What is hate speech?

How do you define hate speech? Can a statement be empirically true and still be hate speech? Can a statement be hate speech that does not advocate violence, or breaking the law in any way? Can hate speech prohibitions inhibit intellectual freedom?

 

I see hate speech as lies in the service of disparagement.

No. True statements simply reflect reality. If reality casts someone in a negative light, that's something they should ponder.

Yes.

The American Commitment to Free Speech goes far deeper than just the First Amendment. The antidote to Hate Speech is more Free Speech, not Speech Control. Allow the government to police speech that it labels as 'hate' and they will quickly 'determine' that any speech that does not further their agenda is "hate" and so subject to being banned.

Pro-Palestine professor arrested for killing Jewish man: Police arrested Loay Abdelfattah Alnaji on Thursday after an investigation into Paul Kessler’s death in Thousand Oaks, California.

This pro-Hamas US professor didn't like what the Jewish man was saying, so he killed him.



Forever 69 yrs old



Killed for the 'crime' of being Jewish and speaking freely in America within the hearing of a crazed pro-Hamas University Professor.

'Paul Kessler grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community of Scranton, Pennsylvania. He was known as an ardent Democrat who was passionate about progressive causes and Israel.'

 

I don't feel the need to define it. American legislators would be far better off if they don't try.

 

Hate speech is nothing more than any other speech that people don't like. Sticks and stones..........

 

Do you support hate speech bans?

 

Hate speech is racially biased speech intended to incite to violence, hostility and discrimination. The speech itself is protected by the 1st A. But the actions are not. Inciting others to commit ANY type of illegal action, racially biased or not, is not protected by the 1st A. However, racial bias is especially odious and is generally considered in any sentencing as an aggravating circumstance.

 

There is no such thing as hate speech. Only speech that you hate.

 

I think the best way to define hate speech is from the United States v. Schwimmer Supreme Court case which Associate Justice Alito wrote, "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate." The real issue is not how we define hate speech, but that free speech includes both popular and unpopular speech as equally protected under the first amendment and the freedom of expression. The moment we start accepting only popular speech, and not unpopular speech, then our free speech rights will be diminished by government by whatever party is in power.

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=facpubs

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/279/644/

 

That deals with the government. A website that says it prohibits hate speech means that it prohibits anything a powerful person dislikes. That is why I want any website that prohibits hate speech to be very specific about what it prohibits.

 

Is is hate speech to draw attention to the fact that blacks have a murder rate that is nearly eight times the white rate?

 

private businesses can prohibit whatever speech they desire. Many companies want employees to focus on their work, not on anything else. Same thing with universities and colleges, at least officially, and not necessarily with groups affiliated with the university such as fraternity and sorority organizations. But the emphasis is on government, not private enterprise. But I did give you the definition of what hate speech actually is by Justice Alito.

People are free to engage in speech on social media, debate forums, etc. Each private enterprise has its own rules on how it defines the rules of conduct. Facebook's policy is here as an example. It says, "We define hate speech as a direct attack against people — rather than concepts or institutions— on the basis of what we call protected characteristics: race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity and serious disease. We define attacks as violent or dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt, disgust or dismissal, cursing and calls for exclusion or segregation. We also prohibit the use of harmful stereotypes, which we define as dehumanizing comparisons that have historically been used to attack, intimidate, or exclude specific groups, and that are often linked with offline violence." But it also says in the first paragraph, "We believe that people use their voice and connect more freely when they don’t feel attacked on the basis of who they are." Now the real question is how effective or ineffective the private company enforces these rules. We also have the forum rules as we post where the mods will enforce those rules as they see fit. In another example, we know with the antisemitism on certain college campuses, they created a two-tier system between nonjewish groups and Jewish groups. These very same college campuses made sure that no one who was black, LGBTQ, or whatever during the social protests was attacked simply because of who they were. Apparently, they did not do the same with the Jewish community. And they should have equality with Jews and Gentiles, LGBTQ and Strait, BLM and those who opposed them, etc. The two-tier standard is what you need to focus on, not a carte-blanch approach.

 

I don't know what part of my explanation of hate speech you believe has to do with that. Unless you just needed an excuse to post racist nonsense.

 

You did not answer my question, so I will ask it again: "Is is hate speech to draw attention to the fact that blacks have a murder rate that is nearly eight times the white rate?"

This is where I get that data:

-----------

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics

Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—  Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

-----------

Is it "racist nonsense" to post unflattering facts about Negroes? That is a "yes" or "no" question.

 

That would depend on the context and the purpose. If you are pointing it out because you are concerned by murders that is not hate speech; if your concern is blacks that may be hate speech; if your concern is criticizing blacks that is hate speech.

 

Thank you for responding to my question. What you are saying is that hate speech can be true.

If someone says that the high black incarceration rate is the result of systemic racism, I hope I have the ability to say that it is due to the high black crime rate, if I document my statement using credible data.

 

It's whatever the government says it is.

 

Any question in which "the fact" is followed by nonsense aren't meant to be answered. Something like "is the reason you beat up your wife the fact that she's not as intelligent as you?" Especially when that nonsense is a racist myth, like yours. They are only intended as propaganda to fool the gullible.

