The Instigator
Numidious
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tulle
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
tulle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,737 times Debate No: 30875
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

Numidious

Con

Hello all,

I am arguing against the proposition that is poorly worded (I apologize) "Hate Speech Laws are a good idea", which is about as simple as it gets. The first round will be for acceptance, and no new arguments on the last round. Otherwise no rules, except that

Hate Speech Laws = "Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification."

Note that I use the American definition but extend that to Hate Speech in my home country of Canada and any other nation in the world in which this is an issue.

And one more thing... "I may not approve of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
tulle

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. I will be affirm the resolution that hate speech laws are a good idea. We share the burden of proof.

I would like to point out to the reader that Voltaire's quote is a bit rich, considering he was an educated white male, but I digress... I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Numidious

Con

I appreciate my opponent's acceptance. I shall begin with her comment on Voltaire, that "Voltaire's quote is a bit rich, considering he was an educated white male," let us examine Voltaire - he was persecuted by the French government for expressing his own opinions on the monarchy - specifically for making fun of the king, libel. This was the "hate crime" of his day and he was imprisoned and then exiled for it. Now, a couple of centuries later, he is attacked again - this time for being an "educated white male". I agree, educated white males have been privileged in the past - but if that quote isn't discrimination then I don't know what is.

Hate speech laws not only violate the fundamental freedom of speech which democracy is founded upon, they also create societies ignorant about other opinions, no matter how controversial they may be. The real question is, does our government have the right to tell us what our opinions are, and to define what is hateful? It is important that readers understand how dangerous this road is to go down. Should we be afraid to voice our opinions because we fear that they might be hate speech? Furthermore, and more importantly, what is "hate speech?"

Hate is very interpretive, and almost impossible to define. If I am a clever fascist/American Nazi Party politician then I never use direct hate speech, it's useless. I get my opinions across by cherry picking what members of a certain group have, factually, done whilst missing the bigger picture, or even better I make claims that are untrue but not refutable (what is, really). So I use what's known as "Fool's Socialism" and use the classic blame game against Jewish bankers and how they are causing problems in society. I'm using facts about the Rothschilds and other rich families so it's not hate speech, then extend that to a larger picture about how the Jews have wrecked society, something which my very cherry picked facts will support and which I needn't even say. Note that in doing this I have been prejudiced but not necessarily discriminatory. All stereotypes are based on parts of the whole, parts which could usually be extended to all of us. (There are plenty of non - Jewish corrupt bankers too, of course)

What is important is to be able to give the whole facts in response and thus be able to tell someone with such prejudice why they are wrong. When Neo - Nazis and such can go underground with ideas like those above, that is what is dangerous because persecution against them not only gives them legitimacy but also a kind of anti - heroism which is indisputably a much better image than a bunch of skinheads walking around with strange looking signs and banners.

The stereotype "skinhead" brings me to my next point - how hate speech laws can turn against you. Viewpoints that are very arguably moral and right can be interpreted as hate speech if you want them to be, and we all know that someone always wants them to be. Take religion - like arguably all other religions, there are some terrible things in Christianity. "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (1) Today condemnation of homosexuality in such a way would be the equivalent of hate speech - thus the question becomes, do we persecute anyone who reads that passage of the Bible? Or better, do we ban the Bible as a book of hate? And is suggesting this hate speech, since, after all, it would be persecution against christians? The web of contradictions gets thicker the further down the rabbit hole you go.

Quite frankly, society and governments do not have the right to arrest an individual based on their opinions. I have mentioned this before, but must enthuse that if this were the case we could really go after anyone we liked, since essentially good and bad are often relative and societal values change, not always for the better. Why not start persecuting for perceived hate speech against the majority, in the case of my country the white majority? We could say that it is racism to say that it is the white settles who have caused problems for the aboriginal Canadians. This is true and realization of it has led to aboriginal rights and other indisputably good things (the residential schools up here were terrible, but there's a reason why 4% of Canadians and only 1% of Americans are surviving aboriginals) but if you were to say it with hate speech laws implemented it could be turned against you - far more importantly, you'd be afraid to say it.

