TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

"Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

Ok, so I'm kind of curious about hate speech legislation in Australia and [parts of] Europe (France and UK in particular). I read some random articles here and there about people being prosecute and imprioned (WTF?) for "hate speech." Luckily, the [US] constitution is pretty clear on freedom of speech so we don't have any of that BS here. No, ofcourse I don't think being racist or bigoted is a good thing and I certainly don't condone it. But lately I've noticed more an more ludicrous "hate speech" cases where people are eigther being fined heavily, but in an increasing number of cases, imprisoned. That's BS. No goverment should have the right to limit free speech. Don't know how you guys feel about it, but to me hate speech legislation isn't terribly different from thought control. One reason why I brought this up is because overtime I've noticed interacting with people from Europe/Australlia how, relatively speaking, fearful they are of something they might say being considered racist/bigoted, or in other words "hate speech." And, as an American, I've noticed how it actually limits their thought, and ability to think critically. And I'm not kidding here folks. Some things that have nothing to with being "hateful" or in no way have any "hateful content" will be considered so by them, and it's pretty ridiculous. This is something I noticed after a while BTW. It's political correctness gone mad (and legislated). There was some old thread Occ gave me a link to a thread on free speech, [EDIT: where some dude was being prosecuted for "Islamophobia: ]. If I remember correctly, he was the only one defending his right to free speech there (which I applaud him for BTW), but it was actually very disappointing to see him being the only one. That one more solid example where the difference in attitudes was even more obvious to me. So I'm curious, what type of "hate speech" legislation do you guys have there in Australlia? Renegade, could you in particular shed some light on this subject? And by that I don't just mean posting a bunch of legislation . No offence, but I've noticed how conditioned some of you guy are, Aussies in particular, or at least the ones I've come across (with the exception of Renegade, he's pretty level headed and rational, which is why I asked you in particular to comment).

BTW, being Muslim, after 9-11, I have to put up with a fair bit of prejudice and bigotry, sometimes on a daily basis (and I've been physically threatened/attacked on multiple occasions). But I find the whole concept of "hate speech" legislation to be utter BS and am totally against it. So don't go about making any silly assumptions. I've dealt with a fair bit of it, so I know exactly how unpleasant it is.

EDIT: Occ, if you could dig up that thread again, that would be neat. I can't seem to find it.

Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No offence, but I've noticed how conditioned some of you guy are, Aussies in particular, or at least the ones I've come across (with the exception of Renegade, he's pretty level headed and rational, which is why I asked you in particular to comment).

what do you mean by "conditioned"?

i am unaware of any specific "hate speech" laws in australia. doesnt mean they dont exist of course, but they cant be enforced too often if we never hear about them (such items being one of the media's favourite topics and all).

Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what do you mean by "conditioned"?

Like listening to cheese instead of quality house ...

On a more serious note, I think I already stated that in my post:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z One reason why I brought this up is because overtime I've noticed interacting with people from Europe/Australlia how, relatively speaking, fearful they are of something they might say being considered racist/bigoted, or in other words "hate speech." And, as an American, I've noticed how it actually limits their thought, and ability to think critically.

EDIT: Essentially, it impairs critical thought.

Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Like listening to cheese instead of quality house ... On a more serious note, I think I already stated that in my post: EDIT: Essentially, it impairs critical thought.

Ok so let me get this straight, Minding your speach in front of others that might get offended is not critical thinking??

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Ok so let me get this straight, Minding your speach in front of others that might get offended is not critical thinking??

What ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What ?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z One reason why I brought this up is because overtime I've noticed interacting with people from Europe/Australlia how, relatively speaking, fearful they are of something they might say being considered racist/bigoted, or in other words "hate speech." And, as an American, I've noticed how it actually limits their thought, and ability to think critically.

So if a person minds his or her speach due in part that it might be considered hate speach, then they do not have critical thinking??

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX So if a person minds his or her speach due in part that it might be considered hate speach, then they do not have critical thinking??

Did you even read what I posted ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Did you even read what I posted ?

No Z, I never read your posts...

I am just trying to understand this.....

quote:

BTW, being Muslim, after 9-11, I have to put up with a fair bit of prejudice and bigotry, sometimes on a daily basis (and I've been physically threatened/attacked on multiple occasions). But I find the whole concept of "hate speech" legislation to be utter BS and am totally against it. So don't go about making any silly assumptions. I've dealt with a fair bit of it, so I know exactly how unpleasant it is.

The fact that you have encountered hate and bigotry but yet still support the right for the fockwads to be allowed to call you or yell at you due to your race. So lets say, you got jumped and sent to the hospital, and during the ass kicking they were calling you a Rag Head. You would not support them getting the extra HATE CRIME charges, just a simple assault charge(with that they will be out of Jail and pay the small fine) while you were still recovering. Cause you find the whole concept of "hate speech" legislation to be utter BS and you are totally against it? [hypothetical] Cause I know for a fact that if I slapped you in the face and called you a racial name while in the process, the penalty would be stiffer than just slapping you.

Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT: Occ, if you could dig up that thread again, that would be neat. I can't seem to find it.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=free+speech

quote:

The fact that you have encountered hate and bigotry but yet still support the right for the fockwads to be allowed to call you or yell at you due to your race. So lets say, you got jumped and sent to the hospital, and during the ass kicking they were calling you a Rag Head. You would not support them getting the extra HATE CRIME charges, just a simple assault charge(with that they will be out of Jail and pay the small fine) while you were still recovering. Cause you find the whole concept of "hate speech" legislation to be utter BS and you are totally against it? [hypothetical] Cause I know for a fact that if I slapped you in the face and called you a racial name while in the process, the penalty would be stiffer than just slapping you.

So it's ok for some guy to kick your ass and send you to the hospital with the penalty of a fine, but it's not ok for the guy to call you a bad name while he's sending you to the hospital? I think the victim could care less whether it's a hate crime or not. Unless you wanna tell us why someone's life or well being is worth less when their race is considered. Prosecutorial racism no?

Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=free+speech So it's ok for some guy to kick your ass and send you to the hospital with the penalty of a fine, but it's not ok for the guy to call you a bad name while he's sending you to the hospital? I think the victim could care less whether it's a hate crime or not. Unless you wanna tell us why someone's life or well being is worth less when their race is considered. Prosecutorial racism no?

I feel that why too occrider, but if that "hate speach" leads to a crime and or an individual is singled out due to his/her race..... then no special circumstance should be considred in prosecution?

the reason I am so upset about this cause there is case going on here in AUstin how a gay friend of mine was followed from a bar and assaulted with her and her girlfriend. The case starts tomorrow and the focking rednecks that did it are using this freedom of speach shit to get off on a lighter sentence...... I guess he has critical thinking.



p.s. I will will be in DC next month for a month..... actually in New Carrolton....please PM with any suggestions for good places to hang and spend a TAB on

I know you really didn't ask about Canada Shao, but it's pretty defined up here...
http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...ate_a_crime.cfm

I think I might of taken this a little off his topic when I started talking on Hate Crimes. Cause I hope he realizes that Free Speach ends when that speach leads to something like a hate crime. Is that correct Shaolin??

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I know you really didn't ask about Canada Shao, but it's pretty defined up here... http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...ate_a_crime.cfm

quote:

Criminal Code of Canada Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to: advocate genocide publicly incite hatred wilfully promote hatred against an "identifiable group." An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by: colour race religion ethnic origin Hatred directed against others groups (such as women, or gays and lesbians) is not punishable under sections 318 and 319.

wow, so Cyrus and Hardcore Trancer can get into trouble??

Def:

quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.

SOURCE

So Z, the next time someone on campus calls you a slur, go tiger style on his ass and you will be in the clear.

Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i am unaware of any specific "hate speech" laws in australia. doesnt mean they dont exist of course, but they cant be enforced too often if we never hear about them (such items being one of the media's favourite topics and all).

Been around for quite awhile-

Racial discrimination act of 1975
Probably Part IIA being the most relevant, also quite non-specific and broad.

Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Been around for quite awhile- Racial discrimination act of 1975 Probably Part IIA being the most relevant, also quite non-specific and broad.

Here...

quote:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18B Reason for doing an act If: (a) an act is done for 2 or more reasons; and (b) one of the reasons is the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person (whether or not it is the dominant reason or a substantial reason for doing the act); then, for the purposes of this Part, the act is taken to be done because of the person's race, colour or national or ethnic origin. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) 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. Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it: (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or (b) is done in a public place; or (c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place. (3) In this section: "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith: (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or (c) in making or publishing: (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18E Vicarious liability (1) Subject to subsection (2), if: (a) an employee or agent of a person does an act in connection with his or her duties as an employee or agent; and (b) the act would be unlawful under this Part if it were done by the person; this Act applies in relation to the person as if the person had also done the act. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act done by an employee or agent of a person if it is established that the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee or agent from doing the act. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18F State and Territory laws not affected This Part is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 Division 1�Preliminary

SOURCE

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX No Z, I never read your posts...

It certainly seems like that alot of times.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I am just trying to understand this.....

Well then, this:

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Ok so let me get this straight, Minding your speach in front of others that might get offended is not critical thinking?? ... So if a person minds his or her speach due in part that it might be considered hate speach, then they do not have critical thinking??

certainly didn't express what you meant to ask me now did it?

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX The fact that you have encountered hate and bigotry but yet still support the right for the fockwads to be allowed to call you or yell at you due to your race. So lets say, you got jumped and sent to the hospital, and during the ass kicking they were calling you a Rag Head. You would not support them getting the extra HATE CRIME charges, just a simple assault charge(with that they will be out of Jail and pay the small fine) while you were still recovering. Cause you find the whole concept of "hate speech" legislation to be utter BS and you are totally against it? [hypothetical] Cause I know for a fact that if I slapped you in the face and called you a racial name while in the process, the penalty would be stiffer than just slapping you.