 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics

January 2021 Statistical Brief NCJ 255969 Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018 Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)...collects information on victims’ perceptions of offenders’ race, ethnicity, and other characteristics in incidents of violent crime. This survey is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Te 2018 NCVS data file includes interviews from 151,055 households.

An examination of offenders’ characteristics, as reported by victims in the NCVS, provides information on racial and ethnic disparities beyond an arrestee and population-based comparison...

Among the most serious incidents of violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault), there were no statistically significant differences by race between offenders identified in the NCVS and persons arrested per the UCR...

Black people were over represented among offenders in nonfatal violent crimes overall (29%) relative to their share of the U.S. population (13%). Half of all offenders involved in robbery (51%), a third involved in aggravated assault (34%), and more than a fifth involved in simple assault (23%) and rape or sexual assault (22%) were black.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf

-----------

Golem, if I understand you correctly, you are maintaining, or at least suggesting, that reported crime rates are misleading because black criminals are much more likely to be arrested and convicted than white criminals.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) does not deal with arrests or convictions, but with what a random sample of Americans day about whether or not they have been crime victims, and if so, the race of those who committed crimes against them. These included crimes for which there were no arrests or convictions.

According to the NCVS the percentage of reported offenders is roughly the same as the percentage of convicted offenders.

For example, during my life I have been mugged, robbed at gunpoint, and nearly murdered. Blacks did it each time. None of them were arrested.

Whites and East Asians have never committed crimes against me.

 

It is not hate speech, but it is misleading. With statistics, remember the rule, it is statistics, sadistics, and damn lies.

If you look at raw numbers, it does not prove your point. If you try to use the per capita model for crimes, it can be misleading. People are arrested, but being arrested may not prove the person actually did it. You have to look at conviction rates for homices to get that answer, and conviction rates are never about per capital doctrine, it is about percentages as a group. The group is defined as total homicides, Within that total group is then done by race. Look at Tables 1 through 9. They use percentages of the total depending on how the total is defined. In each and every table, whites make up the majority here, not blacks. I am sure you saw the title, but didn't exactly read the particulars. You just went on what you thought you saw instead of what you actually saw.

 

then we have the flip side

https://www.americamagazine.org/pol...ar-old-stabbed-chicago-catholic-muslim-246307

"(OSV News) -- An Illinois man accused of murdering a Palestinian boy and stabbing his mother because they were Muslim is a member of a local Catholic parish."

"Court documents state that Shahin -- who described her landlord as an angry man -- had tried to calm Czuba just prior to the attack by urging him to pray for peace in Israel. In response, Czuba stabbed her a dozen times and her son 26 times with a military-style knife. The documents also noted that Czuba’s wife told investigators Czuba “listens to conservative talk radio on a regular basis.”"

 

Censorship violates rights.

THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT EVERY UNIVERSITY, EVERY TIME: “Every time there is a shout-down, a de-platforming, or a canceling on campus, the school needs to do an investigation asking two questions: Did administrators do anything to stop it? Did administrators do anything to encourage it? Failing at the first should get an administrator in trouble. Failing at the second should get them fired.”

 

Hate speech has come to mean any unflattering comment about the Negro race. unless white racism is blamed. Those who claim that it is not our fault that they tend to perform poorly on all the mental aptitude tests, however they are the are designed, not our fault that they commit so many crimes against us, and not our fault that they have so many illegitimate children that we are are expected to support on welfare risk being banned from the website where we express those dangerous thoughts, or even fired from our jobs.

I maintain it is not our fault, while recognizing that there are decent Negroes.

 

It depends on your affiliation. Democrats regularly get upset by "hate facts". Sometimes it's a fair complaint though, if the facts are not making a point, but just disparaging a group, gratuitously.

Maybe using words like Negro are at the root of people taking you the wrong way. Black Americans want to be called black. Not African, not Negro, not the other N word, but black. You can call them black Americans, or even just blacks, and they are fine with it, FYI.

Black Americans, and black people from other nations, for that matter, do NOT show lower IQs, when you control for the education they received, and the culture they grew up in. A key study was done on the children of US soldiers, stationed long term in Germany. Those black students grew up in an identical culture, on base with black, white and other races, and their test scores are identical, no gap shown. It's a myth.

You should consider that even with all the crime in the black community, it's still a tiny fraction overall. Most black neighborhoods are full of law abiding citizens, who are victims of crime, not criminals.

There are more white people on welfare, than black, obviously due to population size. The black community is about half the size it would have been, had we not aborted so many black infants. Most poor people in current year are getting abortions, not living off the welfare of several kids.

 

It is reasonable to assume that children raised by affluent parents get better educations than children raised by poor parents. The following chart demonstrates that lower income whites tent to perform better on the SAT than upper income blacks.



Washington, DC spends more per public school student than nearly every state. Washington, DC has the highest black percentage in the student body. Washington, DC public schools get the lowest test scores.

So, is drawing attention to these facts hate speech?

 

And if you compare whites to Asians, Asians would be the whites in that graph and the Whites would be the blacks. But a meme is not proof, is it, and I cannot see the justification or the logic of the numbers with all incomes being relatively the same with minor variations, which seems to me, it is made up.

But by your actions, you definitely have an affinity against black people in general, including someone named Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson.