Talk:Hate speech/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origin of hate speech laws

Shouldn't there exist a section explainin the origins of the hate speech laws? Source: http://www.hoover.org/research/sordid-origin-hate-speech-laws --Mr.Pseudo ^{Don't talk to me} 09:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

wrong section

"Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]" This really doesn't belong in the opening section at all. It diverts off the main discussion and should be at the bottom like Criticism sections. Seems like someone with an anti-PC agenda trying to hijack the specific topic. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not it only diverts off the main topic, it also speaks of a concept of 'Newspeak' which is a) dubious in the context of the topic itself and the opening section of the article b) a loaded term not in line with NPOV -policies.

The part also says "Critics have argued": none of the references actually handle such history & phenomenon of criticism. Instead, they are three polemical articles verging on conspiracy theories. For example, one text claims that American population is being "obviously endangered" by population "replacement through Third-World immigration"; and that this "obvious population replacement" is being hidden by alleged "multiculturalist censorship". Another text's bottom line consists of baseless assertions that 'Organization of the Islamic Conference', OIC, controls the UN and the US. A third article makes nothing but a polemic allegory of 'Newspeak'. These references are no references to any actual in-depth studies: they are just biased political texts from right-wing websites. Vmp4523 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes for the section's recovering claim there's better sourcing. However, the sources are exactly the one's discussed above on this topic in the Talk Page - it's beyond me why all this has been omitted. Vmp4523 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is criticism of hate speech laws and (less often, IMO) of the term "hate speech", and there's absolutely a place for that criticism in this article. But I agree with Vmp4523 that those sources don't really support the statement and after a quick look I'd say that they aren't reliable sources either. There's got to be neutral and factual sources on this topic. Sjö (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good reference

I am currently reading a book that I do not see referenced here:

• Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press.

The author is Jeremy Waldron, and international legal scholar.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of opening section

Hi, wkipeople, please note that the entire opening pragraph is currently amateutrish, and NPOV, and fairly biased. I already removed some of the vandalism but perhaps it might be a very good idea to keep an eye on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.73.76 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lacking contents.

Lacking examples from Asia that can be possibly included.

–Makoto Sakurai Japanese racial activist. Leader of Japanese far-right organization.

–Ilbe Storehouse Korean far-right organization which has been controversial for years.

-The Law of Hate Speech in Korea.

There are currently no law for hate speech in Korea. Unless the specific person being spotted, you can't accuse the assailant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.171 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

excessive wikilinks

There are too many wiklinks, such as pluaral links to Facebook. Would be grateful if somebody could delete these. Pete unseth (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation Material is Behind a Pay Wall

What is the policy of putting citation material behind a pay wall?

IMHO, these citations should not be allowed as they are not verifiable by the general public.

Here are is an example from this article

The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.[15]

Calvert, Clay (1997). "Hate Speech and its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Communication. 47: 4–19. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02690.x. Retrieved October 9, 2014.

Surely there must be some freely available scholarly evidence to back this assertion.

Thanks for reviewing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dykstranet (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I only see two references for the hate speech as a mechanism of subordination section, Dykstranet. One is the citation that you mentioned, and the other is much older, pre-Internet. I am going to move that (not well-sourced) section from the very beginning of the article, where it is extremely prominent, to a later section. That section is tagged right now, as needing further discussion on the talk page.--FeralOink (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Censorship of noxious views

Except for a short mention in the "Finland" section, the article does not address the concern that "hate speech" rules may be used to censor the expression of ideas that run counter to the mainstream. I'm thinking of the recent complaint by a homeschooling mom that Facebook suspended her account for quoting and pontificating on Bible verses which (in her opinion) meant that homosexuality was sinful.

What I'm not trying to do is say that Facebook was wrong - or that universities shouldn't enforce politically correct viewpoints. I'm not here as an advocate but as a contributor.

I'd like the article to mention - even briefly - how hate speech rules are interpreted and enforced, particularly in terms of banning the expression of ideas that run counter to the mainstream. The grounds given then is typically that to explain or advocate such ideas "disparages or intimidates" a group.