We already have laws that deal with assault and acts of violence against other individuals. There is no need to call it a hate crime in order to prosecute criminal acts of violence. Why is that so hard to understand? There is no need for introducing a nonsensical term or concept in to legislation or legal lingo as it's already covered. Since when does the Goverment have the moral authority to legislate how people think or punish people holding or expressing their opinions? The introduction of "hate speech" laws and "hate crime" effectively and ultimately implies exactly that. It's only limiting free speech and exchange of ideas. Wheather or not society deems them "acceptable" or not is irrelevant. We're not a democracy, we're a Republic. The Goverment having the authority to limit free speech is a sliperty slope and a hallmark of totalitarianism. There's a reason why this:

quote:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

is the first amendment to the constitution and in the Bill of Rights.

Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=free+speech

Thanks .

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I think I might of taken this a little off his topic when I started talking on Hate Crimes. Cause I hope he realizes that Free Speach ends when that speach leads to something like a hate crime. Is that correct Shaolin??

Hell no! I'm even more opposed to that. And I sort of addressed that in my previous post already.

Re: Re: Re: "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I feel that why too occrider, but if that "hate speach" leads to a crime and or an individual is singled out due to his/her race.....

Unless they literally took control your mind . I fail to see how someone expressing their opinion makes them legally responsible for the actions of others.

this is a provoking issue you raise. should a community limit what it's members may say? should all speech be unfettered?

i think most people will not support truly unimpeeded speech;, they will place limits. think for instance about the classic banned speech: yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or threats of bodily harm.

but where do we draw the line? i think i'd rather have a lot of freedom even though some may be offended, instead of having less freedom so that some may spare offense.

No answers huh? Ok.

Guess I was wrong about Renegade.

What do you guys think of this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...6419034,00.html

Holocaust Denier Sentenced to 5 Years

Friday February 16, 2007 8:46 AM

By THOMAS SEYTHAL

Associated Press Writer

MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) - A German court on Thursday convicted far-right activist Ernst Zundel and sentenced him to five years in prison for Holocaust denial in a case that underlined Germany's determination to prosecute people who claim the Nazis didn't murder six million Jews.

The 67-year-old Zundel, who was deported from Canada in 2005, was convicted on 14 counts of inciting hatred for years of anti-Semitic activities, including contributing to a Web site devoted to denying the Holocaust - a crime in Germany.

Zundel showed no emotion when Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen read the verdict, only nodding occasionally.

Zundel, who has also lived in Tennessee, and his supporters argued that he was a peaceful campaigner being denied his right to free speech.

His attorney, Ludwig Bock, said he would appeal.

``What is notable is the iron-hard refusal of the court to allow consideration of new scientific findings or expert opinions,'' Bock said.

Prosecutors in Germany were able to bring charges because the Web site is accessible there.

The German prosecution won praise from Bnai Brith Canada, a Jewish human rights group.

``The case of Ernst Zundel demonstrates clearly the strength, determination and resolve of Germany's hate crimes legislation, in stark contrast to our own,'' executive vice president Frank Dimant said in a statement. Dimant said Canadian hate crimes laws did not specifically recognize Holocaust denial as a crime.

Zundel faced 14 counts of incitement for disseminating anti-Semitic propaganda through a series of pamphlets and the Web site. Denying the Holocaust can bring three months to five years in prison.

His trial began in November in this southwestern city after an initial attempt to try him collapsed in March 2006 over a dispute with one of his attorneys, Sylvia Stolz.

At one stage, she was carried from the courtroom, screaming ``Resistance! The German people are rising up,'' after she defied an order banning her from the trial on grounds she tried to sabotage the proceedings by denouncing the court as a ``tool of foreign domination.''

During the current trial, Bock quoted from Adolf Hitler's ``Mein Kampf'' and from Nazi race laws in his closing statements last week as argued for Zundel's acquittal.

Bock accused the Mannheim state court of not wanting to face a ``scientific analysis'' of the Holocaust and charged that prosecutors - one of whom has termed Zundel a ``rat catcher'' - had defamed his client.

Another of Zundel's five attorneys, Herbert Schaller, told the court that all of its evidence that the Holocaust took place was based only on witness reports, instead of hard facts.

In his own closing arguments, prosecutor Andreas Grossmann called Zundel a ``political con man'' from whom the German people must be protected, widely quoting from his writings, which argue that millions of Jews did not die at the hands of the Nazis.

``You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west,'' Grossmann said when asking that Zundel be given the maximum sentence. ``But you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven.''

Born in Germany in 1939, Zundel emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001. Canadian officials twice rejected his attempts to obtain Canadian citizenship, and he moved to Pigeon Forge, Tenn., until he was deported to Canada in 2003 for alleged immigration violations.

Mannheim prosecutors were able to open a case against Zundel because his Holocaust-denying Web site is available in Germany.

In February 2005, a Canadian judge ruled that Zundel's activities were not only a threat to national security, but ``the international community of nations'' as well.

A Canadian law, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, allows the government to hold terrorism suspects without charge, based on secret evidence that does not have to be disclosed to a suspect or his defense.

Zundel was deported a few days later.

Since the late 1970s, he had operated Samisdat Publishing, one of the leading distributors of Nazi propaganda and, since 1995, had been a key content provider for a Web site dedicated to Holocaust denial.

Zundel has claimed he is a peaceful man with no criminal record against him in Canada.

I think it's BS.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.