Freedom of speech is compromised in terms of threats and straight out lies against and about ot individuals. This is very different - because instead of cherry picking the facts or reaching prejudiced generalizations, we are now targeting the all important individual. When an individual is threatened, either physically or verbally, it really doesn't matter why, that is why individualism is so important. I would be the first to prosecute a Neo - Nazi for threatening someone else because of their race. I would also prosecute a school bully who threatened to injure an outsider. I would also favour prosecuting someone who claimed as fact blatant lies against an individual. This is not what is being disputed.

In the end, it is a verbal contradiction to condemn someone for having opinions. Your opinion is that they should be condemned for their opinions? Well, my opinion is that your opinion is hate speech for condemning someone for their opinion. Who will be persecuted? I guess that depends on the government's opinion.

I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments on this controversial but intriguing topic.

1. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
tulle

Pro

My opponent claims that my comment about Voltaire is discrimination. However, Voltaire was accused of hate speech, and not actually a victim of it.


I would like to point out that my opponent not only claims that hate speech cannot be properly defined, but he also uses examples that do not match the widely accepted definition of hate speech.[1] In this vain, he both contradicts himself and presents various strawmen.


“Hate speech […] vilifies a person or a group on the basis of […] race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability. […] is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.” [1]


Using this definition, here is a real example of hate speech:


Westboro Baptist Church pickets funerals, releases public statements, and makes many TV appearances to say things like “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates f@gs.” [2]


Following the deadly Sichuan earthquake in 2008, they issued a press release thanking God and praying “for many more earthquakes to kill many more thousands of impudent and ungrateful Chinese.” [3]


Now that “hate speech” has been defined, I will move on to my arguments.


My Case


1. Hate speech is not protected by “freedom of speech”.


Hate speech is prohibited in Canada because it goes against the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [4].


Freedom of speech is protected, but it is not absolute: for this reason, you are not free to make threats or defamatory statements against another person in both the US and Canada [5][6]. My opponent concedes this point by agreeing threats and defamation are not included in freedom of speech.


I would like to ask: why should we prohibit defamatory statements and threats against individuals but not against groups? Would my opponent claim that “God hates f@gs” is not a defamatory statement? Unless my opponent is claiming that none of the examples I posted above are defamatory, then he concedes that there are instances of hate speech not protected under “freedom of speech”.


2. Perceptions affect action.


Hate speech breeds an “us vs. them” mentality, which social psychologists have shown to have negative effects when it comes to attribution errors and other cognitive biases. The bystander effect has been well-documented, and is said to be more likely when the victim is perceived as being part of an “out-group”. “In-group” perceptions can be something as trivial as being a football fan:


In a 2005 experiment, […] passers-by were more likely to help an apparently injured person if that person was wearing a football jersey which supported the same team as them than an opposing team. However, when their shared identity as football fans was made salient instead, supporters of both teams were likely to be helped, significantly more so than a person wearing a plain shirt." [7]


Words designed to incite hatred toward specific groups fosters negative perceptions about those groups. The more salient negative perceptions become, the greater the negative effect on those who are victim to it because people are less likely to intervene when certain groups are targeted for crime or hate. [8, 9]


3. There is a link between hate speech and hate crime. [10, 11]


Increase in hate crime against Hispanics in the US is strongly correlated with the rise in the immigration policy debate, [12] and anti-Muslim sentiments may be contributing to the increase in hate crimes against Muslims. [13]


Rebuttals of Con’s Case


I will highlight my opponent’s main points to make it easier for me to respond to them, as well as to make it easier for the reader to follow.


1. “Hate speech laws not only violate the fundamental freedom of speech which democracy is founded upon, they also create societies ignorant about other opinions, no matter how controversial they may be.”


This been refuted by my first point.


