Those who play with the devil’s toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword. – R. Buckminster Fuller
Though the concept of the “slippery slope” can (and often is) used in a fallacious manner, it is wrong to insist (as government apologists often do) that it is always so. In the common law tradition, laws are defended from those who would challenge them by arguing precedent: demonstrating that a new law or practice strongly resembles others already in existence which have never been challenged (or better yet, withstood such challenges) constitutes evidence that the new act is also permissible. But there’s another factor, a psychological and moral one: once people get used to an idea, they’re much more likely to support laws that reflect that attitude. Sometimes this is a good thing; for example, now that the majority of Americans have either smoked marijuana themselves or know someone who does, support for its criminalization is waning. But it can also be a very bad thing: someone with a very negative opinion of a particular social group (such as homosexuals or sex workers) is unlikely to object very strenuously to laws criminalizing that group.
Yesterday, I discussed the way the state establishes precedents with demonized groups, then extends those precedents to everyone. Today we’ll look at the other side of the coin: the way people become comfortable with doing nasty things themselves, so that when the state simply turns custom into law and replaces social penalties with criminal ones, most people don’t even flinch. My first example is the public reaction to Julie Burchill’s awful hate-screed of a few weeks ago; for those who missed it, the neofeminist writer who said “prostitutes should be shot…for their terrible betrayal of all women” published an ugly, hateful rant against transgender people in the Observer, and the resulting firestorm was so intense the newspaper “unpublished” it the next day. Obviously, I have no love for Burchill and I was quite happy to see her reaping the whirlwind, but I found the deletion of her article very troubling, and people’s evident satisfaction over that deletion even more so. As I wrote in my Cliterati article “Speech and More Speech”,
…nearly everyone is closed-minded about something, and that’s why it is so vital that we not allow anyone’s speech to be censored: nobody is (individually or collectively) qualified to judge what ideas “deserve” to be heard. The test of our commitment to the free exchange of ideas, and therefore to social progress, lies not in our support for free speech for those who say things we like, or even for those who politely say things we don’t like; rather, it lies in our dedication to defending the right of people we don’t like to say horrible, offensive things with which we vehemently disagree…
Those who rejoice when a private corporation deletes a writer’s article, and would gloat if she were fired, are already receptive to the idea of censorship; enacting the practice into law and establishing censors to act “on behalf of the public” is only one step further.
Then there was the case of the priest who called 911 for help getting out of a bondage situation in which he had accidentally trapped himself; tabloid websites had a field day with it, as you can imagine. But Greta Christina explains the huge problem with this that nobody seems to have noticed:
…People in sexual situations that are both dangerous and potentially embarrassing need to be able to call for help, without fearing that they’re going to be publicly humiliated and that their call for help is going to be spread all over the Internet. How many kinky people…are going to read this story and be reluctant to call 911 when they’re stuck in handcuffs, when they have something stuck in their ass, when they can’t get a cock ring off, when they stumble in their bondage boots and break their nose? I don’t know anything about this priest, other than the fact that he got stuck in bondage gear and made a 911 call to help get him out…I don’t know if he preached sexual shame to his followers while secretly doing kinky stuff, or if he openly opposed the Church’s teachings on sexuality, or if in his public life he just stayed away from the whole topic…But I don’t think it matters…when he was stuck in handcuffs, he should have been able to call 911 without fearing that it would result in his massive public humiliation. His public shaming sends a really crappy message to anyone involved in unconventional sex: “If you’re responsible and take care of your safety by asking for help when you need it, from the people whose job it is to help you, you could easily wind up with your sexual practices becoming the laughing stock of the Internet”…
The “public records” excuse is increasingly used by the media to publicize things that aren’t anyone else’s business; it was bad enough when people who were accused of violent crimes were convicted in the media without benefit of a trial, then it spread to humiliating those accused of victimless crimes, and now it’s been extended to violating the privacy of those who, like the priest or the New York gun owners, aren’t accused of any kind of crime at all. People have grown so used to this that nobody thought much about it when cities started erecting billboards with the names and pictures of men accused of soliciting prostitutes, and the majority quietly accepts the most egregious violations of privacy; how much longer will it be before government agencies just save a step and start making all the information gleaned from their omnipresent surveillance available for anyone to see? Do you really want to live in a world where a complete police dossier on every friend, every neighbor, every co-worker, is only a few mouse-clicks away…and yours is equally accessible to everyone else?
