|
archangelwar posted:Narrower (legal) Definition Is truth an absolute defense to this law? Specifically the part about disparagement of a protected individual or group. Canada's law is great because factual statements are disqualified from being considered hate speech. Example: "Orange people are stupid" is hate speech, "Orange people have an average IQ of 84" is not
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:they have discussed clearly targetted and limited scope instances such as cross burning, Germany's ban on holocaust denial through incitement to hatred, etc. The cross-burning ban in the US is an example of the extremely narrow scope that German policies have no trouble exceeding - Germany can ban specific symbols as being incitement, can ban them even when they're not being directed at a protected group (i.e. burning one at a KKK rally), and can just ban the KKK outright. In fact I'm pretty sure that the KKK is already banned there as a neo-Nazi organization. The German ban on holocaust denial is, conversely, something that would have almost no chance of surviving court scrutiny in the US, between the difficulty in arguing that holocaust denial is incitement, the difficulty in arguing that "incitement to hatred" is content-neutral, and the difficulty of arguing that it's incitement to any other kind of illegal activity under even the most permissive historical standards. quote:What would be helpful is if people responded directly to these arguments rather than bringing up Russian laws against "hooliganism" and Islamic bans on depictions of Mohammad. quote:I think this might be awkwardly worded as a question because as I said before, I don't believe that the First Amendment prevents bans on certain (and the most pernicious) forms of hate speech, especially as the jurisprudence has evolved. What it sounds like to me when people cite European laws is that they want something like the expression of negative opinions about some groups or other to be illegal on the grounds that it's either inherently or in the same category as some combination of defamation, intimidation, harassment, or incitement to violence. If that's not accurate, it'd be nice to clear that up. quote:Where I take issue is the absolutist nature with which people declare current (as in existing European) or future (under discussion) hate speech proposals as prima facie violations of a) the 1st Amendment, and b) the socio-political theory of freedom of expression. I say this especially in light of further evolution of human rights expression such as the right to dignity which has been strengthened by the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Especially as it pertains to LGBT rights, I think you will see further clarification of the friction points between free expression and protections under the right of dignity. However, I doubt that many European hate speech laws would survive constitutional challenges in the US with the current bench, and I especially wouldn't hold my breath for it happening under the current bench just because they handed down Obergefell v. Hodges when they handed down Snyder v. Phelps with a stronger majority. quote:To add, I disagree with the assertion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the definitive assertion and final evolution of human rights theory and thus that the definition of Constitutionality of certain legislation is an ultimate ruling of universal correctness, as implied by the OP. archangelwar posted:If it is never distributed, it cannot be prosecuted; how else could an aggrieved party bring suit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:40
|
|
