Talk:Hate speech/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2001 archive

Someone said this is not an article. Well, improve it, then. It certainly is a topic of concern to English-speaking people. The issue of what a person can say, and how they can say it, is crucial to democracy. I'd also like to examine the relationship between homophobia and hate speech.

--Ed Poor

Nearly 20,000 references on Altavista to "hate speech" and around 600 when combined with "homophobia" means people are talking about it. --Ed Poor

You are misunderstanding the complaint: This is a perfectly valid topic - but as presented it is not an article - it is a personal essay with a bunch of questions. Encyclopedia articles should not be written in first or even second person, nor should they present opinions. Hate speech is a well documented phenomonon, and there are specific laws against it in many countries. Research and documentation of such laws, examples of legal cases and other specific instances, and notes on the relationship to propaganda and other topics would make an extremely useful article. This is not something I find interesting myself, hence I choose not to get involved, but hopefully my suggestions will provoke someone to action - MMGB

Look, Ed, you are right that part of the Wikipedia way is to rewrite and improve entries, (and IMHO completely right that Hate speech should be an entry) but ideally the entry should start as something like a real encyclopedia entry, otherwise you're just making work for other people. Keep the discussion on the / Talk pages. Have a good one. :-)

Went back an re-read it and moving the whole thing here for now. No offense intended.

---

What is hate speech?

Some say it's speech or writing that deliberately expresses hatred toward a person or group. Others find it a deceptive term used to muzzle someone who merely expresses an idea that a person or group would rather not be publicized.

Some American universities have speech codes that prohibit the expression of certain ideas. The very voicing of such opinions is held to constitute hate speech, regardless of what the speaker claims their motive to be. Many speakers have opposed such speech codes, claiming they constitute a new orthodoxy of political correctness and represent an erosion of the freedom of speech guaranteed in the constitution.

For example, if I say that three times as many black slaves were enslaved by Arabs as by American whites, does that constituted hate speech? And am I hating blacks, or Arabs? Or if I protest slavery in Sudan, again does that make me anti-black or anti-Arab somehow?

Must I be forbidden even to express the idea, in no matter what terms, because the idea itself is considered 'hate speech' and therefore forbidden?

Not covered aspects

I see that the introductory passage concentrates on the US legislation, which is not appropriate. It is said that American government is forbidden from regulating freedom of speech. The author of this passage is wrong. The Supreme Court of the US is allowed to interpret all the norms of Constitution including the First Amendment. Specific interpretations by the US Supreme Court of the First Amendment where used to silence communists in the US - McCarthyism, used to silence critics of Vietnam War, where used to silence Martin Luther King, where used to silence Afro-Americans movement for equal rights in the 60-ies. Vlad fedorov 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) You should research more carefully the common law legal system, because laws in common law system are made not through the written statues, but through the court decisions. And it is not the Constitution that you should research, but the court decisions. Vlad fedorov 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Praise

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this article. Keep it up =D

this whole page is bs...let me see...if you are a conservative you engage in hate speech...if a liberal then no...this is reason...please...what this is is an attempt to silence political debate...why a cross in urine not hate speech from liberals...a double standard in intellectual hypocrisy...welcome to the land of the ignorant...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.135.78 (talk • contribs) .

How strictly would you like to apply the term "hate speech"? You will find part of the bible and the koran defined as such, and so banned. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Okay, are you guys aware that the section on speech codes is copied word for word from answers.com? I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to do that. Rogue 9 02:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Er you wouldn't happen to be refering to the answers.com section that is taken from Wikipedia now would you? If so, of course it is copied word for word except you got the direction wrong. They copied it from us, fully legally... Nil Einne 15:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Marxist POV

The title and tone of this article is nothing but Marxist-PC propaganda, which is why the neutrality of this article is disputed.

We can play revert wars with these Marxist-POV's until the cows come home if you'd like?

This is the talk page and only a NPOV should be allowed on Wiki articles. --Paul Vogel

I agree with you. There is a clear double standard when it comes to "hate speech," one that seems to be propagaded by those on the left. It is invariably biased against white, conservative males. Hate speech legislation in general seems to exist only to marginalize those with so-called "politically incorrect" views. angrywhiteman

Wow. Vogel, you really don't know what you're talking about. I don't agree with hate-speech legislation, either, but there isn't a whit of Marxism in this article. "The left" does not equal "Marxists."--WadeMcR 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not Karl Marx is identified with the Left aside, simply calling this article "Marxist" without engaging in constructive dialog is ad hominem and an example of the type of behavior on Wiki talk pages that brings the whole encyclopedia down. MoodyGroove 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Wanted: exposure of ADL

The Anti-Defamation League is primarily responsible for getting hate crime laws on the books in the USA. The Jews behind this anti-First Amendment bullshit should get the spotlight they deserve.

A "hate crime" IS NOT the same thing as "hate speech". It's one thing to, let's say, call somebody a N-word and quite another to target and beat the crap out of a black person just because they are black. One is free speech (albeit disgusting free speech) while the other is a violent racially-motivated felony. If you would turn off Rush Limbaugh for a moment and actually THINK about what you are whining about you'd see the difference.69.3.223.157 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this article? (Besides maybe as an example) --IceflamePhoenix 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, why is it that some idiots always have to mention Rush Limbaugh or Fox News etc. every time they discuss something even remotely political? If those on the left were made to go a week without bringing up Rush Limbaugh(or Sarah Palin or Fox News or Glenn Beck) in some form or other, they would be quite enough to make Marcel Marceau look like Gilbert Gottfried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples, Please?

What universities have such codes, and can we see an example? --Dmerrill

Can't say off the top of my head, but my brain whirls with half-remembered anecdotes of students forced to choose between expulsion or attend a re-orientation class of sorts (diversity training?), after expressing a 'politically incorrect' opinion. Generally these anecdotes were in the context of debate over gay issues, afrocentrism, feminism... Vice President Cheney's wife wrote a book full of such ancecdotes, concerning professors who often lost tenure or jobs because they took their academic freedom farther than political correctness allowed. I'll need at least a day. --Ed Poor

The University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Illinois-Chicago have such codes.69.3.223.157 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, take two. :-) But it does need to be more specific. I tend to doubt any university's policy actually says flat out "you can't say foo", although I could be proven wrong. Universities have done some bone-headed things. More likely it is couched in other terms. Also we need to discuss the rationale behind the against-hate-speech people, i.e., the high level of hate crimes. But I'm leaving work now, so maybe later or tomorrow. --Dmerrill

Ed, AGAIN!!!

Please stop. You are oversimplifying a serious topic because you don't agree with it.

You misunderstand: it is not true that I don't agree with the topic. I disagree with the way hate speech rules and laws are used to stifle free speech.

