Hakik wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:29 am
Hate speech is actually not illegal nor regulated in the United States. In fact the supreme court has defended hate speech as free speech, and it's protected by our constitution.
"[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
-Justice Samuel Alito
Hate speech is also a very vague, subjective, and ill-defined concept. Calling someone a "boomer" can now be considered hate speech on the basis of age. "Retarded" is considered by some as hate speech. And even talking about cooking steak, stuffing a Turkey, or anything involving a dead animal, can be considered extremely offensive and hate speech by some vegans. While for others, merely using a bad word is not enough for hate speech, there needs to be context for it to be hate speech. While others believe that there needs to also be intent behind it. It's too broad, and can too easily become a slippery slope.
If you want to just ban words like the n-word and its dozen of alternatives, and words like ******, gook, etc, then just specify what words are restricted.
But to just broadly say hate speech, something that is very subjective and doesn't mean a whole lot and most people can't even agree on a specific definition, is just not something moderatable and not a rule you can realistically expect people to be able to understand.
First of all, LOL at bringing an Alito quote into a thread about hate speech on a forum. Great work, Hakik.
Second of all, I agree that it's vague. It's not just a list of words, and you know that. It's intention, it's purpose and it's context. I'm not going to create a list that would include the word monkey for instance, but if the word monkey was used in the context of attacking someone's race then it's hate speech. See how that works? If you define a list of words, there are always ways around it and people can claim innocence because "it's not on the list".
Also, give me a fucking break that people don't know what is and what isn't hate speech. If you're attacking someone based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference you're using hate speech.
If you want completely unfettered "free speech" there are very few places that you will find that, and you're welcome to go there. But these are the same rules that apply to nearly every single website in the world.
I'd be happy to have a first infraction gets a warning system (which is what happened to AA), but if you feel that it's unmoderateable because of a lack of a one-size-fits-all definition or because it requires a subjective reading of context, I'm happy to unburden you of your responsibility to navigate the real world in terms of moderation.