2. “Hate is very interpretive, and almost impossible to define.”


Hate speech is in fact defined. Additionally, the purpose of the court is to interpret laws.


3. “Persecution against [perpetrators of hate speech] not only gives them legitimacy but also a kind of anti-heroism.”


I would invite my opponent to explain why this is a reason hate speech laws are a bad idea.


4. “Hate speech laws can turn against you.”


Only when they are not properly defined, which I have shown to not be the case.


5. “Society and governments do not have the right to arrest an individual based on their opinions.”


This is a strawman. No one is asking the government to arrest people based on their opinions.


Conclusion


Hate speech instils fear in those who are victimized by it (so is therefore threatening), and as studies have shown, the outcomes of negative perceptions validate this fear. Defamation of a group is no different than defamation against an individual. For this reason, I affirm the resolution that hate speech laws are a good idea.


Sources


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[8] http://www.tandfonline.com...


[9] http://www.racismreview.com...


[10] http://www.thedailybeast.com...


[11] http://www.partnersagainsthate.org...


[12] http://www.civilrights.org...


[13] http://www.islamicity.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Numidious

Con

My opponent begins by taking my quote about Voltaire out of context - I said he was persecuted against because of what he said, thus making him a heroine of the ideals of freedom of opinion and, by extension, of speech on the opinion.

My opponent has introduced a new definition of hate speech, however hate speech has already been defined at the beginning of the debate. This is important because my opponent mentions "the inciting of violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group" in her definition, and it is not included in mine. Without hate speech laws, an individual may still sue if they are threatened by another's remarks.

My opponent then gives two examples of hate speech by an organization of about 40 in the American South. What they said is despicable, but I have already shown why they have a right to say it.

"I would like to ask: why should we prohibit defamatory statements and threats against individuals but not against groups?"

My opponent repeats the term threats - I repeat, direct threats such as "Eric is homosexual, I am going to beat him up because of this" are already properly illegal. However, defamatory statements against groups or even public individuals such as politicians (if they are not lies) are protected by freedom of speech because they are often confused with statements of opinion. I detest this, but "god hates f@gs" is a statement of opinion, whether you agree with it or not. What if I said something you probably agree with, "Stephen Harper is ruining my country" and was arrested for this? Surely being arrested for that would be compromising our freedom of speech? How do you discriminate without being biased?

Now my opponent makes the classic confusion of result and cause. Anybody who is in a group that fosters what is ill defined as hate speech, or who does it him/herself, is already biased against that person. Would it make a difference with helping a person with a different baseball jersey if one was at the stadium watching the game or at home? I doubt it.

But what my opponent is trying to say is that we are affected by each other's opinions, including negative ones. This is true, but it isn't going to change by banning hate speech, people would still make ethnic jokes behind closed doors, there would still be resentment against immigrants in the US and elsewhere. As I mentioned before, it is better that these opinions be out in the open and properly debated against than behind closed doors. Are you going to arrest every person who catcalls at the opposing side in a hockey game? This is absurd.

REBUTTALS

1. And I will respond again, freedom of speech means freedom of opinion, and I will defend that to the end.

2. Hate speech is ill defined, as I mentioned previously. How do you differ hate from opinion? Who is it right to hate? Am I allowed to hate Stalin and say that he was an evil b******* because he killed millions of his own people? And what words do I have to use to make it hate? Am I allowed to say that the Nazis were a bunch of malicious #@$(*#$#@!&(#$*@! ? you get the picture.

"the purpose of the court is to interpret laws."

Do I want a court deciding what is opinion and what is "hate"? Do I want the courts to be able to decide which opinions are "moral" and which are not? How fascist do we get here?

3. I thought this one was self explanatory - more people are likely to want to be part of organizations that are given some kind of seriousness and anti - heroism by being "on the run" . This is why Johnny Cash or the Se* Pistols were so popular. By a similar ilk, banned books inevitably become very popular.