After all, the ACLU supports the Nazi party's right to speak, and that speech is always hate-ridden. And yes, many institutions, public and private, have banned certain kinds of speech -- but it is seldom at the level of "you can't make such a comment in conversation" unless, of course, you happen to be in a position of authority.

If it is "seldom", then it does occur. What is your position on such bans when they occur?

Plus, your article implies that Universities only push leftist, politically correct speech policies.

I have heard only of cases of conservative, politically incorrect speech being punished. Please provide examples of leftist, poltically correct speech being punished, other than 9/1

. Racist speech should be banned FOREVER

That would, of course, explain why several university professors who (after 9/11) made comments as mild as, "the arab world has plenty of reasons to hate the US" or, "I think invading Afghanistan is a bad idea and here's why..." were threatened with job loss if they didn't retract their statements. In institutions where I've studied and taught, Hate speech includes anti-gay speech, but focuses much more on racist and misogynist speech.

You are proving me point here. Are you aware of it? Anti-gay, racist, and misogynist speech is politically incorrect.

At one school, some white students were required to take down a confederate battle flag in their window, because many other students, white and black, found it an offensive reminder of a racist past (the students with the flag claimed they were Lynard Skynard fans).

I think that, if you find yourself typing the word 'homosexual', you should step back, remove the sentence, and take a deep breath. And maybe even step away from the article.  :-) JHK

Whence comes this desire to censor the word homosexual? Do you believe that my opinion of homosexuality is hate speech? If so, why? -- Ed Poor

No, Ed, I don't-- I think that it is a buzzword we all recognize from you and we know it means you are about to try to infuse an article with your moral viewpoint.

What's a buzzword? Is that a term which has no actual meaning, as in Orwell's duckspeak?

I am indeed infusing the article with my viewpoint. If my viewpoint needs labeling or attribution, please edit for completeness.

You might do the same. Private institutions have a right to censor some speech, generally to prevent tensions leading to violence.

You seem to be saying that certain groups must be protected from criticism, lest they become violent. If so, it seems to me that members of such groups should be excluded from universities if they cannot control their propensity for violence. Or at least, people who tend to react violently to criticism should be taught to control themselves. I see no reason to restrict free speech, just because thin-skinned people might run riot.

If a stuident chooses to apply to such an institution, he has agreed implicitly to abide by those rules -- just as, if a student were to apply to and study at Bob jones, and was caught having sex, he could expect to be expelled. Not a big difference. I am not a proponant of PC -- I think it often keeps us from looking at the real underlying problems. Still, actions based on hatred of particular groups is illegal in the US.

I hate people who think particular groups should get immunity from criticism. I'm taking "action" against one right now, by posting this comment. Am I guilty of a hate crime? --Ed

And more hate crimes are perpetrated against minorities (or at least reported) than against white males.

I vigorously oppose discrimination based on race, religion, country of origin, and sex. But hate speech rules do nothing to stop this discrimination. -- Ed

And now, Ed, I have actual meaningful work to do. I know you're trying to pick fights, which is hardly Christian or charitable, and I regret being drawn in.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I am just explaining and defending my edits. If there is something un-NPOV in an article, feel free to edit it. But please don't delete text simply because it differs from YOUR POV. You can call me an axe-grinder if you want (even though according to your own definition that would be hate speech), but ad hominem arguments are useless here.

I have already resolved that I do not have the time to explain legitimate edits (based on NPOV grammar, and facts) to people with axes to grind. Your axe is way too big. You refuse to accept that you write most of your articles from a non-NPOV, and then pick fights when people point this out. You don't deserve the amount of time people put into dealing with you. JHK

I concede that some of my first drafts contain sentences that are from a non-NPOV, but that doesn't mean that most of my articles are from a non-NPOV. Anyway, if there are errors, fix 'em. Be a cooperative citizen. --Ed Poor

---

Ed, if you can't say off the top of your head, shouldn't you take some time to research the topic before writing an encyclopedia article on it?

I think your idea to write an article on this topic is commendable, but this article seems vague and sloppy. Some suggestions

1) The first ammendment protects us from Congress, not from private individuals or corporations. Therefore, the only hate-speech rules that would threaten first-ammendment rights are those rules promolgated by Congress. (for example, if my father tells me that he will not tolerate certain kinds of speech at the dinner table he is NOT violating my first ammendment rights; indeed, many mericans would challenge Congress's right to prevent my father from making certain rules.

So any reasonable article must distinguish between Federal law and rules instituted by individuals or corporations

2) a useful article should be based on facts -- please provide summaries of various anti-hate-speech laws/codes/statuts, as well as summaries of any court rulings on the constitutionality of such codes.

Also, what is the theoretical/legal basis of this category? I would expect any encyclopedia article to provide a brief history (when was the concept first developed, when was the first piece of legislation) and also a review of the theoretical basis for the concept (Judith Butler, maybe?)

Someone else recently criticized you for submitting articles in which you had a bias. I do not agree with that -- we all have biases, and we can all struggle to bring some NPOV into our contributions, and I know you have tried to do that.

My only objection is when someone write an article about something they are ignorant of or have not sufficiently researched. SR

Actually, you're not quite accurate there. The First Amendment protects us from government action in general. Government entities, including states and state universities, may not limit speech beyond the very narrow definitions of illegal harassment, incitement to riot, and the infamous fighting words doctrine. Many universities try to get around this by simply calling their speech codes "harassment policies," but calling it a harassment policy doesn't make it not a speech code, not if it goes beyond banning actions that fall under the strict legal definition of harassment. Rogue 9 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

SR, you raise some good points:

1. To what extent are universities permitted to curtail First Amendment rights? I suppose a private university could require students to practice the university's religion (establishment of religion) rather than some other religion (freedom of religion) and avoid expressing certain ideas aloud or in print (freedom of speech and press). But what if they accept public funding?

a fair point, a constitutional scholar would have to address this

1. I had hoped my stub would encourage someone more knowledgeable than me to provide "summaries of various anti-hate-speech laws/codes/statutes."

However, I believe there is some value in submitting incompletely researched articles. I call them "stubs" and have often found that the mere act of submitting a stub often results in an expert taking a few moments to dash off an adequate article.

On the other hand, I have been often frustrated to find that people adhering to the politically correct orthodoxy would rather waste tame fruitlessly accusing me of bias than to fix incomplete articles. As one who frequently stumbles over the distinction between what I really know and what is merely my personal bias, I can sympathize with such people: they don't know any better.

So let's all stop the pissing match and start working together to fix the articles. --Ed Poor

Ed, I have done little to fix the article because I am not an expert in constitutional law or hate-speech. When I see a Wikipedia article and turn to it it is in the hope of being educated. This is why I expect authors of articles to have researched their contributions. Perhaps like you I would indeed like to see a good article on hate speech. I just prefer to leave it to people who are qualified.

