Should hate speech be outlawed?

[Ironduke]

I would like to get opinions from our British membership on WAB.

In the United States, our interpretation of freedom of speech allows people such as Matthew Hale, Louis Farrakhan, and even Michael Richards to say whatever that expresses or is intended to incite hate of a minority group. Organizations that advocate racism and racial supremacist views are allowed to exist. The Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, and so forth.

In the UK, the story is a bit different. Individuals can be arrested and fined for trying to incite or express racial and religious hatred, and groups classified as hate groups can be outlawed. They've been applied to everything from white supremacist organizations to Islamist extremists who preach hatred from a pulpit.

Questions:

• Should the authorities in the UK punish those who incite or express racial and religious hatred?
• If it does, what are the differences between the US and UK that necessitates the creation of such laws in the UK
• If you view them as necessary, how does the UK benefit from them and how is the US harmed by not having them?
• If you view them as unnecessary, in what ways would the UK benefit by not having hate speech laws?
• Are people who engage in hate speech properly discredited by the UK media and mainstream?
• Does restricting freedom of speech to exclude hate speech keep it in accordance with its ideals?
• If you believe hate speech laws are appropriate, but flawed, what do you believe are the flaws?

These following are examples of what is legal in the US to say:.
Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident
Louis Farrakhan on "wicked Jews"
Video on the Nationalist Socialist Movement (fast foward 40 seconds)


I'm going to post a poll with two options, yes and no, and feel free to elaborate on your opinion. If you are non-British, please reply to the thread with what you selected so there is an accurate picture of the numbers.

[BenRoethig]

Not a Brit, but if you curtail free speech in any way you loose your democracy a little bit. It opens up a dangerous precedent where those in power can outlaw something because they don't agree with it. It's society's job to shun the wackos, not the government's.

[Ray]

I am not a Britisher but still I will like to chuck my hat in the ring.

I am not so concerned with esoteric issues as democracy on this issue even though it is an important input.

What concerns me is that I rather know what the other guy is thinking and him saying it alould, rather than having him brook it in his heart and then stabbing me in the back when I am least ready!

[The Chap]

Well I think your all foreign f***king c**ts. ' an most like wogs 'an ***** init?

Now the expected is done ...

The manner in which UK law has been co-opted under consecutive terms of the here-to administration should not only be a matter for debate, but rather an issue of riot.

As in so many matters New Labour, under the seeming auspices of "doing something" has exquisitely felated the print and broardcast media.

One would expect the above sentence to finish "to the point of etc.".

The truly wicked genius of the the amoral Labour "Project" is The Sheharazad Gambit.

Every day has been a good day to bury bad news.

[gunnut]

It's society's job to shun the wackos, not the government's.

Precisely.

[glyn]

Another Salami slice taken from our diminishing list of Rights and Freedoms. Thank you so much, New Labour and your politically correct do-gooders. You must feel very proud of yourselves. You have inflicted more injury on the nation than any enemy has done in the last 900 years.

[PubFather]

A difficult one Ironduke... The laws are new and still being bedded in. The Nick Griffin case is an interesting one. The law doesnt specifically restrict speech - and comes down to an awkward definition of "incitement to racial hatred".

The prosecution needs to prove a criminal intent behind the words/behaviour: as opposed to a reckless expression. This seems to have been the crux behind the juries interpretation in the BNP case, and why that of the CPS was different.

The police believe that the laws are important to prevent the likes of the BNP (but also of Hamsa) from stirring up riots, using inflamatory riots. It is extremely difficult to get a conviction under these laws.

The real reason for the existence of these laws at the moment is due to the Islamic terrorist problem. The government view is that silencing the extremists on both sides will reduce the possibility that tensions between the communities will reach open hostilities. Abu Hamza was muzzled partly because he was increasing Islamophobia.

Personally, I'm not overly comfortable with the existence of the laws. If they remain a temporary measure during this period of heightened tensions (and remember these laws were born out of the growth of terrorism), I can tolerate them. Certainly, they do go far enough, and we need no more laws like this. The laws we do have should be repealed as soon as the situation permits.