Violating the rights of others is only acceptable in self-defense; it is not a toy for amusement or self-gratification. As such toys are successively adopted by groups, then formal associations and finally governments, they change from mere playthings into dangerous weapons; unfortunately, the transformation is so gradual that most never even notice until it’s far too late to return them to the box from which they should never have been taken in the first place.
At the convenience store where I often stop to get gas … there’s always a stack of tabloids that has mugshots on the cover titled “Jailhouse Times”. I guess they publish the names and pictures and suspected crimes of those that are arrested weekly. Hell, those people haven’t even been convicted of a crime but they’re being publicly shamed for it. I’ve never really picked it up to read it but I’m betting most of the people who have their mugshots in there are only suspected of committing consensual “crimes”.
Well actually – I would say the “slippery slope” argument is ALWAYS valid when it comes to government. When they went after the cigarette companies – I said then that it was only a matter of time before they started going after OTHER companies – and I was right. We now see governmental pressure being applied to everything from the firearms industry to the “sugary soda” industry.
How ’bout this one?
“Hey, if the government can MAKE you buy health insurance … then what in the hell could it NOT make you buy eventually?”
People who made that argument against ObamaCare were told they were being hyperbolic. However, I just read this story while drinking my morning coffee …
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578290151788526728.html
So the precedent has been established, via ObamaCare and the SCOTUS ruling to uphold it – that the government can make you buy anything and … they’re coming folks. Today it’s firearms – tomorrow it’ll be taxes on sugary sodas … etc.
O/T – but has anyone been watching this story on Chris Dorner – the accused cop-killing cop? He’s on the loose somewhere in a snowy land but CHECK OUT THE FUCKING HARDWARE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DEPLOYING AGAINST THIS GUY!!
I’m talking – armored personnel carriers with machine guns … assault rifles … sniper rifles … all top-grade military stuff and it’s being deployed against one guy. It’s like hunting swamp deer with a Remington 7mm magnum – OVERKILL!!
Why do police need this kind of military hardware? WTF is going on?
The more brutal the suppression of those chosen as examples, the stronger the “lesson”. Dig?
>Why do police need this kind of military hardware? WTF is going on?
Because they, themselves are targeted. One can only hope they don’t catch Dorner quickly, but then, I wouldn’t want him to murder more non-cops. If you’re an abused spouse, whose husband has threatened to kill you, tough, you’re on your own. The cops will get to you when they get to you. They certainty won’t give you police protection. But if it’s their asses on the line? No response is too outlandish. They are cowards and bullies. The current police structure in the USA needs to be abolished,
Now as to Burchill, I didn’t read her rant in the Observer, but likely I didn’t miss anything. She’s like a religious fundamentalist, who hates everyone who isn’t just like her.
Still, the idea, especially in this internet age, of “unpublishing” anything, is stupid. It’s like all those fake apologies public figures make when called to task over some remark they’ve made.
Just once, I would like to see one of them have the guts to say “Yes, I said it, and it’s what I think. You may not like it, you may consider me an asshole, but it’s what I said, and I’m standing behind it.”
I may not agree with them, but at least I would respect them.
Lastly, publishing information and or pictures of clients serves nothing but public titillation. It’s the modern version of the scarlet letter, or public stocks.
It’s petty, and stupid. and the response expected from a society that’s so chicken shit hypocritical about sex.
Because they, themselves are targeted.
I don’t buy it. The police have only become targets because they chose to become enemies of most of the public. We didn’t change: they did. They deserve whatever happens to them.
I urge any cop who reads this, either to start refusing dishonorable orders from above (as the Oath Keepers do) or quit and get an honorable job. Otherwise you are copping out!
Precisely, jdgalt.