4. I don't see where my opponent has shown that hate speech is well defined. I repeat, where does something become "hate" and not an opinion? Who is it right to "hate"? Is impassioned argument now banned because it might be "hate"?

5. They evidently are - as my opponent has proven. She claims that "god hates f@gs" is hate speech. I agree, it is (by my moral compass) hateful speech, but it is also an opinion. It's a despicable, lewd, nasty, ridiculous, absurd, unbacked opinion (notice my own "hate speech") but it is an opinion that "god hates f@gs". And it should be, as I have said before, heavily debated. I challenge my opponent to give me one case where hate speech is not either expressing an opinion (or by extension an opinion) or a threat, the second already being illegal.

"Hate speech instils fear in those who are victimized by it (so is therefore threatening), and as studies have shown, the outcomes of negative perceptions validate this fear. Defamation of a group is no different than defamation against an individual. For this reason, I affirm the resolution that hate speech laws are a good idea."

Defamation against a group is very different from defamation against an individual. Groups are collections of individuals, and as with religion often interchangeable ones. Would it be defamation to say that I hate the witch - burners of the middle ages (and by the way government of the future with hate speech laws, I do) They aren't even around any more! I'm still hating a group though.

But my opponent has taken me out of context here - I only differed between individuals and groups because it very difficult for groups to be directly, literally threatened. It can be done, such as it was against the Tutsis, for instance, in Rwanda, and the International Courts should have been involved there, but otherwise it doesn't happen or has been confused with a statement of controversial and probably provocative opinion. It is easy to place the possibility of future violence upon an individual, and that, I retain, should be illegal.

I fear that my opponent has looked for a way out without dealing with the central question - yes there are by both of our moral compasses "bad people out there" who say nasty things but remember, some of them are in government and liable to twist things to their own ends.
tulle

Pro

My opponent’s quote from Voltaire is irrelevant to either side of the debate. I only addressed it because it was posted as an appeal to authority. My point was that people who are not victims of hate crime obviously have less incentive to be against it.


Hate speech was not, in fact, defined in the beginning of the debate. Hate speech laws were defined. The fact that my opponent presented, in his round 2, examples that would not qualify as hate speech is indicative of his lack of a proper definition for it.


My Case


Hate speech is not protected by “freedom of speech”


Hate speech laws are intended to protected groups, while laws against threats and defamation are intended to protect individuals. My opponent has failed to explain why there should be laws to protect individuals but not groups.


“God hates f@gs” is an instance of defamation because it appeals to the utmost authority that a significant portion of the population believes in. It is not stated as an opinion, but it is stated as fact and can be demonstrably false. It appeals to the emotions of a significant number of people and is meant to vilify an entire group.


Perception affects action, and there is a link between hate speech and hate crime.


My opponent claims that I have confused result and cause. However, as I pointed out in my last round, an increase in crime against Muslims has been tied to an increase in hate speech [1]. Thought precipitates action, and not the other way around. It is true that someone who is not homophobic or racist will likely be less affected by hate speech against certain groups. However, as Solomon Asch showed in his world-famous studies, all it takes is one person to cause someone to go against the majority. [2] In these studies, people conformed to the majority even when they didn’t agree with the majority. But when just one person agreed with them, they were more likely to speak out and act on what they believed. Our society is against various forms of discrimination and derogatory beliefs. If someone is quietly racist, they are less likely to act on it publicly because of the threat of public shaming. However, if just one person speaks out, it gives power to those who otherwise would do nothing, to do something. For this reason, hate speech would lead to an increase in hate crime.


Con’s Case


1 and 2. My opponent provides no reason to assume hate speech differs from defamation in any way. One could simply claim that defamatory statements are a matter of opinion. As with defamation, it would be up to the courts to decide.


He says he doesn’t want the courts to decide what is “hate” and what is “opinion”, and yet he is okay with anti-defamation laws. I again urge the reader to consider: what is the difference between defamation against an individual and defamation against a group?