My advice to you is this: if you would like to see an article in Wikipedia that you personally do not have time to research, propose it as a proposed article, and invite others to write it. SR

For example, for a college professor to say, "Lesbians should not be schoolteachers", could be considered hate speech.

The professor could be denied tenure, even if he were expressing his religious belief

Have there been cases like this or is this just a hypothetical in an attempt to discredit hate speech codes? If no evidence is provided, I will remove this paragraph. AxelBoldt

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5671.html. There are also plenty of other examples on that site, in both public and private university institutions. In fact, I'd add that site to the external links if I wasn't so certain someone would remove it for not being specific enough to the article. --I am not good at running 17:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I cut this:

Thus, the accusation is hypocritical because it condemns a person for a thing he didn't do.

because it is not true. Actually, I question the value of the hypothetical example itself; I think an encyclopedia article would be much bette served by providing a few real examples. I may end up cutting the whole hypothetical. But in the meantime, this one sentence is patently falst, the hypothetical itself presents a professor as having soaid something, and he is being condemned precisely for having said it, in other words, for what he actually did do. SR

---

I just NPOV'd this article some more. It isn't only "conservatives" who object to these codes. I object and I am not a conservative. Please look at the diffs. In most cases, I damped the enthusiasm for hate-speech codes down slightly. In one case (the hypothetical example), I strengthened the argument. I added serious objections to the notion that the First Amendment prohibits only government censorship. Ortolan88 15:18 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

---

This article says nothing about Canada or Europe, which have laws, some very interesting about hate speech. However, as we say on the Straight Dope Message Board, IANAL (I am not a lawyer). - user:Montrealais

---

I rewrote the introduction in an attempt to describe positions for and against the use of the term "hate speech". Seeing as it is a controversial term (as the disagreement here demonstrates) I think it is reasonably NPOV to call it one, and to outline the POVs involved. The details on academic speech codes are still sorely needed. --FOo

---

This entry really should emphasize the legal context. Anyone know what the story behind the "water buffalo" being hate speech is? --The Cunctator

Cunctator, a quick google search on "water buffalo" "hate speech" will provide you multiple references. Quick story - a white student called some female black students "water buffalo" - hate speech charges ensued.

In fact, the "caller", Eden Jacobowitz, was Israeli, and (at least according to some articles) he came up with "water buffalo" as a translation for behemah, a piece of Israeli Hebrew slang for "fool". There seems to me little meat to the idea that this was racist; it was a foreign student being misunderstood and put through hell for it.

A similar incident happened on a much smaller scale when I was in college; a white student working on a group project with two black students became frustrated with the lack of effort the two were putting into the project, and remarked, "You people are lazy." She meant "you (two particular students) are lazy", but the two took her statement as meaning "black people are lazy". This is a dialect difference: in some areas of the U.S., "you people" is used to refer to two or more individuals being addressed by the speaker, whereas in other areas, it only refers to a larger group such as a population. It almost became a campus "hate speech" incident, but thankfully, this was after Jacobowitz and the water buffalo, and people had better ways to respond to "racist" misunderstandings. --FOo

A new case is in the works that's just making the news -- two African American women are suing an airline because a stewardess, trying to get everyone to sit down so they could take off, said, "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo, grab a seat, we've got to go." -- Zoe

I dont think thats hate speech though... perhaps racist speech, but not... -&#35918&30505

---

Hate speech in other countries: don't Germany and Canada, other countries, have actual laws on this? Ortolan88

Australia has hate speech laws. Can't say about other countries, bu I thought most civilised countries did. Tannin

Not the US. Laws like that are against the law in the United States (see article) and most of us are fine with that. My point was that those laws ought to be in this article. Ortolan88

---

The article needs a major rewrite:

• How do proponents of hate speech codes define hate speech?
• What do they hope to gain by promulgating these speech codes?
• How do opponents of these codes feel about the issue?
• What sort of punishments or adverse actions have been taken, e.g., in academia, against those deemed to have violated these codes?
• What is the relationship of hate speech to hate crimes? That is, if someone stabs you and takes your wallet, is that worse or bettr than calling you a faggot and giving you a few bruises? (In the law's eyes, I mean)

--Uncle Ed 19:29 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Ed, I like your rewrites, but this example has to go. It doesn't fit into the first para of the article, and it's pretty silly any way you cut it. Personally I think your definition is sufficient, though perhaps one could mention that determining what is and is not hate speech can be a complex issue.

Calling Netanyahu a "war criminal" for his role in a massacre, for example, would not be hate speech. Referring to Michael Jackson as a "nigger chimpanzee", however, would be.

Dachshund

---

Hate speech is language held to express hatred or contempt towards a person or group of people for reasons other than their behavior. Can we safely exclude behavior? I don't think we can. Arguably, some people's hatred of homosexuals is based on homosexuals' (perceived) behavior, e.g. disgust for the idea of gay men having anal sex. There are certainly plenty of rude and hateful words for it based on that act.

Also, that the idea that a category of speech called "hate speech" exists or is useful in public discourse is still a controversial idea. I for one do not think there is a meaningful boundary between "hate speech" and "hateful speech" or "aggressive speech with which the speaker disagrees." Therefore it seems to me that the article should not be about what "hate speech" is, but rather what are those things which some people call "hate speech", and why do they call them that? In this regard, it bothers me that my explicit use of the word "controversial" in the introduction has been removed more than once in the editing of this article. --FOo

France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of Anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters.

California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the very right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds. + 207.200.116.71 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The “California” paragraph above is included in the article. I think that the first sentence is wrong on several points. Prosecution for hate speech would violate the First Amendment, if I’m not very much mistaken. “Physical” hate crimes would have to be assault and battery etc. and therefore not relevant to this article. The word “alleged” seems (to me) to imply that there is no such thing as hate speech or hate crimes, but I don’t think that anyone questions that these concepts exist (you can quibble over the definitions, but that’s another thing). At the very least the claims in the sentence need to be verified. As for the second sentence, isn’t that true of all or most states in the US? And if it is, what’s the relevance of mentioning only California? Sjö 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I removed the "California" paragraph. The paragraph about France was added by the same user, and it reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopdic entry to me. Since I don’t know the French laws that well I’m leaving it in, hoping that someone will add some facts.Sjö 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)In order to stop prejudice the best way is through education and counter acting hate speech with tolerance speech. This confuses and out smarts bigots. Patronizing and censoring doesn't stop bigotry. The goal is to stop prejudics and cure the bigot. By making him into a fool. This will lead into him or her having a fall in the future, Sticks and Stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. Those who advocate censoring to stop hate are hideing a prejudice themselves both in the advocates as well as the vicitms of hate. There are exception but most people don't learn from the hate against them unfortunaltey. George Carlin stated don't be afraid of the words be afraid of the person who uses them/ mrthinky 4/21/10Mrthinky (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

moving stuff

I am moving a couple things in here. I find the "untenable" comment to be innaccurate, and POV. If somebody wants to reword these, so be it. Also, this page in general has some pretty hearty POV issues, and I think it needs some help. I am half tempted to dispute the neutrality, but I think I should complain in here for awhile 1st. :) Here are the things I cut:

Critics of this position hold that such a position is untenable, in that it depends on denying what they argue are historical truths, i.e. that hate speech in practice sometimes is used to incite murder and genocide.

