How about " Criminals should be imprisoned "
Here my speech is attacking a group on the basis of attributes.
Is this Hate Speech?
Oh and maybe you could tell me who wrote that entry in Wiki and why would you believe them?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ohh I never stated I believe the wiki entry, rather it’s the source that will be used by the masses.
So IMO your statement there would be disqualified by it being an attribute that coincides with the action of the statement, such as to be a criminal you must first have broken a law and been convicted therefore you should be imprisoned based on the law and conviction classifying you as a criminal. Now state “criminals should be killed” then here in Canada where there is no death penalty or tolerance for threats the masses would consider that hate speech. Myself I figure people need tougher skin, if we don’t let the “bad” views be expressed how can we educate ourselves against them.
Posted using Partiko iOS
"your statement there would be disqualified by it being an attribute that coincides with the action of the statement"
"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes"
source wiki
Wiki doesn't qualify the word "attributes". Therefore in plain English it means any and all attributes.
So essentially it means speech that attacks anyone since everyone has attributes.
So what does it mean by "attacks"?
"Now state “criminals should be killed” .
So if you said "I think we should introduce or re-introduce the death penalty for certain types of criminals"
Would that be hate speech?
How about "illegal immigrants should be sent home" or
"Paedophiles should be imprisoned for life"
Or "White people should be dispossessed"?
I view “attacks” as inciting violence, so no your examples do not really fall into the catagory of hate speech at least to me. Those are all debate topics leading to possible legal or political reforms.
You are right this term of “hate speech” is to vague to actually have a conclusive discussion about but I still do think the fall back will be upon whether the speech contains unacceptable actions.
In the case of Alex Jones we see all the borders of this classification “hate speech” being pushed but on the other side of that equation those pushing the narrative are drawing a line in the sand. Eventually our understanding of what “hate speech” should be defined as will evolve and most likely cross back over that line making those pushing this false narrative look like even bigger fools!
Posted using Partiko iOS
I would generally agree with that, although "incitement to violence" is a crime in and of itself and is really a separate issue to so called Hate Speech.