3. People building a community around something being illegal is not a reason to make that thing legal. Abolishing slavery likely brought slave-owners together and increased their sense of “heroism” and feelings of persecution. That is not a reason to legalize something.


4. Hate speech is as well defined as defamation. “Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image.” [3]


A statement such as “God hates f@gs” fits under this definition and would also be classified as hate speech.


5. As stated previously, “God hates f@gs” is in fact defamation and I would challenge my opponent to look at the definition of defamation and explain how it could not be. “God hates f@gs” is clearly not intended to be an opinion, nor would Westboro Baptist Church claim it is their opinion. They claim it is fact because God is the absolute moral truth.


My opponent states that defamation against a group is very different from defamation against an individual, without actually explaining why this is so. Again, he provides strawmen as his examples are not actually examples of defamation or hate speech.


Conclusion


It is clear by my opponent’s examples that he doesn’t seem to actually know what hate speech is. Hate speech involves vilifying an entire group, not simply by stating you “hate” them. I think it is clear that I have shown so far that there is no difference between hate speech and defamation, except that one is against groups and one is against individuals. Thoughts precipitate actions, and group behaviour studies have shown that all it takes is one vocal person speaking out to make you more likely to act on what you already believe.


For this reason, hate speech laws are a good idea.


Sources


[1] http://www.islamicity.com...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Numidious

Con

I thank my opponent for a good debate and any readers for reading it.

I mentioned Voltaire because I agree with the quote and believe it frames my argument better than I ever could. Hate Speech Laws were defined at the beginning of the debate, and in that definition was one of hate speech i.e. "Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification." It is impossible to make laws about something that hasn"t been defined!

Remember, the debate was whether "hate speech laws" were justified, not hate speech.

I have already explained about threats and how the possibility of violence should remain illegal. It is (and should be according to me) also illegal to publish direct lies about an individual, otherwise our freedom of opinion would be pointless.

As I have said, there is a difference between an opinion and information. If I cried "fire" in a theatre and someone died trying to get out, that would be a lie. If I shouted "someone should set fire to this theatre" notice I am not threatening to do so, that should be allowed, because that is my opinion.

"God hates f@gs" is an instance of defamation because it appeals to the utmost authority"

It is not "appealing" to the authourity, it is making an absurd statement about what the speaker believes to be true, thus an opinion. If they had tried to back it up with facts, and those were falsifiable, then it would be illegal, but opinions, no matter how pathetically stupid, should be legal. Many opinions appeal to our emotions, that is what opinions are about. Whether you personally would like to kill the cartoonist or rocker is of no consequence.

My opponent goes on to mention group dynamics, which in humans are unfortunate " and unpreventable. It is often the case, in fact, where the issue goes the other way round. Why couldn"t "I hate racists" be hate crime? It is an unfortunate truth that the law is not going to change group opinion " freedom of expression will do that.

1 & 2. Defamation is part of hate speech, and I don"t think it should be illegal if it is not threatening. Why should it? It"s an opinion, and we all have different opinions. When did I claim that I thought defamation should be illegal if it is an opinion?

3. Slavery, at least in what might be called it"s more mild forms (some say that everyone under a dictatorship is a slave for obvious reasons) is actually a similar issue to freedom of speech " in both cases, freedoms of individuals are being taken away. I am glad my opponent brought this up, because in order for slavery to go forward, government consent is necessary " the consent that those individuals held as slaves have less rights than the rest of the individuals in the society (otherwise they would be equal individuals and master gets the chop) - just like people with the "wrong" opinions under hate speech.

There is no anti " heroism in slavery, by the way, if that is what my opponent was referring to.

4. I defined freedom of speech at the beginning, and it included only Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification" not lies or threats. Many things, as I have said, give many people negative images. Sometimes, as with my comments on Stalin or the witch burners (note: a group) this is by what I think is my and my opponent"s similar moral compasses good, sometimes it is bad. It is impossible for the gov"t to decide without being biased, and bias can turn against you.