Critics of this position hold that such a position is untenable, in that it depends on the presumed goodwill of those purveying hate speech, and it assumes without proof that one can avoid incitement to murder and genocide by discussion alone.

JackLynch

Why? Hate speech codes, and speech codes in general, in any public institution are untenable; the 1989 Supreme Court case Doe v. University of Michigan saw to that. Rogue 9 03:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

It is obvious to me and to some others that there is a LEFTIST cabal within the Wiki community that is ALWAYS enforcing Marxist-PC Dogmatism and REVERTING and editing and censoring, accordingly, and without any real regard to enforcing the WIKI NPOV. For example:

[snip]

--Paul Vogel

I have moved this snip I found in final list of articles related to Hate speech, that looks much more appropriate here:

All bands contained in the Wikipedia Category Neo-nazi music, which seems to have as only purpose to spam Wikipedia with hate contents. NPOV does not mean spam all your external links on the Nazi side, and then put anti-nazi content. No, anti-nazi form not only a majority, but a neutral point of view (devoided of revisionism), and should ask for deletion of such pages (Rock Against Communism is the only exception, as it is not a spam entry made for promotion of hate-bands, but an entry on the history of this nazi movement).

--Cyclopia 14:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This argument is stupid. Public University speech codes go way beyond the intent of keeping the student body civil. I will not go any further than that on this topic folks. If you have any kind of academic interest in this topic than you already know or can do the research yourself.

However, every time a public university gets challenged when a student says enough is enough, the courts always have and always will side with the 1st Amendment. That is fact. Speech codes in any institution of learning that receives public funding is limited by the bill of rights. Just as the state Governments where limited when the 14th amendment was passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.45.238 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

I don't consider Rush Limbaugh "hate speech", but it keeps getting added to the See also section. Since it's a highly debatable point, and the Rush Limbaugh article itself only notes that his broadcasts are "compared by some to hate speech", I think we should pass judgment and leave he and Ann Coulter out of this section.

--Ultra Megatron 18:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disgree, Feminazi is a clear instance of hate speech, though he doesnt use it any more. But if one replaced liberal with Jew in Rush's moronic diatribes, it would be all-too-clear how similar to Joseph Goebbels he is.

This last statement is absolutely meaningless. If you take anything that Al Franken said about "Rush Limbaugh" and replace him with "Rosa Parks" it would be all-too-clear how similar to David Dukes Mr Franken is. Billyjoekoepsel 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to just laugh at someone who claims the word "feminazi" is hate speech and then goes on to compare a talk-show host to Joseph Goebbels.74.138.44.11 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I think Ann Coulter qualifies for hate speech with this: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." -- Ann Coulter to George Gurley, New York Observer, August 21, 2002

On [Fox News Channel's February 7th, 2002] Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes regarding a statement Ann made at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference, which was : "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too."

Colmes: "You hate liberals. You despise liberals. This is unbelievable.We should execute them to make liberals scared?"

Coulter: "Right. Right!"

Such statements qualify as hate speech since she concones the muderering of people in the press and intimidating with threat of death political opponents.

Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.136.199 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hate speech by Rush Limbuagh:

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549

[To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” source: http://www.cbssports.com/print/columns/story/9947327

If that's not enough for anyone, I can come back and fill this page with worse.

Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.136.199 (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I study journalism. There are a lot of legal nuances involved in "hate speech." None of them regard your feelings about what Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter say.

First of all, hate speech requires specific moral judgment and call to action or incitement based on the judgment. Neither are present. Now, when broadcast personalities say something, such as Bill Maher wishing Glenn Beck had been killed (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/06/bill-maher-wishes-glenn-beck-had-been-killed-pentagon-thursday), they are privileged under the the sweeping umbrella of rhetorical creativity and comedic effect.

Coulter has been known for using comedy to illustrate her points. In fact, she even went on a tour with Bill Maher where they went back and forth for the amusement of a crowd. Comedy often focuses on the morbid. Comedian Chris Titus joked that he would "camp out on the grassy knoll" if Palin was elected, a euphemism for killing her as LHO did Kennedy.(http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/comic-chris-titus-hints-at-assassinating-palin-if-she-gets-elected-president/)

You are certainly wrong and uneducated on the legalities and intricacies of hate speech in the United States. However, if you really feel that you must defend all individuals' rights not to be belittled or threatened, I entreat you to put your money where your mouth is and add Bill Maher and Chris Titus to the tagged individuals along with Rush and Coulter.156.12.128.8 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This argument is completely irrelevant as "hate speech" is not recognized under American law; a "hate speech" designation for a particular utterance is as subjective as it is meaningless. More often than not(with the supposed examples provided above proving my point), the easily-offended scream hate speech whenever someone says something they don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.44.11 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Would these link be relevant material for External Links?

Would these links be relevant material for this article, or would they belong in a more specific article that covers speech codes?

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050524-100551-2231r.htm Italian journalist under trial for "insulting" Islam

http://www.thefire.org The FIRE -- site + relevant news stories pertaining to university speech codes

--I am not good at running 17:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

I would like to point out that Sam's demands to cite my sources are rather superfluous, as the article itself states that hate speech encompasses more than simply incitement to violence. Pointing out that any attempt to say that letting hate speech be aired so that it can be exposed to reason is an attempt to reason with would-be murderers is completely disingenuous in light of this fact is simply stating the obvious; anyone reading the whole article can see it. Rogue 9 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

thats a POV. Readers come here to read cited, verifiable POV's, not anonymous editorial POV's. If you cite it, it can be included. if not, (and even you don't seem to think it is needed) it can be left out. Sam Spade 21:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What can be left out is the illegitimate counter-criticism. Surely you can see that arguing for the refutation of racist speech, for example, is not simply saying that "one can avoid incitement to murder and genocide by discussion alone," since the vast majority of racists are not interested in genocide. It is a ridiculous strawman fallacy, and nothing but. Furthermore, I have my doubts as to whether the article can be considered evenhanded in the first place, since it goes well out of its way to make sure that every counter-argument to hate speech laws has some sort of refutation attached to it, even if that refutation simply doesn't follow. Rogue 9 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and all such "refutations" should also be removed, unless they have acitation. Readers don't come here to find out what wikipedians think, but rather to read encyclopedic info. Please remove any such uncited commentary. Sam Spade 22:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

This is a good article, but it fails to address a critical issue, and that is that so-called hate speech restricts not only political but also scientific discourse

A good example is the science behind homosexuality. There is no scientific consensus regarding the origin or mechanism of homosexuality, and by suppressing so-called hate-speech, one also inherently suppresses legitimate scientific conjecture. For example, there is a theory that homosexuality is a choice, at least in some individuals, and that this choice may be influenced by environment. By denying statements like "lesbians should not be school teachers", these laws suppress legitimate scientific inquiry rather than arguing for or against the question with real scientific evidence..and in doing so these laws are very dangerous for everyone involved

(Actually, it's been scientifically proven that homosexuality isn't a choice, but something that you're born with. I know you weren't stating your views either way, and that this is besides the point, but I thought I'd point this out, as the choice idea can hardly be called a 'theory' anymore.) --DearPrudence 03:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what horse manure, Prudence, and a good example of why the preceding comment is important. "Scientifically proven"? That's going beyond dreamland, for sure. All of which makes the point crystal clear that "hate speech", if such were to exist, would interfere with clear and rational discourse that would, hopefully, lead us forward.