If no one objects, I intend to add such information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Completely support your contribution. Right now there is no criticism of the concept of "hate speech", which is a pretty controversial one, since it can be used against free speech. Hamstergamer (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There is the last paragraph in the lede, but I agree that there could be more dicussion of the pros and cons. The text in the lede is OK IMO, but there should be some text in the body of the article. 08:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. And now, what about the firing of the James Damore for writing the Google Memo? Was this an example of someone violating a company policy against hate speech? Or an example of a company censoring an viewpoint it disagreed with, on the grounds that dozens of employees labeled the viewpoint as hate speech? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting split

I think the § "United States" should be split into a new article called "Hate speech legality in the United States". There is more than enough content on the subject to have its own article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed I have moved the contents to the Hate speech in the United States article. -- Zrh168 (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Internet censorship of alt-right

User:Saturnalia0 about this with edit note Doesn't really fit in here):

As was noted in the edit note, the content below is a merge from a redirect of a newly created article (which looked like this which is not a good topic:

Twitter accounts and websites of several alt-right and white-nationalist people and organizations were blocked or taken down in 2016 and 2017, including Milo Yiannopoulos, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, and Radix Journal.

References

I put it in this article here, as this seemed the best spot within Wikipedia. (I considered Internet censorship and Terms of use and Acceptable use policy...) Please a) elaborate as to why you view this as not a good fit, and b) suggest a different article where it could go.

Looking forward to hearing from other folks who watch this article too. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thanks for contacting me. I don't think it really classifies as censorship as there was no government involved, it's merely freedom of association from where I stand. But that's besides the point. There are some reasons why I don't think it's a good fit there:

1. First and foremost, it doesn't even mention hate speech. There is no context. Do the sources mention the removals were due to hate speech? Who classified it as such? Is this classification at all relevant to the article on hate speech? If another website removes an account due to what it considers hate speech, why should we include it?
2. The text is poorly written. I think the best way to make my point is through an hyperbole. Suppose this was added on a different article: "Books of several right wing and nazi sympathizers have been banned from Germany, including those of Milo Yiannopoulos and Adolf Hitler." Do you see my point?

Best, Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please reply to b). Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog It could stay on the newspapers really, but I think you can add it to this article if you develop it further. For instance, if some of those bans concerned the thing Twitter etc signed which is introduced in the beginning of the subsection, you could add that "as a result of this, Twitter banned X". Otherwise you should add some context: Were they banned from Cloudflare etc because of hatespeech? Who determined it was hatspeech? Etc. As for the refs The Guardian and The New York Times should suffice, I'm not sure if Slate is relevant. As for the text I mentioned in 2., The Guardian does it right: internet troll Milo Yiannopoulos and white nationalist Richard Spencer. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

About comfort women

Actually, according to [1] and [2] (in Chinese), some comfort women in the Japanese military were indeed sexual slaves, but were forced to be prostitutes by civilians rather than soldiers, and some became comfort women due to debt or unemployment, thus I've removed ", or Asian women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II" from the subsection "Japan". I've also removed the two quotation marks near comfort women in the article, as the words "so-called" already means what the removed quotation marks meant.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Volokh article

Good review of U.S. law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment
By Eugene Volokh
Washington Post
May 7, 2015
--Nbauman (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Nbauman. I worked that into the article and it is now a reference.--FeralOink (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• From Volokh article quote: "For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category."

How can there be any constitutional approval or constitutional disapproval of hate speech when the words have no legal meaning? If Volokh is correct then the conclusion should be that the First Amendment is not clear at all. Of course it can not be clear because the words "hate speech" represent a colloquial misinterpretation of the Supreme Court ruling that "hateful words" are okay and "hateful ideas" are okay but "hate speech" is not defined or addressed. Therefore, the second clause of the fourth sentence in the first paragraph ("and in some it is constitutionally protected.") is false and should be corrected.

-- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected classes of people

It is interesting to read about hate speech laws relating to protected classes of people. I find the concept of protected classes of people to be very strange legal concept. At a football match, I suspect supporters of the opposing team are not a protected class. What about at a political demonstration? I will assume that people that one disagrees with are not a protected class. What if many of the people supporting one viewpoint in a political demonstration are of the same ethnicity? What about people of a different religion, are they a protected class? This is not an attempt to argue for a position on the matter of protected classes. Rather, I am saying that the matter of "protected" classes of people needs to be addressed in this article. Pete unseth (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hate speech as text

This section of the article is written more like a maniacal rant than a neutral talking point. It makes all kinds of dogmatic assertions with no citations. It either needs to be cleaned up (flagged 2 months ago, but the problem persists) or deleted entirely. 2600:1702:1860:53D0:FCD1:C61:E11A:BB05 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The citations are incomplete which in practice means that the section is unsourced. a paragraph was removed but maybe the rest should be removed as unsourced. Sjö (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No historical section? How/why?

Why is there no section on the old origins of the concept like seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_toleration in that articles paragraph about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Toleration_Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.57 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor asked why there is no section on the old origins of the concept. I suspect that this is because it is such a recent phenomenon to categorize certain kinds of speech is particularly hateful. People have always said hateful things, but the idea of categorizing a narrow category of "hate speech" is recent. Pete unseth (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to have a comprehensive history of the origins of hate speech laws in all countries that have them. There is a section in the article on Canadian hate speech laws which outlines the origins: Hate speech laws in Canada: Origins --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The scope of the definition

