Well, yeah- I think so. Vandalism is vandalism. I would make no distinction. If we were to superimpose our own sensibilities onto a simple crime, the distinction could be made during sentencing with a harsher penalty, I suppose.
How about this one- say some white rednecks drug a black man to death behind a truck and later drug you behind a truck, too (not that I with to see that ). Which is the “worse” crime? In the world of hate crime legislation, the former is a hate crime and the latter is- what? Obviously not a love crime. Will you family agree that your life was less valuable than the black mans? The law will make it appear that way as the former carries a greater penalty.
In this case I would agree with you- when it comes to murder and other acts of violence, there’s always a ‘hate’ factor, and the motivations are pretty inconsequential. With the example that I gave, my problem is that in the case of the smily face, it’s vandalism. In the case of the swastika, it really does seem to me like the wrong done goes beyond the mere damage of property- there’s more to it than that. It does seem like it’s coming close to messing with free speech, no doubt, but it also seems odd for the law to pretend there’s no difference between the acts. Perhaps, as was suggested, minimum penalty vs. maximum penalty is enough to cover this.
I doubt the family would agree just as I don’t agree with the accepted slaughter of my family and heritage in the context of current legislation.
This is one of the basic questions of the thread. Selectivity has a condoning effect on hate speech and violence directed at the unprotected since if people were considered equal, there would be no reason for this special designation of protected groups.
You want to talk abstraction. Sure. What in mankind is true? That people form beliefs and get into civil societies. What in civil societies is true? That beliefs conflict. That political groups form for the purpose of perpetuating these beliefs. That when beliefs are threatened, these political groups will act to counter it.
True. No speech by definition incites violence. But speech is used to express hate and rejection of other beliefs, the same way it is used to express love, compassion, acceptance. WE just know? No. No, we have plenty of examples in history that it did lead to violence. This is a clear evidence.
Again, you are trivializing what I already said. It is not just “fashionable”----consequences have been numerous when institutions do not step in and mediate. I beg you to look at harm principle and utilitarian stance. If something gets in the way of smooth operation of some segments of society, if not the whole society, then it is justifiable that government/institutions do something about it. It is no longer just to create that warm-fuzzy feeling of community harmony, like you want to paint. It is much more serious now, and much more dangerous now. Uccisore has alluded to painting swastika on the door of the synagogue. This is a form of hate speech that could potentially bring about damage beyond what you suspect.
Of course it is fashion. Is there any consciousness that determines the course of women’s fashion for example? Fashion isn’t the result of a committee of intelligentsia debating over a good bottle of scotch how short the skirts should be next year? It just happens due to a culmination of external influences.
Subjectively selective external influences will also determine who the next scapegoat is and it becomes fashionable to keep repeating it over and over.
"
Once it sinks into the human psych it becomes justified and fashionable until fashions change. Don’t look for logic where it doesn’t exist.
There is no such thing as “smooth operation of some segments of society” Everything moves in cycles. What may appear as smooth is only a temporary stage of a cycle much like calm waters are only part of a cycle that includes stormy waters.
The question is again one of psychology. You say that the government should step in and allow people to be treated differently from the circumstances natural to a cycle. The assumption of turning over responsibility to the government for the good of society implies the inability for equality under the law and human effort to better deal with the problems that are uniquely human.
Psychologically I believe it is more advantageous for a free society to stress equal respect and quality of effort. I may be old fashioned but I agree with the good sense of the following and from the psychological perspective it is essential for a free society to flourish.
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by discouraging the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Reverend William J. H. Boetcke (often wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln)
Attitude is in the domain of psychology. The attitude that is represented by sanctioning by implication the deaths of my family for the sake of recognizing the abuse of others never leads to the attitude that enables building together rather than taking advantage. This is not a matter of a warm fuzzy feeling but only common sense.
Realize what hate speech is:
Maybe accenting the positive rather than making people more dependent through government intervention could actually inspire thought rather than the avoidance of thought leading to rections such as PC bravado.
Right here is, I think, why there seems to be no resolution to any one debate that people get into. Just because it is an opinion, that it is not an objective truth, it doesn’t mean it has no meaning to society and individuals. It doesn’t mean we can’t get into an agreement. Belief in god is not an objective truth either, many believe. But we do give meaning to faith, we do value faith, and we do try to protect that belief. The same thing with ideologies and identitites that are being threatened. You agreed earlier that hate speech is a societal opinion. You do agree that there is a group that’s being affected—well, they need to protect their identity, their belief, their values.