Politically-Correct Hate Speech

Need to say something about the fact that hate speech from the Left is usually not classified as such, although it often meets the criteria. For example, had it not come from the Left, much of what Andrea Dworkin said and wrote would be classified as hate speech. -- LKS 5/15/06

It's dangerous to use the passive voice when discussing intentional actions such as classifying. When you say "x is usually not classified as y", you mask the issue of who is doing the classifying. Your grammatical construction gives the impression that some impersonal force is doing it, whereas I'm sure that what you have in mind is specific acts of classification done by specific people. --FOo 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think you need to have in mind specific acts made by specific people about this issue. I guess that LKS just talks about a general statistic. --Cyclopia 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's a "general statistic" then there must be specific examples too. If there's a true general statement, like "Most Americans in May 2006 disapprove of George W. Bush," then there must also actually be a lot of specific instances of it, like individual Americans who have that belief. That's why pollsters ask individuals questions, rather than just making up numbers based on what they feel should be true.

If LKS's claim is true, then there must exist a plethora of individual cases in which someone considered Andrea Dworkin's speech, contemplated whether it was "hate speech", and decided that it was not because she was a leftist. I am challenging LKS to actually present some concrete evidence of this claim. --FOo 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure LKS should substantiate his/her claim (that's quite POV-risky, btw, even if I can agree with it at a certain point, personally). However it is obvious that the chances of the existence of "concrete evidence" of someone positively asserting that speech X is not hate speech just because it comes from the left are slim to none -just because if this phenomenon exists, no one would openly admit it. On the other hand, individual examples would mean nothing to the generality of the claim. Short said, you're missing the point IMHO. What LKS should bring us is evidence of ongoing discussion on the subject, that would gain his hypothesis at least the status of current controversy. --Cyclopia 23:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The concept of hate speech arose from the Left. Politically-Correct Hate Speech is just speech from the Left that is "hateful" but is not defined as such, since it is the Left that (currently) does the defining.-- LKS 5/19/06

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. Some groups that are quite active in labeling and opposing "hate speech", such as the Anti-Defamation League, are frequently critical of leftist speakers. --FOo 06:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that the concept of "Hate Speech" didn't arise from the Left? Shirley, you jest! -- LKS 6/1/06

The first mention of it that I can find was from a psychologist called Gordon Allport. He did have a university degree, so you probably see him as a Marxist. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that someone would regard another person as a Marxist because he had a degree is a person attack - hate speech, if you like. Political Correctness is a leftwing concept, there is no secret about that. So it follows that the concept of hate speech is also leftist. It was developed precisely to impose censorship and control of thought and debate. Very extreme, if you ask me. But also selective. Attacks on homosexuals are hate speech, attacks on Christians or Muslims are not hate speech.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Often the victims of this "selective" hate speech are also the victims of systematic violence. That is the case for homosexuals who whose sexual identity was illegal in most countries when the term was defined and were subject to much severer violence than they are today. I hope it is that you simply do not understand what it is you are attacking. At least in my eyes, hate speech indicates the threat of violence to a marginalised group, and whether it is carried through or not, it often has led to physical violence as well --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Does anybody have any specific article improvements they'd like to discuss? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hate speech codes and censorship in academia

This entire section is biased against speech codes in academia. While this may or may not be right or wrong, wikipedia is not the place to spout one's personal views. Furthermore the example of the teacher not wanting a lesbian to be tenured does not add anything of value to this article except to be inflammatory:

For example, for a college professor to say, "Lesbians should not be schoolteachers," could be considered hate speech. The professor could be denied tenure, even if he were expressing his religiously-based belief that homosexuals should not be put in positions where they can influence young people. Underlying such a claim is the belief that homosexuals in positions of influence over young people might influence their sexuality. Opponents would argue that the underlying theory behind the words suggests a false understanding of the nature of human sexuality with their usage designed to promote fear of homosexuals and their supposed influence on children among non-homosexuals, so leading to hatred of, and discrimination against, homosexuals.

I think that passage should just be removed. This sounds as if the writer is trying to justify a position without regard to the topic of censorship in academia. --VTEX 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The very concept of Hate Speech is anathema to the concept of Free Speech, especially on university campuses and in the press.--LKS 6/1/06

is often made to suppress points of view that are unfavorable to certain "protected groups", which represents a significant infringement of the tradition of academic freedom and gives members of these groups an unfair advantage in the so-called "marketplace of ideas"

This whole passage reads badly and stinks with NPOV using weasel words. What are these "protected groups", can we have examples? What do you mean by so-called "marketplace of ideas" - Should one expect to have freedom of ideas in academia or should ideas in academia be guided by science and reason? Despite the answer to this, it is inappropriate for this section to address this question.

I think all that is appropriate in this section is a statement describing what hate speech codes are and that they exist in academia.

--VTEX 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This actually is already described in the speech code section above, so we should probably just get rid of the academia speech code section altogether. --VTEX 18:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not get rid of, but merge with Speech codes.Sjö 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Uses of Hate Speech

This article needs to say something about the fact that labeling speech as hateful is usually an attempt to silence an opposing point of view. Also, this article needs to acknowledge that the concept of Hate Speech arose from the Left. --LKS 6/1/06

That wouldn't be very NPOV. Powers 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Furthermore, Hate Speech is specifically speech that is demeaning to a person or group of people and has nothing to do with silencing opposing viewpoints. This type of speech is on the same level as yelling "Fire" in a crowded building with the intention to start a panic. It is meant to do one thing: hurt other people. --VTEX 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Arose from the left?!?! Don't know about that, though wouldn't be surprised. If you have sources then show us them and it could be included but could be tricky because it has been around for a long time. And yes, silencing critics can be one use of lableling something as "hate speech". VTEX got it mixed up the wrong way between those who label and those who are labelled. Mathmo ^Talk 10:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps LKS didn't express himself well (six years in the past). He probably did not mean to say that it is a fact that hate speech rules are used to silence the opposition, but rather that there are some people who say so. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Foucault

What is this stuff about Michel Foucault doing here?