I could say "God hates witch " burners," would I be persecuted for that? But I don"t think I shall respond here because my opponent is once more relying on her introduced version of "free speech laws".

Opinions always annoy someone, that is why we have opinions, otherwise there would just be facts. Yes, the opinion that "god hates f@gs" is horrible, yes it is probably not even intended to change anyone"s mind, but neither is the sight of a punk rocker with a spiky haircut and metal all over his body " not a bad thing, by the way " where do we go from there? Should all media be censored because it might annoy someone?

My opponent has introduced a new definition of hate speech, and I regret that this has become a larger topic in a debate that I had hoped would be about the topic I had determined previously. I am accused of putting up strawmen but it seems to me that my opponent has done this consistently throughout her debate.

I do thank my opponent, however, for an excellent debate and hope to debate her again in future. Long live freedom of expression.
tulle

Pro

I would also like to thank Con for this debate. However, I do feel that he has missed the mark regarding both of our arguments. It seems as though Con agrees that the law must be defined and it must be necessary to protect the people (in this case specifically, from threat or defamation) in order to be justified. When you take away the opinion pieces, we are left with 3 main facets of his argument.


Summary of Con’s Case


Hate speech is ill defined.


There are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that it is disingenuous of Con to present an incomplete definition of hate speech, claim it is not properly defined, and then fault me for correcting him with its full and true definition.


I hope that throughout the course of the debate, it has become clear to the reader that hate speech is, in fact, as clearly defined as defamation, which is currently illegal.


The second problem with this line of reasoning is that my opponent uses the supposed lack of a definition for hate speech as a point in his favour, when both of us have provided definitions for it. Additionally, he provides numerous examples that are not hate speech. Simply hating something or stating you hate something is not hate speech and nobody is claiming this is so! Just like any other law, the court would obviously decide whether or not the law has been broken.


Hate speech is different from defamation.


“Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image.”


Con has provided no source for his vague and incomplete definition of hate speech (which was originally a definition for “hate speech laws”), while I have. My opponent’s issue with my definition is the latter half that includes inciting violence against those groups. However, even if we remove that from the definition, we still have:


“Hate speech […] vilifies a person or a group on the basis of […] race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability. […]”


Both defamation and hate speech involve the process of vilification, and both give the victims a negative or inferior image. My opponent has only stated that the two are different, without actually explaining why.


Hate speech is different from threats.


Con has failed to address any of the studies I’ve posted about group behaviour. He has ignored my point about hate speech breeding an “us vs them” mentality, and how such perceptions, at the very least, increase apathy. Isolating groups through hate speech is, in fact, threatening for those groups.


In addition to being a form of defamation, as evidenced by the rise in violence against Hispanics and Muslims I cited in my second round, hate speech does, in fact, lead to violence. My opponent claims that I cannot infer cause with this information. However, I did post a study on Conformity in my previous round that shows cause can be inferred. My opponent has not responded to this point at all.


Summary of My Case


Hate speech is not protected by “Freedom of Speech”


I would like to remind the reader that my opponent has completely dropped my argument about hate speech being defamation. He claims that there is no need for hate speech laws because such offenses would be prosecuted as either “threats” or “defamation”. However, as I stated in my previous round, defamation laws are meant to protect specific individuals, while hate speech laws are intended to protect general groups. Hate speech is intended for a broad, nonspecific target and negatively affects every member of that population. A defamatory statement against a specific person or specific group denigrates those specific individuals, while a defamatory statement against a non-specific group (ie. Hate speech) denigrates anyone who belongs to that group, even if they were not the ones directed addressed.


Perception affects action, and there is a link between hate speech and hate crime.


Con has dropped these points completely. He has failed to address the study I posted on the effects of in-group vs. out-group perceptions as well as the conformity study.