Currently, the article begins, "Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation." I note that this list does not include identification with a political movement/party, or support of a sports team. I am NOT asking that we add these to a growing list of categories, but maybe that we rethink how to define or describe hate speech. Anybody have some good ideas? Pete unseth (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pete, the question you ask is a good one, though possibly one which constitutes a "general discussion about hate speech". It seems to raise a similar issue to the scope of "hate crime": the hate crime article mentions that the police in Greater Manchester now record attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes and the article on the Murder of Sophie Lancaster refers to the debate about whether the attack on her and her partner Robert Maltby should be described as an example of a hate crime. Physical appearance is mentioned within the scope of hate crime in that article, but this not quite the same as identification with or membership of a group or lifestyle. Is there a wider debate about the scope of hate speech which needs to be referred to within the article? BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that hate speech is presently a category only to protect certain groups, groups that enjoy special protection by recently enacted laws. Meanwhile, other groups are supposed to be less thin-skinned and deal with the rough and tumble of life. I find it odd. But maybe the article is only about how laws are used to protect a limited set of people. Pete unseth (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I want to raise the matter again about the scope of the definition. There is a list of categories, but it does not include other categories of hateful speech, such as hateful speech between sports fans from rival teams, gangs, political parties, etc. Since "hate speech" is limited to specific categories of people, it will not be taken seriously by many. Pete unseth (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Pete unseth, you should have posted your question to a new thread, where other editors would be more likely to see it. The definition should be clear that it is referring to immutable characteristics. So saying that mafiosa are criminals is not hate speech while saying that Sicilians are criminals is. People cannot change being Sicilian while they can change belonging to the mafia. Some conservatives claim that sexual orientation and religion are not immutable characteristics and therefore do not consider denigration of the LGBTQ community and members of other religions to be hate speech. While some on the far right accept that race is an immutable characteristic, their defense is that what they are saying about other racial groups is true. TFD (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Not all of the listed characteristics listed are "immutable characteristics", such as religion. "Hate speech" will always be a flexible category, which is both a strength and a weakness for it. Pete unseth (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Religion is generally considered to be an immutable characteristic. As I said, some conservatives dispute this. You of course are free to decide which of the listed attributes you consider to be immutable but they are included because social scientists, legislators and courts consider them to be. TFD (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeing religion as an immutable category seems to show a very strange view of religion. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, certainly not an immutable category. This is even recognized in law, such as in Indonesia a non-Muslim can have their religion changed on their ID card, but a Muslim cannot. Similar in some other countries. Certainly this is a legal recognition that religion is not an immutable category. This is why the set of categories limiting and defining hate speech is unconvincing: there is not an adequate set of criteria by which some angry speech is "hate speech" and other is not. Pete unseth (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The experts, legislators and courts consider it an immutable characteristic. You are free to disagree with them but per no original research and reliablity articles on based on expert sources rather than editors opinions. No use providing arguments for your opinion since it doesn't matter what our opinions are. Anyway, I've read the arguments before. TFD (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on a long discussion, but I am amazed so I continue. Who are these "experts, legislators and courts"? Where can I read about how religion is an immutable characteristic? The Indonesian and Egyptian legislators and courts may not be part of this group who believe religion is immutable. Pete unseth (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There are links in the article "Law review article ‘Defining Hate Speech' attempts the impossible", if you are interested in reading them. They are just above the sentence, "These legal definitions tend to require an intent to create hatred based on an individual’s or group’s immutable characteristics." But it does not matter whether the experts are right. We're not here to correct them. TFD (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope this is my last here. Religion is certainly not an immutable characteristic: one of many sources, Canadian government recognizes religious conversion: [3]. As long as the groups protected from hate speech are arbitrarily defined, it will be difficult to ban it. I have no idea how to respond to the idea that it does not matter if experts are right! Pete unseth (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a policy choice by legislatures who enact hate speech statutes, but I wouldn't say it's arbitrarily defined. The personal characteristics listed in most hate speech statutes, as well as in anti-discrimination statutes, are ones that historically have been the basis for prejudice, maltreatment, and in extreme cases, genocide. Legislatures have concluded that those categories are the ones that need the protection. I also think you shouldn't get hung up on the concept of "immutable" personal characteristics. Rather, the characteristics normally included in hate speech laws (and anti-discrimination laws) are those that are intensely personal to the individual, and which historically have been used as the basis for discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada made this point in a case called Corbière, interpreting the anti-discrimination clause of the Canadian Charter: "It seems to us that what these grounds have in common is the fact that they often serve as the basis for stereotypical decisions made not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a personal characteristic that is immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity."Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but it is getting close to being a forum debate. There is one thing that can be taken away from it and used to improve the article, though. I didn't find any mention of immutable characteristics in the article, but I think that it's relevant and would be an improvement. Sjö (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The difficulty is that this is a general article. How each jurisdiction that has hate speech laws defines them will vary. I'm a bit leery of introducing the "immutable" concept unless we have a clear source indicating that it is a general characteristic of hate speech laws. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for edits/removal of content

Firstly, I'd like to strongly disagree with this labeling of good faith edits as vandalism, as they are not vandalism. I won't discuss it here any further more, as that's detrimental to discussion of the content of the article.

• [4] is my first edit that is disagreed with. I removed "racist and hate filled", "hate-filled", and "to permit hate speech" to "whether to restrict speech", as well as removed "to Americans" from "signs found offensive to Americans". I removed "racist and hate filled", as "hate-filled" is a very judgmental and rhetorical thing to say (it would be prudent to just use "racist" or "offensive"), and at the time, I thought that the speech was not described as racist in the source. I now see that the speech was construed as offensive by many, which means that I should've wrote "seen as racist by many". I changed "permit hate speech" to "restrict speech", as the "imminent danger" test does not "permit" hate speech, it is only a test to decide whether to restrict speech or not. Saying the test is to "permit hate speech" is rather misleading, as the court designed the test to maximize protection of First Amendment rights. I removed "to Americans", as that is inconsequential information. We could just say "signs found offensive", as the signs were found offensive by many people. There is no need to state the nationality of those who find the sign offensive, as that is irrelevant.

• [5] My removal of the NTIA report, I justified at the time, as there are plenty of other reports commissioned on hate speech, and I don't see why this one is special enough to merit an entire section. There were no sources other than the study itself, so I decided to remove the section. User:Aquillon changed the section to one that had secondary sources and relied less on the source, showing how the NTIA report was relevant. Looked very legitimate, but that was reverted.

• [6] I removed this section, as the entire section is only supported by NHMC affiliated links. The section should have a source that wasn't a special interest group that's only job was talking about portrayals of race in media, so I removed the section, as there were no sources establishing notability of the concept.

• [7] I changed this from "human rights" to "right of others", as the Serbian constitution never mentions restrictions on speech to protect human rights, only the rights of others. This is an important distinction, as "human rights" have connotations not applied to simple "rights".

• [8] Facebook deciding to remove supposedly harmful speech is not on the same level as government control of speech, as plenty of private organizations ban hate speech from their property all the time, Facebook is not any different. Facebook shouldn't get an entire section, per WP:BALASPS.

• [9] I removed this content due to only one source covering the harms of hate speech, but thanks to Matsuda becoming an actual ref, it seems to be notable enough now.

I've discussed my rationale, now it's time for yours, User:BullRangifer. I'll effect my changes if you don't respond here. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Removing descriptive language makes the courts actions look nonsensical. The full import was that the decision did protect a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech. There would have been no case, logic, or significance if their speech had been anything but what they typically spout. The decision literally did protect and permit such hate speech (the title of this article!). The section is about Americans, so that mention makes sense.
2. Sources don't need to be notable. There were two NTIA reports, not just one. Tweaks might be okay, but total deletion is wrong. We use government reports when we have them.
3. What's wrong with NHMC affiliated sources? It's a RS. Addition of more sources would be fine, but complete removal is unjustified.
4. Maybe okay.
5. Facebook is an extremely significant player and its actions were noted in the media. It's properly sourced. Maybe tweak it, but total deletion is uncalled for. We don't make a distinction between private organizations or government when it comes to sourcing. Both can be mentioned and used in RS. This is a good example of how a significant player's action affect this subject.
6. Again, content which has sources was completely removed. The Matsuda ref wasn't formatted very completely, but it still qualifies as a source. I developed it. Again, notability of sources is irrelevant. Notability only applies to article creation.

We basically have a problem with heavy handed mass deletion without discussion, requiring that sources be notable, and removal of properly sourced content. That's not how we work here. Make smaller edits which preserve sources. Try to respect the work of others and build rather than delete. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not disputing 6, as you've fixed the issue, and you've removed the tweaks added to 2 that showed the topic was notable. My problem with the NHMC refs is that the entire section is about the NHMC. It would be fine to use NHMC refs in other contexts, but the section is mostly about the role of the NHMC in combating hate speech. Take out the parts about the NHMC, the section doesn't exist.

Also, in the context of the KKK speech, "hate filled" needs to be removed, as it is useless rhetoric that could simply be replaced with "offensive". That's like stating a defamatory speech is "lies-filled". It's not very encyclopedic language, even if it is true.

The problem with Facebook isn't source notability, I said it was topic notability. Many private property owners ban hate speech on their property, and sometimes get covered in the media for it. We don't give them a big section in the article though, because a private org banning hate speech is barely congruent to the topic of hate speech in general. Give them a section on the Facebook article, not here. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If a subject has been mentioned in RS, it's fair game. That's how we build content. We don't build an encyclopedia by removing sources and content. We may tweak it, but total removal is uncalled for. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My statement was that the NHMC sources were unreliable, as they were being used to self describe the NHMC. Honestly, it would be a lot better if someone other than the NHMC discussed the NHMC's role in anti-racism.

Saying "hate-filled" in the context of the KKK speech as objective fact isn't a very encyclopedic word to use. Use "offensive" or attribute "hate-filled".

We don't mention every single instance ever of hate speech in this article, even if they have been covered by reliable sources. Why? Because the article is a broad overview of the topic of "hate speech", and Facebook is a singular website banning hate speech, which is not relevant to the wide topic of hate speech.

