing limiting “expression”.
We have personal areas also for redress and what may be human right violations (denied employment or housing based on…) BUT when I speak to “Hate Speech” it’s the propaganda (extreme) that is criminal.
Examples of hate groups whose violent rhetoric has resulted in actual violence being done to the objects of their hatred? The KKK? Neo Nazis? White Nationalist? Some women hating groups like incels have made idols of members who’ve killed women. Anti abortion groups have set off bombs and shot doctors in the U.S. They encourage and support each other to commit acts of violence.
I find the Holocaust an extreme, but legitimate example, of where hate speech/propaganda can lead. The thread has a tie to the Holocaust. The OP had posted a video of a man claiming James von Brunn’s crime of attacking the Holocaust museum and killing a guard should be viewed no differently than an armed robbery. Von Brunn’s years of spreading hate and encouraging others to do so too weren’t deemed as worthy of note in the lead up to his actually killing someone he’d spewed hate about. Von Brunn was, among other things, a Holocaust denier. In many countries denying the Holocaust is a crime and I’d be willing to support that here. Not that it would have a chance of becoming law. No, I would not defend to the death their right to deny the Holocaust.
2 Likes
James Von Brunn also wrote a self published book “kill the best gentiles” . He was an alt right extremist and they (neo nazis) are very dangerous they (alt right extremists) have no regard for anyone . I have an intense dislike for Holocaust denial it is very shocking for me that are people who deny the holocaust 
.I am very tolerate and peaceful but it is extremely difficult to tolerate the alt right I am sorry if I sound mean to them (the alt right) but I can’t help it .
Extremism en-masse “normalized” (at least through the powers that be at that time) encourage and enacted…rewards to those that were card-carrying Nazi party members (jobs for example) and drugs for the population to ease the burden that the reality of killing effects most people’s psyche (the odd one’s aren’t bothered much). Oh - and the benefits, hence “positive feedback” for their hate/genocidal removal of the “other”. They were taking back their country from the Jews! Oh, and morally cleansing themselves (gays and other deviants), oh and Gypsies (those conning stealing motherfuckers), oh and religious opponents (JWs won’t kill or fight for their country???), oh and the mentally deficient (who wants to keep retards around???), oh and “commies” (damn fucking Marxists!!!), oh and…
BUT they did bring back honour to the best German women, “ahhhhh - back to breeding machines”…
3 Likes
I’m sorry ,there seems to be some crossed wires. I’ve expressed myself poorly.
Insult and, hatred are acceptable forms of free speech. Hatred inciting to violence is not. Took Nazis a while to turn their bile into open and intense violence. They were excessive from the beginning, and no one could/was willing to stop them.
Imo a more pertinent example is Donald Trump’s behaviour. He crossed the line when his existential fears and hatreds led to the seditious attack on the US capital. He could have and should have been stopped by the elected representatives on both sides. That this did not happen vividly illustrated the moral bankruptcy of may individuals.
IMO the Holocaust began with the1935 Nuremberg Race Laws. These laws disenfranchised German Jews, making them un-people. It got under way with Kristallnacht in 1938.
The hatreds of groups within the Nazis and KK for example were already there. I think it’s moot whether hate speech can create violence ‘from scratch’
I repeat ; Inciting to violence is not imo protected by the US firsts amendment, but vile insults are.
1 Like
To make “hatred inciting to violence” a crime, we have to accept a causal chain between the act of inciting by one person to actual violence committed by other people. If we do that, do we also need to accept incitement as a defense for those who commit the violence?
I’m opposed to any laws forbidding hate speech, etc., because the only effect is to turn hate-speakers into martyrs and push them underground, and also because of the scope for interpretation and the threat to free speech.
Anyone who commits violence is guilty of violence, and incitement or provocation is no defense, just as “following orders” was not a defense for war crimes. We’re all responsible for our own actions. As for hate-speakers, let’s keep them out in the sunlight where we can all keep an eye them and see how pathetically stupid they are.
1 Like
Well, I definitely understood poorly 
The hate speech law you were referring to does seem extreme. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
So many here think they can say anything because “freedom of speech” is in our constitution. That only applies to government censorship. We need to do a better job of teaching that in high school government classes. A great many people seem to have missed that lesson. Some basketball announcers got their dumb asses fired last week using racial slurs that got caught on a hot mic. Those men probably were aware there could be consequences, but didn’t realize they were broadcasting their idiocy.
1 Like
There’s the rub. Are we, and to what degree? Absolutely? Usually? Sometimes? What are the exceptions, if any?
My position is that free will is probably mostly an illusion. (Soft Determinism) I have no problem with the ideas of genetic and psychological determinism. I think there may be free will sometimes, but don’t know where to draw the line.
In our society we claim everyone has free will. In fact our morality and way of life is based on that claim. It is a metaphysical proposition, not established fact. I think all claims about free will are unfalsifiable. For that reason I’m unable to claim we are all responsible for our actions always/usually/sometimes.
It’s an ancient problem.
1 Like
Regardless, we all share the same inner illusion. As such, we still hold people responsible.
One reason why motive comes into play (degrees) or other factors.
Personally, a person may feel bias, hatred, bigotry. With some private conversations, may be expressed… bitched about, vented… but as emphasized- public encouragement towards violence via hatred/bigotry/extremism and especially propaganda/lies, I do not support (some exceptions as educational)
BUT actions have consequences…as do words. I say something and can effect another persons mood. I share my thoughts and we exchange and “tribalism” kicks in (varying degrees).
Peer pressure, group acceptance/rejection - these are powerful (or can be) influences on us as a social species.
Thoughts, actions, consequences, responsibility. Worlds for negative and positive. Works for small and big objectives.
Well one glaringly obvious exception to free will is the way we form our preferences. I can walk into a bar and choose any drink I want. But can I choose what I choose? Why does one person like gin while another prefers Cognac? Do we have any choice? Can I suddenly decide that I won’t like Beethoven’s 9th Symphony any more, and that I’ll prefer Justin Bieber “music” instead? I don’t seem to have any choice about loathing Bieber.
But our society is based on the assumption that our actions result from the exercise of free will, and that each of us is responsible for our actions. So our only option is to behave as if that is really the case. We have no choice.