“God hates witches” is a false comparison because currently, gays are being denied rights, and are often treated as second-class citizens, based on bigotry and hatred (ie. The “opinions” of religious groups). While Con and I may not be affected by a statement such as “God hates f@gs”, it does affect those who are already predisposed to similar bigotry. With a large population of the US identifying as religious, and the fact that aside from hate crimes, gays are afforded less rights and freedoms than heterosexuals in the US [1]; in addition to the studies I have posted on the effects of in-group vs. out-group thinking and conformity, it is clear that hate speech poses a real threat to those who identify as gay. Witch burners are not faced with this threat (and murder is illegal).


Conclusion


I believe it is clear that I have rebutted the crux of Con’s arguments, while he has not really addressed mine. Everyone has the right to live free of threats to their person, whether it is physical or societal. Hate speech laws reduce the incidence of public hate speech, and people will conform to the majority. Reduced hate speech would lead to reduced apathy (eg. toward gays having fewer rights) and reduced hate crime. Vilification and denigration for being an ethnic or religious minority, gay, (etc.), is unjust and has detrimental consequences, and for this reason, hate speech laws are a good idea.


Sources


[1] https://www.facebook.com...


Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ArgentStorm 4 years ago
ArgentStorm
This is an important distinction because it means that what the layman might consider hate speech, for example using con's definition, is not legally hate speech unless it also matches the legal definition under the relevent Act (currently, as I mentioned, just the CCC). Thus, "hate speech" that does not fall under that legalistic definition is, in substance, protected under s.2b of the Charter.
Posted by ArgentStorm 4 years ago
ArgentStorm
Factual correction: hate speech is not illegal under the Charter. It is, in fact, protected under section 2b of the Charter. Never-the-less, legislation outlawing hate speech has been uphed under section 1 of the charter as a reasonable limit on s.2b in a free and democratic society. Since this debate, the section of the Human Rights Act reguating hate speech has been repealed. It is now only regulated under the Criminal Code.
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
Lmao I've never heard that before. Thanks :$

@Maik--You stop!
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
He means it should be illegal to look that good. Damn girl. They should lock you up and throw away the key!
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
I look "cop"?
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
tulle.
you look cop girl.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
yes indeed he is
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
Yes, it was very generous of him :)
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Numidious, that was quite generous of you! I almost want to award a conduct point. :)
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
Thank you so much for waiting!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
NumidioustulleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As Pro explains in her final round, Con fails on three fronts. To start, he cannot both claim hate speech is ill defined and present his own parsed definition. Then, he was unable to explain why laws should differ between individuals and groups. Lastly, and most importantly, the issue of hate speech leading to violence or prejudiced behavior was never adequately answered. Pro wins on all points, takes the debate, and changes my mind on the issue.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
NumidioustulleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's strongest argument was that hate speach is ill-defined and thus by making hate speach illegal we allow the government to go too far in censoring us. However, Pro provided a straightforward definition of hate speech and pointed out that Con can't simultaneously own the definition AND claim it's poorly defined. This objection set aside, Pro showed that similar statements against individuals were prohibited (which con never addressed) and that hate speech had negative effects on our society. Up to now, I have been glad that America doesn't have hate speech laws like Europe. Now, I am questionining that position. Well done, tulle.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
NumidioustulleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't define hate speech in his initial round and only defined hate speech laws. This allowed Pro to supply her own definition for which she provides a very reasonable one. Con's definition was implicit and required the reader to interpret the definition in the way that he wants. Since Pro contested it and provided an explicit and reasonable definition, I'll accept it as the standard for evaluating this debate. Pro includes speech which may incite violence in her definition and extends upon this in her arguments providing examples such the the corelation between an increase in crimes against muslims and increase in hate speech as well as the underlying cause which she shows with her Asch studies. Con's points that hate speech is different from threats and that Pro has not shown cause are also negated by these studies. Clear Con win. I also think Pro had an overall better format and clearly titled responses where she did Con's work for him in organizing his points clearly.