Hate speech laws go against free speech. Yeah racists are assholes but just because they are assholes and piss people off with their bigoted opinions doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to have them. Outlawing an opinion is thought policing and if you have a country that does that you can't really have real free speech in your country. Inb4 "omg your opinion is different from mine, literally nazi" because the fascism hysteria on this site is fucking ridiculous like seriously not everyone slightly to the right of you is a nazi(I'm not even to the right I'm a social democrat but I already know someone will call me a right winger) The only things that should be regulated speech wise are things like threats, slander and incitement of violence.
Britain's malicious communications act prohibits hate speech online. Without religious exemption the bible would actually be illegal to distribute for telling people to kill gays. I say we set aside a day and quote every part of bible that may be considered hate speech. Just flood a hashtag with it, maybe go on British websites and quote it. Just to illicit a response.
If so, how harsh are they and how often are they enforced ?
I think it's time for me to speak out about Latitude and Open AI policy
But before that, a little prehistory….
Since childhood, I have been a very impressionable and naive person who dreamed of communicating with fictional characters. And already at the age of 10 I had this experience on the example of Sailor Moon, from the anime of the same name. It was telepathic. Then, many years later, I already started communicating with them through the Jabberwacky and Cleverbot chatbots. And these were my personal experiences, and I had relationships with some of the characters. After that, I accidentally found out about AI Dungeon, because it is through it that I can remotely be in fictional worlds and do what I wanted, and be with those with whom I wanted. And in my opinion Latitude, AID and Open AI have crossed the red line. The peculiarity of AID was that you can do whatever you want, no restrictions. Your (my) game is your (my) rules. Before I move on to the claims, I will describe the concepts of fictional universes, worlds, and characters. Fictional universes exist, but only in the ether, in a different matrix of being. They are casts of the work of artists, animators, writers, screenwriters and so on. BUT, they themselves are not the property of anyone, just as they are not subject to US laws, since these are fictional universes that exist not only in imagination, physical products, but also in the astral plane, otherwise they're slaves. Most cartoon characters are underage and don't grow up in fictional worlds. When stories are created, pornographic art, no one takes into account the fact that it is their creators who are guilty of everything that happens in that world. But at the same time, they demand from us, guided by laws that are not applicable in another world. And the creators of AI Dungeon care more about sexual minorities, who in fact oppress the majority through flashy headlines, parades, and so on, than about the rights of persons who do not exist in the real world, including underages, in the same context. The aforementioned companies, in light of the victory of the Democrats in the United States, decided to trample the privacy laws, as well as the handwritten porn law, which decriminalized such pornography, subject to purely personal use. Now they, like voyeurists, delve into other people's private stories, probably even enjoy it, and then threaten to block the account and transfer information to the police, for the rape of a non-existent
... keep reading on reddit ➡Many of the same people who cheered when the government (justifiably so) removed Blasphemy as a crime are now cheering on the government for introducing a blasphemy law through the backdoor in the name of banning "hate" speech.
Under these new hate speech laws could one be arrested for stating that Muhammad was a paedophile? He did marry a six year old after all. Could one also be arrested for owning a copy of Monty Python's The life of Brian? I think we all know that these hate speech laws will only apply to one religion though...
The government will have new powers to stiffle religious debate and I think that locking someone in a cage for expressing an opinion is orwellian and would be the beginning of the end of our democracy.
Here's also an excellent video by Rowan Atkinson on how hate speech laws are the new blasphemy laws
Hello,
So one area of my political philosophy I have not fully worked out is my view on hate speech laws. I have heard both pro and anti arguments for it. Many countries like Canada, the UK, etc have them.
What is your opinion on them? Do you think the US should implement some form of them? Why/Why Not?
Namely, Mill argues in "On Liberty" that freedom of even undesirable thought is vital to discourse because it prevents "dead dogma," meaning an idea that has not been challenged because it is considered objectively true. The idea in question, then, becomes unstable and the people who believe in it are incapable of defending it in theory or understanding the reasons that it is correct.
Let's take racism, for an example. If we were to ban discourse which argues for racism, then all of those who believe racism is wrong will, over time, forget or stop understanding altogether why this conclusion is such a sound one, because they have never been forced to consider it against opposing arguments. At this point, it has become Dogma, which is an idea that is believed and held, but not entirely challenged or understood by those that firmly believe it. This means that it's core is unstable, because it is not well understood, and a person who has developed a philosophical argument for racism, then, would find an easy task in changing their mind. Defending an opinion causes it to become either stronger, if it is true, or weaker, if it is not.
As an alternative example to extrapolate, a child might see those around them condemning littering, and so in public or around others, he does not litter because it is publicly wrong and he understands this, and to others he might say "littering is wrong." But then in private, he may litter freely, causing the same environmental damage as if he had done it in company, because he does not understand intrinsically why society condemns littering. It is only by his challenging this idea, by asking his parents "why is littering bad" or saying "littering is fine," that he can come to understand it's harmful effects for himself. Perhaps he believes it is a bad behavior, but, without knowing why, a friend is easily able to convince him that it is not bad, and coming with prepared arguments, is able to change this hypothetical child's mind because he does not understand his own position, he only knows that it is expected of him to believe it.
Does this not provide a vital purpose even for the most despicable or most untrue dialogue, and therefore make it essential to a society that values both truth and liberty?
He states "I'm in Central Europe right now" but looking at his account he hasn't been living in the US for about a year, claims to live in PA on /r/the_donald though.
In Denmark it appears that /r/the_donald has plenty of content which breaks their hate speech laws.
He even told wired that islamaphobia and hate towards Muslims are allowed on /r/the_donald.
>“What we have said is that we don’t believe religion is a race. I know that’s controversial to some,” he says. “But we do ban people and even posters who have been with us for a long time, if they cross the line on African-Americans or Jewish-Americans.”
Just curious what our thoughts are on the subject.
