That doesn’t really solve the problem though because “inciting hatred” is subjective.
For example, there are people who would say that anyone who disagrees with the fat acceptance movement is guilty of “inciting hatred” against fat people.
Yet I would argue that we need to leave the door open to these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. Otherwise, people will be afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know if they’ve crossed the line.
Edit: Also, how do you define “capable of disturbing the public peace”?
Because all of the above criteria is subjective? The US Supreme Court has repeatedly denied the constitutionality of hate speech laws throughout history on the grounds of this and it violating the concept of free speech
What is hate speech?
The German criminal code has a pretty good definition; good in the sense that it is limited. It applies to speech that fulfills 4 criteria:
* It happens in public
* it is capable of disturbing the public peace
* it attacks an entire segment of the population
* by inciting hatred, insulting, defaming or calling for violence or arbitrary measures against them.
You'll have a hard time explaining what the value is in allowing speech that fulfulls all of the above.
That doesn’t really solve the problem though because “inciting hatred” is subjective.
For example, there are people who would say that anyone who disagrees with the fat acceptance movement is guilty of “inciting hatred” against fat people.
Yet I would argue that we need to leave the door open to these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. Otherwise, people will be afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know if they’ve crossed the line.
Edit: Also, how do you define “capable of disturbing the public peace”?
4 replies →
Because all of the above criteria is subjective? The US Supreme Court has repeatedly denied the constitutionality of hate speech laws throughout history on the grounds of this and it violating the concept of free speech