Also, another user tweaked the NTIA section, and you reverted it. Could you explain your reasoning? I also don't see why you reverted my edit about the constitution of Serbia, considering you said "maybe okay". I'm going to be reinstating those edits, as you've given no rationale. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll take the lack of response to my objection to Facebook being mentioned in the article as agreement, so I will proceed to make the edits soon. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Commentary was removed from commentary section due to this page clearly stating it is nota place for commentary only factual well researched and credible information and resources. I am not saying that he article was not credible but had nothing to do with the definition, history, laws, of hate speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satsurnos (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

If in "some countries, hate speech is not a legal term", it cannot also be "constitutionally protected"! If it is not a recognized concept, it cannot be protected. Royalcourtier (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's completely unclear what change you wish to make to the article and on what source you wish to base your change. If you were new to Wikipedia I'd refer you to WP:OR, but you aren't so I'll refer you to the numerous (nine) (ten) instances of other editors on your user talk page asking you not to use article discussion pages as a forum. Edaham (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be completely clear what I mean. The article lede includes the statement that in "some countries, hate speech is not a legal term and is constitutionally protected". My point is that this sentence is neither logically nor factually correct. If in "certain countries" hate speech is not a legal term it cannot be constitutionally protected there! Something which does not exist in law cannot be protected by the law. The sentence is entirely illogical. I do not need a source for this conclusion, it is common sense. The sentence should therefore be deleted. Incidentally I cannot fathom how my first comment could be seen as "disruptive editing".Royalcourtier (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

there's no logical fallacy there. The article doesn't say it's not a recognized concept. It means that in some countries: 1) there's no legal impediment to making hate speech 2) such speech enjoys constitutional protection. Did you want to suggest a change or clarification to make that clearer in the lede or were you just chatting about it? Edaham (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand why don't you help the person? They have a good point - there is a logical fallacy whether you deny it or not. I think it is incumbent upon you to make the article more clear so other people are not confused by the same issue. It is your duty to clarify the article when anyone finds an anomaly. You have no right to deny the validity of their confusion. You are responsible to make it more clear and help the reporter of the problem to find that clarification. It is really insulting when you tell them go read a few thousand words for help when you don't even raise exactly what the point is you're looking for.

-- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, I know what I'm about to say may not seem like it's related to the article, however I may need to point this out so that many who see the talk page can realize that there is something vaguely wrong. What I do know is that the idea of "hate speech" is entirely hypocritical, because if one considers what another says to be offensive, it is then labelled as "hate speech" and immediately censored. However, the interpretation of that offended person are usually the person who is uneducated in the subject and has recently heard of it. Then again, the problem with the term is that it's becoming a buzz-word for headliners to spit out in front of the news channels, and most news channels try to inflict some sort of manipulative rhetoric towards the consumer. It is also now being used as a bargaining chip for mass-media companies to shut down anyone that does not wish to say the same much as the status quo does. I know that the best way to prevent this from gaining even more traction is to inform our global society that they need to stop relying on manipulative, sinister, and clearly biased publishers and mass-media as credible sources and actually dig deep into the information that has been given. If this is globally implemented, it can have drastic effects upon our global society, and can reverse the effects of mindless consumption and biased articles here on Wikipedia. Balkanite (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Spun-off the section on hate speech laws by country to it's own article.

See Hate speech laws by country — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am removing the section about the claim of hate speech in Ethiopia. Such material may be placed in an article on hate speech in Ethiopia. Pete unseth (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Hate speech actions by country. This is not a case of Hate speech laws by country. I don't know if Ethiopia has any hate speech laws, but it certainly has the federally defined Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the many-decades-old NGO Ethiopian Human Rights Council, which would probably be happy to support laws against hate speech and quite likely may have already made public statements calling for these sorts of laws. Boud (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Section Hate Speech versus Free Speech

This section replaced the earlier section Commentary. It seems to me to be non-neutral and making bold statements in Wikipedia's voice, while the earlier section was more balanced in tone. There might be parts of the new text that can be used, but I think the section Commentary was more compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Sjö (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Accordingly, I've reverted the change. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jheddings3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions

An editor told me that I can make suggestions here. Why is my previous edit about the lynching? 49.178.174.232 (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Are there any reliable sources that describe the 2000 Ramallah lynching as involving hate speech? Further, are there any such sources that describe the lynching as an example of state-sponsored hate speech? Because, that's the section where you were trying to insert the content. Firefangledfeathers 05:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I put reliable sources. The Jpost article states that they were calling for their deaths. If this doesn't sound serious, I don't know how else to explain this.49.178.174.232 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also feel that I can't explain my viewpoint any differently than I already have. We'll see if other interested editors weigh in. Firefangledfeathers 05:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Hope so.49.178.174.232 (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No-one has claimed that it wasn't serious. The issue is whether it was hate speech, and the source does not say that, let alone that it was state-sponsored hate speech. The edit was made five times in 12 hours (four times by 49.178.174.232 and once by an IP from the same city and ISP 49.178.138.113). It's been undone by three different editors. I suggest that the IP read WP:BRD and WP:EW. Meters (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to comply with the policy of synthesis. You cannot say that calling for someone's death is hate speech, therefore this is an example of hate speech. You need a source that says that. Furthermore, calling for someone's death isn't necessarily hate speech. A judge pronouncing a death sentence for example isn't necessarily guilty of hate speech. TFD (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them. It's obvious that the two IPs are editing from the same place on the same range, with one address starting to edit after the last edit of the other one. [10] Doug Weller talk 13:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Add information

I suggest adding a section about Holocaust distortion and denial online under the section “internet”

Holocaust denial and distortion on social media

Holocaust denial and distortion is present on all online platforms, including platforms with targeted content moderation policies to address Holocaust denial and distortion. On these platforms, Holocaust denial is less present, but Holocaust distortion is far more common and takes various forms. According to research: Nearly one in five (19%) of all Holocaust-related public Twitter content either denied or distorted the history. 17% of public TikTok content that related to the Holocaust either denies or distorts the Holocaust. 8% of public Holocaust-related content on Facebook was either Holocaust denial or distortion. 3% of material posted publicly on Instagram discussing the Holocaust either denied or distorted the history. Where platforms have introduced policies, content moderation and clear user guidance, this can have an impact in limiting and removing harmful content. There was a notable difference in the levels of Holocaust denial and distortion between Facebook – which has moved to address criticisms of disinformation – and Telegram, which remains highly unmoderated. Online platform community guidelines and moderation policies are often limited to addressing Holocaust denial rather than the more complex issue of Holocaust distortion. Consequently, where Holocaust denial has been limited on moderated platforms, it has migrated to other online platforms. The more mainstream sites are still used to direct users to more radical forums. Holocaust distortion trails world events and shifts in form depending on current affairs, areas of deep public concern and the evolving news agenda. As such, a high degree of Holocaust distortion was linked to anti-lockdown protests and other restrictions implemented to tackle coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Holocaust denial and distortion are often manifested in covert and coded ways, which may hinder efforts to mitigate their dissemination online. Educating about the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes is the best defence against denial and distortion. Lisa Rechelle (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Prevention of Holocaust denial and distortion online