Michel Foucault's statement according to which sexuality has not only been censored during the Victorian era: it was also put in discourse through a "sexuality dispositif", thus transforming "sex" into what the West names "sexuality". In this case, censorship of sexuality has made the discourse of sexuality proliferate, with the constitution of a huge amount of scientific or pseudo-scientific literature on "sexuality", conceived as the secret of our own personal identities.

I can see that it's used as an example of a previous argument. But as such, it just goes on. It's off-topic and it's riotously contentious. Which pseudo-scientific literature? Who has "conceived" this? And who is the "we" of "our own sexual identities"? And what on earth does "dispositif" mean? MacMurrough 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Austin as an argument against speech codes?

In How To Do Things With Words, J. L. Austin concludes that the distinction between speech and action is not tenable, because all speech is action. This seems to me a reason that all speech is subject to regulation, since action can impinge upon another's rights... What's up here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superabo (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Hate Speech Laws in Singapore

It seems that Singapore was not mentioned as one of the countries which have hate speech laws, even though many have been convicted for hate speech in Singapore. For example, in December of 2005 three men were convicted for making racist comments. Is anyone here familar with Singapore law, and thier hate speech laws ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 January 2007.

Hate Art

Article could use a sub-category of Hate Art. Jaakobou 08:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Arguments Against: The Issues of Truth, and of Selective Prosecution

Two major objections to Hate Speech laws are currently missing from the "Arguments against legal restrictions" list:

• 1. Hate Speech laws suppress truth, because they prohibit (hate-inducing) true assertions as much as false ones, in that (unlike libel laws) truth is generally not a legal defence. For example, stating the true relative statistical incidence of petty frauds committed by Rom (Gypsies) compared with members of the general population is likely to increase public hatred of the former. In much of Europe, stating this statistical truth is punishable by imprisonment. Another example: Under the UK religious incitement statute, accurately characterising the sacrificial practices of the Aztec religion is punishable by imprisonment because it is reasonably calculated to induce hatred of that religion, even though it is the truth.

• 2. Biased Selective Enforcement In practice, as opposed to theory, these laws are used to defend certain ethnic groups and nationalities only, and not certain others. No-one has ever been prosecuted in Europe under Hate Speech laws for remarks calculated to induce hatred against Americans, Germans, the French, white people, the rich, or blondes, despite the frequency of published virulent hatred-inducing remarks against them. It is only certain favoured groups that can use these laws in practice, namely the groups whom political correctness was historically designed to benefit.

Others may want to refine or refute these two points. I'll add them as "Arguments Against" later if there is no feedback. Tilsit 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, you'll need to find some sort of reliable source that deals with these points, rather than just making them out of your own personal opinions or conclusions on the matter. That's what WP:OR is about. --FOo 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research tags

Original research tags can be removed when sources are introduced into text referencing facts asserted. Benjiboi 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and {{globalize/USA}}

I think that this article is too American centric. For example the first sentence starts Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade ... for whom is it controversial? Not for the British Government (just google ["hate speech" site:gov.uk]), or the vast majority of Kiwis according to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, etc, etc.

It is controversial for anyone to whom the concept of "freedom of speech" has any significance. Yes, we know. OLDTHINKERS UNBELLYFEEL INGSOC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another example why is only the US and Germany mentioned in the section "Legal aspects"? In the section "Speech codes" the third paragraph on is about primarily US concerns and probably about half the first two paragraphs are US specific sentence.

The sections "Arguments against legal restrictions" and "Differing concepts of what is offensive" are not American centric, they are just WP:OR as they do carry citations for most of the points in the sections. That leaves "Laws against hate speech" which I think is OK. --PBS 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In Canada

Hi! Law student in the good old land of Canadia here. Anyway, I have a great deal of information regarding recent case law about hate speech in Canada. Is there some specific reason Canadian laws aren't detailed in this article? Is there another article for them? If so, could someone point me to it? I don't want to edit this article until someone confirms I'm allowed to put in Canadian information. While WP:BOLD may be said to apply, I wanna make sure I'm being bold in the right place. I can also put in some info on Australia and Germany. I shall check back later for replies.

142.12.15.35 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the article should have a worldwide view, information about Canada that is well-sourced and relevant would be welcome. This article does briefly mention Canada under Laws against hate speech. If you have extensive information specific to Canada, a new article would be worth adding, with a summary in this article. I'm not sure what the best title would be; perhaps Hate speech laws in Canada; if there is material beyond legal considerations, possibly Hate speech in Canada? I'm not sure.

I'm wondering if a country-by-country listing should be added to this article. While trends might be international, laws are mostly not. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I was looking? And I didn't see a page on human rights laws in Canada. I might just be missing it, but I doubt it. This is kind of sad, since Canada has a rather unique approach to human rights re: the dichotomy with free speech. We're actually nigh-apposite to our neighbours to the south. I don't have the time to put in the info and source it yet, but I'll definitely put something in when time arises. Anyone who shares this knowledge and is willing to work with me finding sources, it'd be appreciated. ~~ (The same anon as above) 71.7.206.159 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good article to have. Suggestion: could you please create an account? I sent your above anon account a reply, but you don't seem to retain IP addresses very long. It would also give you the ability to create articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First amendment as an example of laws against hate speech

Someone added the first amendment to the US consitution to the section Laws against hate speech. A discussion of the right to free speech in relation to hate speech is IMO relevant, but the amendment in itself is not a law aginst hate speech. Instead, it restricts the use of hate speech legislation in the US. I will remove it from that section.Sjö (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A country has been excluded

South Africa has anti-hate speech laws embedded in the constitution. 41.206.194.152 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Kim

Could you provide a source for this claim? --FOo (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for prohibiting hate speech

I'm removing this entire chunk from the "arguments for prohibiting/controlling..." section. It isn't actually an argument.

According to Richard Delgado, it is possible to identify hate speech on the use of certain key-words, arguing that "Words such as 'nigger', 'spic', 'kike', 'chink' and 'wop' are badges of degradation even when used between friends: these words have no other connotation." Therefore, the act of calling someone a name should be censored if the name used belongs to a previously identified hate speech. However, Judith Butler (1997) claims that "this very statement, whether written in his text or cited here, has another connotation; he has just used the word in a significantly different way." (Butler considers that "mentioning" a word is an effective "use" of the word in another context)[8] On this basis, Butler claims that words do not have an absolute meaning, but one that depends on the context. She thus underlines the difficulty of identifying a hate-speech.