The LAPD and the LA Times already exhorted us to understand the criminal assault by police on two women delivering newspapers during the manhunt as an excusable misstep in light of the “incredible pressure” law enforcement is under from ONE MAN. So Dorner is expected to suppress his incredible pressure and LAPD is givrn a pass to go on a rampage indiscriminately mowing down innocent people. Keep in mind the LAPD and their ilk would never devote the same manpower if your family was targeted by Dorner in his manifesto. Read Dorner’s manifesto and you will conclude his complaints were valid, legitimate and merited an official response opposite to the reputation destruction, vilification and demonization he received over the past 5 years.
Do the Oath Keepers give a damn about the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights? If they do, they’re keeping awfully quiet about it.
The military-industrial complex encourages that kind of procurement. DHS hands out the grants like candy. And of course the government tends to expand its power. It’s amusing comparing that massive expansion with gun ban activists’ rhetoric about how the “gun lobby” is arming citizens against their will, and about how “progress” requires citizen disarmament.
Yeah, I made the same argument to my anti-smoking family when the anti-tobacco crusade started. Including some who were quasi-libertarian. One said that he just preferred a non-smoking restaurant. So I suggested that he patronize the same and stop dictating to the property owner what he could and couldn’t do with his own property. Next thing you know they’ll go after “unhealthy” foods like those with “too much” sugar and fat.
His reply, was, “Oh, they’ll never fo that.” He’s since had to admit I was right but still hasn’t changed his stand on gov’t edicts on smoking.
The only appropriate standard for gov’t action is if it picks my pocket or breaks my leg. Anything else IS the slippery slope.
As to law enforcement; I think what we’ve done is transplanted the gang mentality into the system. I used to read Massad Ayoob’s blog until his badge kissing foray in the Jose Guerena shooting made the experience too nauseating to continue. I think Ayoob’s mindset is part of the problem with law enforcement; the cop apologists give the benefit of the doubt in so many successive increments that there is no room in the end for actually addressing the abuses at hand because they magically disappear, usually into the canard of “officer safety” or the equally mysterious “mistakes were made.” Funny how none of those mistakes ever appear to be made by particular officers. About the only time action occurs is when the political fallout is so huge that – like the cops that murdered Kelly Thomas in Fullerton – the city is facing widespread civil unrest or the like.
I particularly find it amusing when cops point to exoneration by “internal affairs” as some badge of rectitude. I wonder how many convenience store robbers would like to have their acts of violence vetted by their fellow gangbangers.
Speaking of going after cigarette companies, it bears considering what the actual (and entirely predictable) outcome of that case was: the big tobacco companies saw their profits rise. Why? Two reasons:
1. The settlement gave them carte blanche to raise their prices, “to offset the settlement” (and then some).
2. The big companies were in a much better position to pay the settlement money than small companies, which simply went out of business. Thus, less competition for the big companies.
And don’t think the big companies knew exactly how it was going to work out…
And don’t think the big companies didn’t know exactly how it was going to work out…
The more proximate precedent for requiring insurance for guns would be requiring insurance for a car.
Julie Burchill was writing in response to the storm around Suzanne Moore’s article (which didn’t get any initial publicity). The republishing in the New Statesman brought it into the open:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/seeing-red-power-female-anger
If they didn’t make controversial statements … who would read them?
They have to piss someone off in order to get attention.
“nearly everyone is closed-minded about something, and that’s why it is so vital that we not allow anyone’s speech to be censored: nobody is (individually or collectively) qualified to judge what ideas “deserve” to be heard”.
OK!
Lets hear it for Jimmy Savile & The Pedophiles!
SEX BEFORE 8 IS TOO LATE!
Whatta ye think, Maggie?
What’s the harm in allowing them to express their opinions? Are you honestly afraid that they’ll be able to convince people that having sex with children is OK? Be realistic: though I fully admit human beings are capable of plenty of awfulness, most of us are far too protective of children to allow such a thing. Furthermore, neither you nor I are infallible seers; we don’t know that some good might not come out of the argumentation over such an issue. Finally, the harm that comes from suppressing odious speech merely because it IS odious (a precedent for censorship by some government body which gets to decide for everyone which ideas “deserve” to be heard and which don’t) is far greater than that which results from allowing it (people get offended and disgusted and mock the one seriously proposing it). So sorry, no sale. I would not want to live in a world where people have to speak in whispers for fear of violent suppression, and I think you might benefit from rereading yesterday’s column.
