Hate speech does not appeal to reason. Hate speech appeal to feelings and prejudices.
You can not fight feelings with rational arguments (or at least not quickly enough to save people from harm). These laws do not ban any form of rational debate. They just forbid calling for murder or any form of wrongdoing on a feeling. IF you want people to harm or restrict another citizen or group or citizen, IF you say so publicly where someone might listen to you, you'd bloody better back this with some rational arguments. THIS way the attacked persons can defend themselves with other rational arguments, and the public debate you've described can take place. Otherwise how can they defend themselves at all ? They can not deny being what they are, and that's the sole reason prejudiced people will harm them.
Calling upon people's feelings in a public debate is a form of cheating. When this form of cheating entails people deaths (as this has been the case more often than not all over the world) it should not be accepted in any democratic society (which relies on rational debate). This is a criminal act that deserved to be criminalized.
The fact is, we recognize in Europe hate speech does lead to crimes, we had a whole world war to prove it, every few months there are atrocious acts to remind us this is real. Therefore people expressing these kinds of opinions can not ignore there is a real chance they will be listened to, they are knowingly pursuing an harmful activity, and consequently the people (at least in France, which is a democratic country) decided they deserved to be prosecuted.
People are free to have all the irrational likes or dislikes they want, one can not condemn them except from a moral point of view, what they can not do is to call for other people to act upon these irrational feelings. (yes I said irrationnal, because if they were rational people could defend themselves under existing laws like libel law, as it stands without hate speech law there is no way at all for a citizen to defend itself against these kinds of attacks)
I'd like to put some things staight here.
Most of the people commenting here seem to have no real idea what such a law is, and have the deeply misguided notion this is a tool for governments to censor their populations. Well, it isn't. Just as libel law enables a citizen or a group of citizen to prosecute people making false statements about them, hate-speech laws enable a citizen or a group of citizen to prosecute people calling for their burning stoning, shuning and so on. They have to proove they were attacked as a member of an abstract group against whom some prejudice exists (a race ), and that the actions resulting from the prosecuted person's speech would result in harm to them.
In case you've all forgotten, yahoo was prosecuted by an association of french jewish students (and some other civil-rights organisations), not the government at all. Yes, I said civil-rights organizations. Because there's a real consensus in europe your rights do not include calling publicly for the murder of your neighbour just because you don't like it's skin color (you can do it if you think he's an asshole, that's not a protected group, you can prove or disprove it -> libel law, while it's skin colour is pretty much something he can not change). And why should we prosecute someone because of this ? Surelly no one would be dumb enough to harm another people because of its supposed appartenance to some obsure racial group ? Well grow up people, millions were killed in Europe and all over the world just because of this (including in your so enlightened America), prejudice die hard, and therefore calling for murder when you sure as hell knom someone might listen should not be considered harmless in any sane state.
Slashdot Mirror
You are deeply misguided here
Hate speech does not appeal to reason. Hate speech appeal to feelings and prejudices.
You can not fight feelings with rational arguments (or at least not quickly enough to save people from harm). These laws do not ban any form of rational debate. They just forbid calling for murder or any form of wrongdoing on a feeling. IF you want people to harm or restrict another citizen or group or citizen, IF you say so publicly where someone might listen to you, you'd bloody better back this with some rational arguments. THIS way the attacked persons can defend themselves with other rational arguments, and the public debate you've described can take place. Otherwise how can they defend themselves at all ? They can not deny being what they are, and that's the sole reason prejudiced people will harm them.
Calling upon people's feelings in a public debate is a form of cheating. When this form of cheating entails people deaths (as this has been the case more often than not all over the world) it should not be accepted in any democratic society (which relies on rational debate). This is a criminal act that deserved to be criminalized.
The fact is, we recognize in Europe hate speech does lead to crimes, we had a whole world war to prove it, every few months there are atrocious acts to remind us this is real. Therefore people expressing these kinds of opinions can not ignore there is a real chance they will be listened to, they are knowingly pursuing an harmful activity, and consequently the people (at least in France, which is a democratic country) decided they deserved to be prosecuted.
People are free to have all the irrational likes or dislikes they want, one can not condemn them except from a moral point of view, what they can not do is to call for other people to act upon these irrational feelings. (yes I said irrationnal, because if they were rational people could defend themselves under existing laws like libel law, as it stands without hate speech law there is no way at all for a citizen to defend itself against these kinds of attacks)
I'd like to put some things staight here.
Most of the people commenting here seem to have no real idea what such a law is, and have the deeply misguided notion this is a tool for governments to censor their populations. Well, it isn't.
Just as libel law enables a citizen or a group of citizen to prosecute people making false statements about them, hate-speech laws enable a citizen or a group of citizen to prosecute people calling for their burning stoning, shuning and so on. They have to proove they were attacked as a member of an abstract group against whom some prejudice exists (a race ), and that the actions resulting from the prosecuted person's speech would result in harm to them.
In case you've all forgotten, yahoo was prosecuted by an association of french jewish students (and some other civil-rights organisations), not the government at all.
Yes, I said civil-rights organizations. Because there's a real consensus in europe your rights do not include calling publicly for the murder of your neighbour just because you don't like it's skin color (you can do it if you think he's an asshole, that's not a protected group, you can prove or disprove it -> libel law, while it's skin colour is pretty much something he can not change).
And why should we prosecute someone because of this ? Surelly no one would be dumb enough to harm another people because of its supposed appartenance to some obsure racial group ? Well grow up people, millions were killed in Europe and all over the world just because of this (including in your so enlightened America), prejudice die hard, and therefore calling for murder when you sure as hell knom someone might listen should not be considered harmless in any sane state.