[Alamgir]

It is a stupid law. It sounds like it will prevent the natives of UK from being able to openly criticize their immigrant minority communities for fear of being locked up on a charge of "incitement" or whatever. Immigrant minorities however, will still be able to get away with criticizing the host population. It wont solve any tensions between communities but just keep them bubbling under the surface ready to explode to an even higher degree than if the advocates of hate speech were able to openly express their views.

Unless people are blatantly inciting others to commit an act of crime all kinds of views expressed openly should be tolerated as a man's simple opinion.

[PubFather]

It is a stupid law. It sounds like it will prevent the natives of UK from being able to openly criticize their immigrant minority communities for fear of being locked up on a charge of "incitement" or whatever. Immigrant minorities however, will still be able to get away with criticizing the host population. It wont solve any tensions between communities but just keep them bubbling under the surface ready to explode to an even higher degree than if the advocates of hate speech were able to openly express their views.

Unless people are blatantly inciting others to commit an act of crime all kinds of views expressed openly should be tolerated as a man's simple opinion.

The whole point is that it does not refer to simply opinion. It refers to pre-mediatated, criminal, incitement of hatred.

AFAIK, only very few cases have so far reached court under this law. Possibly the first (and only) person convicted under part of the law was Abu Hamza - who openly preached that terrorism was a good thing and distributed information encouraging support of terrorism.

It might solve nothing, but if it does "keep a lid" on fiery demagogues, misusing their right to free speech, then perhaps (and only perhaps) it serves a valid purpose.

[ArmchairGeneral]

The whole point is that it does not refer to simply opinion. It refers to pre-mediatated, criminal, incitement of hatred.

AFAIK, only very few cases have so far reached court under this law. Possibly the first person convicted under part of the law was Abu Hamza - who openly preached that terrorism was a good thing and distributed information encouraging support of terrorism.

It might solve nothing, but if it does "keep a lid" on fiery demagogues, misusing their right to free speech, then perhaps (and only perhaps) it serves a valid purpose.

Hm. Sounds similar to the "incitement to riot" laws which I believe are on the books here in the US. Personally I think that hate speech laws in general are not only wrong, but also moronic, as they basically councel out true freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and similar laws are not made to protect the majority, but the minority, the ones who can't get laws passed to protect them. With hate speech laws, all you have to do is get a majority to redefine "hate speech" to include whatever you want to suppress, and voila.

OTOH, as I said before, this doesn't sound much different from our incitement to riot laws. I don't know what I think about those laws, but I'm not dead set against them. But, in general, hate speech laws are bad. And don't get me started on "hate crimes."

[Asim Aquil]

I don't think hate speech should be outlawed. A hated group would want to know who hates them. People can keep hating them in secret. Outlawing it would be an ostrich's way out.

But often hate speech by a person can be viewed as hate speech from a group. For example the cartoons were/are largely viewed as a western hate attack on the Muslims and even those in the west who were against it, couldn't distant themselves from it (much like the people who were against the counter hate campaign and rioting in the Muslims and couldn't distant themselves from it).

So there should be a state level procedure that can enable a group to stigmatize the hate speech and give some semblance of distancing yourself from an individuals hate speech.

So perhaps a filed petition can be reviewed by a court which can declare hate speech as "hate speech" and thus declaring that the group officially distances itself from it.

I think this would be a centrist approach in keeping both sides satisfied.

[Gabru47]

Who defines what hate speech is?

[Fortudinae]

Personally I hate anybody who disagrees with me and think they should be locked up because they're obviously criminally insane.
Otherwise I might have to start a riot.
Their right to disbelieve ends right at the tip of my baseball bat.
Any (swish) have a (swish swish) problem with that? (swish bonk)

[Asim Aquil]

Somebody. Courts, a governmental department, etc.

I'm just tellin it very roughly, details can be worked out.

[Ray]

Blair and his verbal flatulence translated into words!