As you point out again, allowing all types of speech is critical to protecting the right of free speech for us all. Pediphile awareness, nazi-radicals, anarchists, whomever. I ask why censor private media outlets coverage of a story. I think the priest incident is morally reprehensible and lacks journalistic integrity, but does that make it ok to censor a private enterprise? Can’t they use the example of the priest to object to religion.. or as a satire, or comedy sketch. I understand that the man has an expectation of privacy in sexual acts he performs in his home. I appreciate that the potential shame or disfavor in the community for people in similar situations might cause some people to forgo help in similar scenarios. But, I am reluctant to censor anyone or any entity. The act was no longer “private” in any reasonable expectation of privacy standard when he published information about it. (made the phone call). Do you want the government to make laws that try to define what a news medium can publish once it enters the public stream of spehre. I can see possible ways to censor private rights (sex in home.. maybe.. But the New york gun owners? How can we restrict the media (freedom of press is of the upmost importance to free speech in a society), from commenting on them however they see fit? If they print something with malice disregard for the truth about a gun owner, they can be sued for defamation. The Press should be able to comment on accused in high profile criminal cases. When has someone been convicted in the media and not gotten benefit of a trial? If anything mass media coverage can help a Defendant. She will get weeks of voir dire to make sure she gets a partial jury. OJ’s took a month. Her lawyer would be able to cut more potential prejudicial jurors… Don’t they have the right to make profits, distribute publications? how are they any different is all I am wondering? (of course I’m not talking about any government or state sanctioned publication, which would be unreasonable governmental interference with right to privacy. But the gov’t has nothing to do with the phone call, or with a news outlet finding out someone owns a gun and printing a story. How can we condone censorship of private speech?
Julie Burchill is Kirsty Young’s guest on Desert Island Discs tomorrow, Sunday, at 11.15 GMT. Just sayin’.
I imagined that Ms Burchill would have a stentorian voice, but no. It’s high-pitched and teenage-girly. Quite unlike her voice in print.
Much like Mary Daly, who had a soft voice.
Hmm. That makes a certain type of sense. I’d be willing to bet that Burchill may dislike her voice and the image it projects (feminine weakness/immaturity) and so becomes a raging twat in a medium where she can speak and be taken seriously: print.
Well, this might be another area that we disagree on Maggie. For now at least 😉
I don’t find the arguments in favour of no restrictions on speech to be very strong, for the most part. Eg, the argument that the answer to hate speech is more speech or “good speech”, is inadequate in my view because the marginalized groups being targeted don’t usually have a level playing field on which to respond. Hate speech is largely exercised by the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged. I think that allowing hate speech reinforces or fosters discrimination and can lead to hate crimes even if it doesn’t directly incite violence, and that hate speech is destructive to societies and the lives of targeted minorities. Therefore, societies have a duty to curtail hate speech through laws, in particular countries that already prohibit discrimination via human rights legislation and/or who are signatories to international human rights agreements.
That said, I don’t think it’s realistic to try and censor every Tom, Dick and Mary on the Internet (perhaps not even Burchill). It would be more productive to target those with a wide audience or those who engage repeatedly in hate speech. Further, laws against hate speech are just one tool to fight hate speech – public education, vigorous debate and the like are also essential tools, of course. But all that needs to be backed up with laws for the most egregious cases at least.
I’ve thought about this issue a lot, and have written 3 major pieces on it, including a written formal debate with Peter Tatchell, a well known gay rights campaigner in the UK. In order, they are:
The Limits of Free Speech: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5
Repealing Hate Speech Laws is a Dangerous Mistake: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/07/repealing-hate-speech-laws-dangerous-mistake (with extensive defenses of my position in the Comments)
Argument: Should Hate Speech be a Crime? http://newint.org/sections/argument/2012/12/01/is-hate-speech-crime-argument/
You’ll have to move on this one, I’m afraid. Remember, the reason I came to your view on abortion is because I realized government simply cannot be trusted with that kind of power. And if I don’t trust it to make determinations that are at least partially arbitrary (based on weeks of gestation), it would be the height of folly to trust it to make purely subjective determinations based on ephemera like “hate”.
