Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Hate Speech?

Hands Off Hate Speech?

Or: "Hate speech laws hate speech."

In the Korea Herald, veteran journalist Claire Lee looks into "Korea['s] struggles to enact hate speech laws" (December 28, 2014) and discusses the definition of hate speech:
In many countries, hate speech is defined as any speech - including speaking, writing and gesture - that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability, nationality, ethnic . . . origin and sexual orientation[, and i]nciting hatred against people on the grounds of such attributes can lead to imprisonment in a number of countries, including Germany, the U.S., Canada and [the] U.K., . . . [while] Croatia, Norway and the Netherlands . . . [even] go as far as to protect one's life philosophy and political views or any other beliefs from hate speech attacks.

South Korea, which like Japan does not ban hate speech and doesn't have anti-discrimination laws, ranked second among the OECD member countries in terms of social conflict last year[, and e]arlier this month, the Seoul City's enactment of the Charter of Human Rights was canceled due to fierce protests from gay rights opponents and Christians. In October, a U.N. envoy said the country has some "serious issues" with racism and xenophobia.

While many experts say that hate speech against immigrants, foreign nationals, women and the disabled must be banned, some find hate attacks between Koreans with different political or religious views much more difficult to regulate, particularly because of the peninsula's divided state.
I'm generally against laws forbidding 'hate' speech, though I personally prefer courteous discourse, but even those who favor laws against hate speech can surely see the problems in limiting speech that is critical of political and religious views, as Ms. Lee herself hints at in noting problems in regulating speech about "different political or religious views."

If I consider some political ideology to be fascist, I ought to be allowed to voice my opinion freely and call those who adhere to that ideology fascists. Similarly, if I consider some religious ideology absurd and its adherents fanatics, I ought to be allowed to say so. I ought to be free to speak my mind even if people are offended, insulted, enraged, or worse.

And what happens when politics and religion collide? Suppose a pro-gay rights group calls its religious opponents "homophobic"? Is that hate speech?

Is truth no protection against the charge of hate speech?

Labels:

10 Comments:

At 7:12 AM, Blogger Terrance Lindall said...

Precisely!!! RIGHT ON!!!! Terrance

 
At 7:22 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Thanks, Terrance.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger Carter Kaplan said...

As the case of Sweden illustrates, hate-speech laws are part of the social-engineering instrumentality used in what can be described as the "geopolitical corporate take-over of a nation-state." In such a scenario, the laws that traditionally protected the rights and wealth of the inhabitants are deconstructed.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger Carter Kaplan said...

This drives home the insight that is revealed when we consider (for some "rediscover")our traditional association of censorship/restricted speech with fascism.

That many people (in the press, government, and the academy) do not directly and strongly associate censorship/restricted speech with fascism is pretty darn scary.

 
At 1:54 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

If by "geopolitical corporate take-over of a nation-state," you mean corporations are taking over the nation-state, then I would say I think what's really happening is that political bureaucracy is taking over the EU, exercising control over states and corporations without democratic oversight.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Yes, but leftists distinguish 'good' restricted speech from 'bad' restricted speech, forgetting that the 'good' becomes the 'bad' when they lose control.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As the case of Sweden illustrates, hate-speech laws are part of the social-engineering instrumentality used in what can be described as the "geopolitical corporate take-over of a nation-state." In such a scenario, the laws that traditionally protected the rights and wealth of the inhabitants are deconstructed."

Wow, that's quite a gem. How would you categorize our country and how does wealth distribution in the US compare with Sweden?

Sonagi

 
At 8:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To address the topic of the original post directly, I strongly favor free speech that is protected from government censorship and exposed to public responses that do not violate any laws.

Sonagi

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just in case you think speech restriction is a leftie thing, consider, for example, North Carolina's recently passed law making it a felony to reveal the chemical composition of fracking fluid or laws requiring physicians to show fetal ultrasound images and describe them in detail. One such law passed in North Carolina was deemed unconstitutional by the state supreme court. Tennessee's "Don't say 'gay'" bill requires school personnel to inform parents if a student identifies himself or herself as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. Given the existence of restorative therapy and other forms of coercive intolerance by some parents, this sort of law would put minors at risk of harm in the home. Book banning is done by both the Left and the Right for different kinds of offending content.

Sonagi

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

I guess I have expected better from the Left. I have the same beef with the Right.

Jeffery Hodges

@ @ @

 

Post a Comment

<< Home