> it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.
Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included.
Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?
I'm not arguing we make hate speech illegal, or have thought crime. In fact if it were up to me racists would be even more up front about their deplorable worldview. But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform.
This isn't a defense of banning anti-PRC posters though. Calling xi jinping Winnie the Pooh isn't hate speech. Discussing what constitutes hate speech could be another valuable discussion perhaps held elsewhere - I don't agree that a definition is impossible, if that's where you're thinking of going. I don't agree that there's a slippery slope.
> But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform.
I completely agree. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their value systems or stay silent about my discontent (and I'm not implying that you claimed that either).
I'm just tired of hearing the phrase "hate speech" used whenever these discussions happen, as if there were some fundamental human law that we have to protect people from ideas that might offend them - either via regulation or private company policy. Illegal or not, I don't think it helps to talk about "hate speech" in the context of censorship and free speech. It's like having a debate about which curse words are the worst, when really that's missing the point.
There's more at stake than being offended. If the reality was that the reason companies like Google kick out people for, say, ambiguously dogwhistling with sexist blog posts is because sexist blog posts hurt people's feelings, I wouldn't feel quite as strongly about how ethically good it is for Google to have taken said action.
However, it's not "just speech." As I linked elsewhere, studies show that after every dogwhistle-ridden Trump speech, violence against minorities increase. We've strayed into Sticks and Stones territory. Apparently, it's important to not let hate speech spread unfettered. Standing aside, allowing racists to post racist things on your platform, makes you directly culpable in actual violence being committed against minorities.
If I was the CEO of Google, I would not accept that violence is being committed that I could take direct action in preventing. If I was an employee, I'd put extreme pressure on my management to prevent that violence.
The issue is the harmful actions and the people who commit them. That's why there's an exception for speech that incites violence.
Outside of that, rhetoric that you consider hateful is not a direct cause of any harm. That is a dangerous road to go down and it's far better to counter with your own speech instead.
> However, it's not "just speech." As I linked elsewhere, studies show that after every dogwhistle-ridden Trump speech, violence against minorities increase. We've strayed into Sticks and Stones territory.
Studies would show that a thousand other things are also followed by an increase in violence. In literature, movies, telephone calls – anywhere people communicate with other people, you will find that some people communicate offensive (to someone) ideas, and as a result, other people who are prone to violence will be pushed over the edge and do something harmful. Those who seek violent ideas will find them regardless of censorship. And those who seek positivity and love will find them.
It is absolutely "just speech". We haven't crossed any magical boundary today that we hadn't crossed 229 years ago when the bill of rights was ratified. If you want to fully prevent violence from ever occurring by censoring speech, you're welcome to live in a communist country. But of course, you won't find what you're looking for there either.
> We haven't crossed any magical boundary today that we hadn't crossed 229 years ago when the bill of rights was ratified.
You mean, when black people were still considered non-human? I don't think the bill of rights, nor the people that wrote it, gets to stand on its own laurels. There's plenty of room to debate the problems with the Constitution as it stands today.
> If you want to fully prevent violence from ever occurring by censoring speech, you're welcome to live in a communist country.
I'm not sure what to do with an HN poster that conflates the economic theory of Communism with the authoritarian plutocracies of China and north Korea.
Oh hoh if you wanna live in a capitalist country like Russia, where the secret police can disappear you for speaking out against the democratically elected president, maybe you should just move there!
> I don't think the bill of rights, nor the people that wrote it, gets to stand on its own laurels.
Agreed, but I'm talking specifically about free speech, not any other parts of the constitution or the people who wrote it. I'm not debating the need for a "living constitution".
"Perhaps most important is that Sanders’ wording implies that the 226% jump stems from comparing hate crimes before and after a Trump rally within the same county, when in fact it’s a comparison from Trump rally counties to similar counties that did not host a Trump rally."
Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included.
Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?