Several governments have taken action to counter Holocaust denial and distortion on online platforms through legislative measures. For example, in Germany, the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) forces large online platforms to remove unlawful content from their services via a notice and action mechanism, including Holocaust denial which is unlawful in Germany. The law has been criticized by some human rights organizations for setting a dangerous precedent for other governments looking to restrict speech online by forcing companies to censor on the government’s behalf. Some technology companies have also adopted policies on the moderation and removal of content that denies the Holocaust. On 12 October 2020, Facebook updated its hate speech policy to prohibit any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust. TikTok also announced a ban on content that denies well documented and violent events that have taken place, including Holocaust denial and similar conspiracy theories. Classifying Holocaust denial and distortion as hate speech The decision by some online platforms to identify Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech has reduced the amount of harmful material. However, harmful content that does not reach the threshold for removal or has evaded moderation policies through misspellings and the use of coded language and symbols, remains present on online platforms without content warnings or other measures. Antisemitism can be communicated online through an evolving code of symbols and memes that are sometimes used to signal hidden meanings and messages that aim to subtly deny or distort the history of the Holocaust. Denial and distortion also evolve in response to current events as the Holocaust is invoked to provoke an emotional reaction. This constantly shifting landscape means that it can be hard for moderation policies to stay completely up to date with changing language and modes of communication. There is therefore a need for international cooperation between online platform companies, academia, civil society and governments. Equations to recent historic events The most prevalent form of Holocaust distortion is its use as an “equivalent” to contemporary or historic events. Many examples that equated the Holocaust were driven by current events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has the potential to produce surges in online distortion. While it is ahistorical and inaccurate to equate the genocide of Europe’s Jews to most contemporary events, it is legitimate to compare the history of the Holocaust with other abuses of human rights and atrocity crimes. Informed and meaningful comparisons between the Holocaust and other events with careful contextualization allow societies to learn from the past and can contribute towards the prevention of genocide and other human rights abuses.

The difficulties of content moderation

Such equations create a difficult policy area for online platforms because many of them do not reach the threshold for hate speech by international standards and fall outside the scope of contemporary content moderation guidelines. This form of distortion requires a sophisticated response that raises awareness of the harm caused and that encourages online platform users to reference the Holocaust accurately and in its historical context. Holocaust denial and distortion are an issue in all the languages studied. The multi-language nature of Holocaust distortion is critical to consider when reviewing research on content moderation, as the vast majority of pressure for content moderation focuses on the English language, particularly as online platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were founded in the United States. For example, 87% of Facebook’s global budget for time spent on classifying misinformation goes towards the United States, while 13% is set aside for the rest of the world — despite the fact that North American users make up just 10% of its daily users. It is also important in terms of collaboration: new platforms and less studied languages should benefit from areas where more work has been done. Users wishing to promote denial and distortion content, but who are aware that this may be constrained by rules on moderated platforms, will often gesture and signal such content and then provide links to more radical spaces on other platforms. For example, during empirical research on Facebook, some people linked to channels hosting harmful content on Telegram and Discord. Such links often signpost to other forums where Holocaust denial can be discussed more openly. Importantly, these links may be embedded in content that does not contravene platform norms and guidance. </ref> Technology companies have taken steps to be more transparent. In 2021, Access Now indexed over 70 companies that issue regular transparency reports, including Facebook and Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. Telegram does not publish transparency reports.

References

"Theories of hate speech" section was a mess.

The entire thing read like an essay - there were no secondary sources supporting the premise that these sources represented major sources of thought on the topic; the paragraph on J. S. Mill had just a single primary citation to Mill and no citations that mentioned hate speech at all, and the final paragraph made a tenuous connection to sources that weren't really discussing hate speech and only mentioned it in passing, grouping them together as a major thread of thought on the topic without any real sources supporting that perspective. Some aspects here might be worth addressing as attributed interpretations of the subject in the commentary section (although I think much of it is already there) but I think we should lead with a history of the subject and its more general context, focusing on what we can cite to secondary sources that actually discuss its history and larger context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Hate Speech 1 word or 2?

I have a problem with this term. To me it is 2 words of which each has a meaning, and it should be my right to speak about how much I hate to eat certain foods.

It doesn't even appear to be a compound word. It it is just a phrase then why overload the normal two words meanings with another? It makes it nonsense.

There should be some clarification as to what has happened to these two words which obviously mean different things to different people... yet the article seems to think there is only one meaning. 120.18.188.137 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Red herring. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The article uses it as two words and I don't think that anybody at all is suggesting that it is a single word. I don't think there is anything here that requires discussion or clarification. DanielRigal (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

See Etymological fallacy: "an argument that a word is defined by its etymology, and that its customary usage is therefore incorrect." TFD (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)