I never claim it is logical. In fact, I agreed with you that there is no objective existence to hate speech. But we’re talking about society where many things are not logical, they just are. Now, societies have diverse groups that have particular identities and particular beliefs. Pragmatically, it is reasonable that society needs to come up with a solution to conflicting beliefs.
I will end my discussion here. Beliefs (ideologies) are a matter-of-fact in a society. Society must deal with it pragmatically, since conflicts have resulted in many violent acts. Just look at history. The proper treatment to something like hate speech is through understanding of society and its conflicts.
The objective of debate in contrast to the objective of discussion is the desire to “win”. A person can believe they’ve won a debate but how do you win a discussion? Resolution of a debate then becomes an extreme rarity.
Yes I do lack reasonable understanding. But we probably understand the phrase differently. I believe it described well in the following:
"
Current indoctrination makes it reasonable to assume a bias. I am unreasonable in current thought because I stress equality.
Of course it has meaning. Fashion also has meaning. Do you think for one moment that the vast sums of money would be spent on fashion if not considered meaningful?
All well and good but I still must insist that the same means of protection should be made available for all.
Quite true. It is a legal system in which everyone should be equal.
What good will that do? It is still the impulse to favor the desires of a group at the expense of the equality of the whole in which all the conflicting groups reside called the “country.”
My interest is psychologically why this approach seems so widely accepted. Why are people willing to sacrifice the ideals of equality so easily? Why is equality under the law not valued for its own good not just from the ethical but from the practical perspective?
Is the foolishness that inspires hate speech precisely the same that is sanctioning bias but only dressed differently?
Hate speech is not about hate or equality or protected groups. Hate speech legislation should be about the intent of the speech. Promoting discrimination, hatred or violence towards others is wrong.
On the other side. People (because organizations can not speak, it is always people) learned to conceal their intension by using synonyms or codewords in speeches. Investigating intension is like preemptive strike but prosecuting and punishing hate crime is a must. What is even more important is publicity. Secret meetings, deals, agendas and societies make it possible to hide the intension. The most disturbing trend today is the secrecy around private media organizations and the blackmailing of others. The first and utmost priority in protection of free speech is protecting free speech.
Funny- I think the most disturbing thing today is the Government bugging our phones and spying on us without probably cause or a court order. That and the suggestion that some types of speech are “too dangerous” to be allowed!
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Just why would you think it’s appropriate to be “brought to justice” for exercising one’s right to free speech?
I don’t understand it either. I can see why a person trying to incite violence by saying "let’s get those f—in n-g–rs could be prevented. But if someone says “let’s get those f—in fundies and straighten them out” it could be rationalized as therapeutic.
How free speech can be considered acceptable for some and denied to others cannot be considered an argument one way or another concerning free speech as a whole, but only the sanctioning of selective free speech which I find repulsive both intellectually and emotionally.
Exactly! I did not invent these phrases. Someone in the government did. You can hear it from the President all the time, and the media broadcasts it all over the universe. Freedom of the press is not a right to repeat everything, it is to question. I am sure that Hitler considered jews to be a Threat to National Security.
Hate speech is very effective to silence and to threaten the opponents of someone, that’s why it is so dangerous. Hate speech is always supported by the threat of phisical violence.
Congrats, Raven- your view would be very popular with Hitler. “Hate speech,” if such a thing really existed, may be somewhat dangerous. But the far greater danger lies in yielding to the temptation to silence that speech.
Complete ignorance of circumstances beyond the control of the mentioned group, in this case blacks.
Visible minority racism is more common than others because of common discrimination and not because people of similar skin form into coherent groups.
Also ignores the common natural reaction of individuals basic survival, forming a group based on a common threat and not race.
As you can see the first two paragraphs are designed to have common sense agreement by most, and the last one completely twists all facts into a self serving suggestion that all blacks are responsible to silence all other blacks into a subhuman state of their masters.
Placing blame and shame on individuals based on circumstances out of their control is hate speech.
). Which is the “worse” crime? In the world of hate crime legislation, the former is a hate crime and the latter is- what? Obviously not a love crime. 
Will you family agree that your life was less valuable than the black mans? The law will make it appear that way as the former carries a greater penalty.