Because of the presentation of the Butler position without any balance from individuals who have a less relativistic view, I have added a few, with references.--Humanriff (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, the state itself defines the limits of acceptable discourse, according to her. However, Butler takes the precaution to explicitly deny being against all forms of limitation of discourse, the object of her book being only to point out the different issues at stake when one address the problem of hate speech and censorship. She points out, for example, that the very act of forbidding hate-speech reconducts this hate-speech, as quoted by juridical authorities, thus leading to a proliferation of this discourse - Butler's reasoning here follows Michel Foucault's statement according to which sexuality has not only been censored during the Victorian era: it was also put in discourse through a "sexuality dispositif", thus transforming "sex" into what the West names "sexuality". In this case, censorship of sexuality has made the discourse of sexuality proliferate, with the constitution of a large amount of scientific or pseudo-scientific literature on "sexuality", conceived as the secret of our own personal identities.

171.71.37.203 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It goes overboard with Butler, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong here. forestPIG 08:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The article as written seems to suggest that IIED torts are a way of getting around the 1st amendment prohibition on restricting speech content. This is not correct. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), held that IIED torts must conform to first amendment doctrine. It is true that tort law represents an alternative to criminal law, but both must still conform to the constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hate speech laws in the U.S.

Much of this article's discussion of U.S. law was simply wrong. I've removed the inaccurate statements about IIED torts and fighting words, but the whole thing is a mess.

Generally, why is U.S. law discussed at the top under "Legal Aspects." Worldwide perspective dictates that this section should not exclusively focus on the U.S. Why isn't there a separate section for U.S. law, as there is for many other nations? I would be happy to write a section on First Amendment precedents as they apply to hate speech, but I think it belongs in a specialized section dealing with the United States.216.183.171.30 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it yourself!

AFAIK the u.s. doesn't have any hate-speech laws, and thank god for that! See also the NY Times article about this: [[1]]. Benwing (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

I think some public intellectuals have argued that blasphemy laws are similar to modern hate speech laws because both may effectively result in the public protection of a religious group. There is a fine line between insulting Christians and Christianity or Jews and Judaism, because ultimately a religious group is the same thing as a religion. ADM (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Irony

Metro in London has a front page article on a case of racially abusive threatening behaviour where the alleged victim claims to have been called a "white b*****d" while the defendant claims only to have called him a "f****** w*****". The complaint is over the use of the word "white" and an alleged agressive gesture, but it is ironic that the newspaper is willing to print that word but not the other three, which are merely abusive. --17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

proposal for separation: new neutral article "Hate speech law" separated from this one

The problem in this article is the Speech coded part and the Differing concepts of what is offensive one, not the strictly legal part, describing without further comment the various legislations with due references. So why not just create a new Hate speech law article ? Anyway, the debate for or against such laws can't be objectively and universally described. In each country there has been a debate on this matter, so the Hate speech article shouldn't try to summarize a non-existent world debate. Even in neighbouring European countries like the Netherlands, Belgium and France the debate is totally different, also because historical differences partially due to the colonial history, the authorities and populations attitude towards the Jewish population during the Nazi occupation or the percentage of Armenian and Turkish electors (for the negation of the Armenian Genocide). The present national debates about the existence or not of islamophobia also differ from one country to another.--Pylambert (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary; this article should focus primarily on the law, because the existence and details of laws are objective whereas most of the rest of the material here is opinion. "Hate speech" is a legal category, used in laws and in political polemic advocating for same; it is not a natural or scientific category.

The current "Differing concepts of what is offensive" section really belongs somewhere such as insult or pejorative, since it is about the personal perception of such terms, rather than the legal-political term "hate speech". --FOo (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. Hate speech isn't only a legal category, it is also studied in e.g. psychology. I agree that some of the text is original research or poorly sourced, but there should be reliable sources enough to replace any OR with information fom RS. The "Differing concepts of what is offensive" does discuss among other things what is considered hate speech in a legal setting. I think that discussion fits well in the article.Sjö (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I say we either split the article or incorporate examples of/ histories of hate speech in the different countries listed into this one, like, for example, Julius Malema's singing of the "Kill the Boer" song in South Africa. -Invmog (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hate site should be merged into Hate speech, because hate sites are websites that express hate speech. Also, the hate site article is very short, and probably will not expand (with reliably referenced material) any time soon.Spylab (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WesUGAdawg (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. I do not know what the creator of Hate site intended. Was the article to be a list of hate sites? Was the article to list court cases about hate sites? Hate site looks like a good candidate for deletion. PYRRHON  talk   04:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro revised March 2010

In response to the comments above, I revised the article's first sentence to be more informative. I confined the subject matter to informal circumstances and to law to avoid problems with definitions. The courts do not discuss the meaning of "hate speech" because the idea is subsumed in offenses called harassment, discrimination, vilification, etc. I suggest that "hate speech" as a subject of psychological research be a separate article, e.g., Hate speech (psychology). I moved the aside about Allport to See also. Hate speech may be a criminal offense or a civil offense or both so the previous statement that hate speech concerns criminal offenses was inadequate. I removed the comment that hate speech laws are the subject of criticism per WP:NOTFORUM. PYRRHON  talk   04:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hate Speech in Media

Added information on hate speech in media including the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 1993 report and public request to update this report, current and relevant filings at the Federal Communications Commission, and UCLA research study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezinez (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A nonexistent right

You should include in the article that hate speech laws are based on a right that does not exist. The right to not be offended does not exist. My last post was deleted for being a personal opinion yet this talk page is full of personal opinions that are not deleted. Why?Beancrisp (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because your last post wasn't expressed as a suggestion for improving the article. The above suggestion can be discussed. ~Here's my take on it: If you want that viewpoint to be included you need to find a reliable source that makes that argument.Sjö (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Illegal hate speech laws

Are there any jurisdictions (eg. countries) besides the U.S. that have ruled these content-based (ie. "hate") speech restrictions to be illegal (ie. against the Constitution)? Or jurisdictions that just don't have hate speech exceptions to freedom of speech for whatever reason? Int21h (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral POV vs. Truth vs. love and hate

This article and the talk discussion point out the biggest weakness in Wikipedia itself. Having a neutral POV and absolute truth do not mix well. If there is a God who observes and judges the conduct of people, then a 'neutral' POV doesn't matter. Having a POV that is different from God does matter.

If for example, homosexuality is 'wrong' and 'sin' and 'choice' according to God and this premise is true, then a homosexual may find God's condemnation 'hate' speech. But if I know God's view on homosexuality and fail to warn others of the concsequences of refusing to stop, then I am the one who displays genuine 'hate' by failing to speak the warning, knowing what harm that will fall apon the person who refuses to stop.

Penn Teller, an atheist comedian, received a Bible from a fan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdvES4_MJ5Y Teller says at the end of this video that he is not offended by the gift, because if what the Bible teaches is true, then it would be wrong for the believer NOT to speak up. Teller did not agree with his fan about the existence of God, but realized that his fan did actually care about his personal wellbeing enough to do something about it.

108.132.225.169 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)David

Wikipedia consists of verifiability, not truth. It's perfectly acceptable to have opinions on what is right or wrong, and true or false, but Wikipedia is not the place for them. --Piet Delport (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just being a little bit picky here, but Penn and Teller are two different people. I assume you must be referring to Penn Jillette, since Teller rarely speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieOrlando (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Hate speech in media" section?

At 12:59 on 1 September 2012‎ User:Bellerophon5685 added a neutrality template at the top of the "Hate speech in media" section of this article. No edit summary was given and I can't find a recent discussion on the talk page. So, I'm at a bit of a loss to know what the perceived problems with the section might be. The section seemed pretty factual to me when I read it just now. If we don't get some more detailed discussion about the neutrality of this section in a week or so, I am inclined to delete the template. What do others think? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with neutrality in the section and I was tempted to delete the template immediately, but decided to give Bellerophon5685 som more time. I won't object if someone deletes it as a drive-by tag, though.Sjö (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and removed the template. If there are in fact neutrality issues with this section, we can discuss them here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jordan entry actually about blasphemy

The entry on Jordan actually describes a prosecution under the local blasphemy laws, according to the reference given. Blasphemy laws are not hate speech laws; hate speech laws typically grant protection to all religions and other groups, whereas blasphemy laws usually only protect one specific, usually state, religion. The two concepts should not be confused, and I propose that the entry in this article under Jordan should be either removed or clarified, if Jordan does actually have generic hate speech legislation. NelC (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Support. This incident is already covered in the section on "Freedom of speech, the press, and expression in the Human rights in Jordan article", so I think it can just be deleted or replaced by information on true hate speech law in Jordan. There is also a Blasphemy law in Jordan article that does not mention this incident, but I will add it to the article now. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I went ahead and replaced the existing content in the Jordan section with new material that talks about Jordan's hate speech laws. I don't know that the material that I added is complete, but at least it is a start. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech laws in Sweden excludes Swedish ethnicity

Recently I added information that ethnic Swedes are not covered by hate speech laws in Sweden, but this was considered original research. The source I added was from the Chancellor of Justice of Sweden (Justitiekanslern), a government agency. On their homepage http://www.jk.se/Beslut/Tryck-OchYttrandefrihetsarenden/3217-03-30.aspx it says (in Swedish) that they rejected a complaint of hate speech because the speech was referring to ethnic Swedes. "Det fallet att någon uttrycker kritik mot svenskar torde inte ha varit avsett att träffas av straffstadgandet. Redan på grund av vad som nu har sagts kan innehållet i insändaren inte anses utgöra hets mot folkgrupp."

Is it better if I use one of these two sources? A legal advisor confirming that ethnic Swedes cannot be victims of hate speech http://www.langeen.com/exempel-pa-fraga/

Well known magazine Expo also confirms that ethnic Swedes are excluded: http://skola.expo.se/minoriteters-rattigheter_173.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaor9 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarity of the definition

Defining what "vilifies" a person is difficult. If I say, "Bush is an idiot", have I vilified him? Liberals make comments like this all the time, about their political opponents, yet I really doubt that the definition of hate speech they had in mind was meant to apply to comments like these.

But is there a way to describe the difficulty of defining hate speech which is not, in itself, an argument against hate speech rules or laws? That is, have I already crossed the line from neutrality into "opposition" by bringing this up?

If so, let's have a section in the article about people who make such objections, and describe their objections neutrally. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. "Vilifies" is far too loose a term, even outside the law, to use as a definition of hate speech. Any simple insult can qualify, whereas for almost all valid uses of the term incitement to violence is necessary. "Vilifes" is also not supported by the references. The first one uses "attacks" instead of vilifies, and the second doesn't even offer a definition - it merely points out that hate speech is hard to detect automatically. 208.65.73.101 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

even if the hate speech has nothing but facts

I added that hate speech is called hate speech even if it is totally fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.156.189 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence in the lead to the article with the change shown in bold italics:

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group even if factual.

Is this true in common usage (outside the law), in law, or both. Is it true everywhere or just in some jurisdictions? The change talks about this as being "outside the law", but I wonder if that is correct. The two references don't say anything about this. And, if we are talking about under the law, the question is whose law? U.S. law? The law in China? Germany? I think that this issue deserves discussion in the article, but more than the few words it has now in the lead. It shouldn't appear in the lead without more details elsewhere in the body of the article together with references to reliable sources that support it. I'm going to revert the change for now. Someone can put it back when there is a more detailed discussion in the body of the article to support what is said in the lead. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thai language verification needed

A change to the Thai language used at the start of the Thailand section was made at 04:21 on 29 January 2014. Could someone who knows Thai verify the change? I don't speak Thai and Google translate gives what seems like odd or nonsensical translations for some of the words or phrases.

Here is the sentence before the change:

In Thailand hate speech (การสื่อสารซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชัง or การพูดซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชังให้เกิดการเกลียดชังอีกฝ่ายหนึ่ง), transliterated as เฮทสปีช, ...

And after the change:

In Thailand hate speech (คำด่า), transliterated as เฮตสปีช, ...

And the Google translations:

Thai → English

Before:

การสื่อสารซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชัง → Communications with the intent of hate

การพูดซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชังให้เกิดการเกลียดชังอีกฝ่ายหนึ่ง → Speech, which was intended to cause hatred, hatred of the other party.

เฮทสปีช → Heather Bush Years

After:

คำด่า → damn

เฮตสปีช → The health Years Beach

And for good measure:

English → Thai

hate speech → เกลียดชัง

Thanks,

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate is usually rubbish for translating Thai. The edit changed a particularly verbose description of the practice into a word which more properly translates as "curse" or "insult". This is a rather poor choice of term, IMO, but appears to have been chosen to match the newly created corresponding article on the Thai Wikipedia.

The entire paragraph, though, is a mess. AFAIK there is no Thai law concerning hate speech at all, only defamation and insults. I'd suggest removing the inaccurate section altogether. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted the section. It was unsourced in addition to being inaccurate. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI:

1. "คำด่า" is a general term in Thai language referring to "hate speech". Other Thai terms are also found and are mentioned in the Thai article.
2. "เฮตสปีช" is a transcription according to the current Thai Government rules (see the Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister dated 26 August 1989).
3. "hate speech" is not identical to "เกลียดชัง". "เกลียดชัง" merely means "hate".
4. "การสื่อสารซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชัง" and "การพูดซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชังให้เกิดการเกลียดชังอีกฝ่ายหนึ่ง" are never used in Thai language. They seem to be the "meanings" or "descriptions", rather than the "terms".
5. Paul_012 is absolutely right. There's no any Thai law concerning hate speech.

--Aristitleism (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)