Limiting free speech because of a subjective mental state (i.e., hatred) lands us squarely in thoughtcrime territory.
And it is no accident that the recent attempt by the OIC to get global blasphemy laws to protect Islam from criticism tried to equate them to western hate speech laws. But this is not surprising given the congruency of those hate speech laws with the old christian anti-blasphemy laws.
joycearthur says the following:
“Eg, the argument that the answer to hate speech is more speech or “good speech”, is inadequate in my view because the marginalized groups being targeted don’t usually have a level playing field on which to respond. Hate speech is largely exercised by the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged.”
Think of that for a second. If the targets of the hate speech are “marginalized groups” without the power to respond, how is it they have the political clout to get the government to punish the “privileged classes” that are talking trash about them?
Government power is usually exercised in favor of the “privileged classes” and against the “marginalized groups.” Giving the government discretion to punish certain speakers as “hateful” is almost certain to benefit the “privileged classes at the expense of the “marginalized groups.”
Thank you Roscoe, for pointing out the apparent contradiction between marginalized groups not having the power to respond, yet having the power to get the gov’t to “punish the the privileged classes.” Although that seems like a compelling point at first glance, I think there’s a couple problems with it. First, most individuals belonging to a marginalized group do not have a level playing field on which to respond – some do, but those who succeed in getting hate speech laws passed are generally activists working within groups and coalitions of allies. So I think you are confusing the power of a movement with the lack of power of individuals (most of whom are not in the movement).
Second, your apparent contradiction is an over-simplification that doesn’t really reflect reality. The fundamental purpose of any law is to protect people or their property. Although laws and their enforcement are often skewed to protect the powerful, laws also protect the powerless. Even since the divine right of kings ended, there’s been a gradual evolution for the law to protect human rights too, including the rights of the ‘little guy’. That’s especially the case after 1948, with the introduction of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Countless human rights advocacy groups have also sprung up since then, and many have been quite influential in passing laws to better protect the rights of vulnerable groups. So I think it’s misleading to say that gov’t power is usually exercised in favor of the privileged classes, because that fails to recognize that there’s been an ongoing struggle and tremendous growth in forcing gov’ts and the law to better protect the interests of the unprivileged. We still have a long ways to go, of course.
Some problems with suppressing “hate speech” that I can see are:
– Defining it. There is a nasty tendency for laws to suffer “mission creep”. First it is a ban on the direct and open incitement of violence. When the violence continues, the ban gets extended to “suggestive comments” that might incite violence. More violence, and the prohibition stretches to words that hurt somebody’s feelings … and on and on, until at last saying anything critical becomes illegal.
– Efficacy. People will always find a way around bans on speech. The use of “code words”, allegory, satire, music, fiction, and so on. This has been the truth throughout history.
– Unintended consequences. Just like assassination and physical suppression, the suppression of speech actually adds legitimacy to the supposed hate speech. “If it wasn’t true, why would they need to ban it?” would be the claim. Martyrs are always dangerous.
– The suppression of unpopular opinions and ideas. Many truths and new ideas (evolution?) appear to be hateful or harmful to the existing social status quo and start out being a minority opinion. Saying that the Emperor has no clothes is the ultimate hate speech.
– Peaceful protest and whistle blowing would become almost impossible. An anti-war rally would “threaten the lives of our soldiers”. A pro-abortion speech would be support for the murder of babies. Anti-abortion speech would threaten the lives of mothers. And so on. Truth always threatens someone.
– The impossibility of banning the most dangerous forms of hate speech. Hate speech becomes truly dangerous when it is something that “everybody knows”. Anti-blasphemy laws are a good example. They are only “hateful” because they go against the majority opinion.
– Definition of violence. Is it actual killing or physical assault? What about shunning and protest? What about economic violence – boycotts and employment blacklists? What about hurt feelings? If someone commits suicide because of something somebody said, was that hate speech? What about “I think he/she is ugly/talentless/stupid”. Is that emotional violence?
The banning of specific actions – shouting “fire” in a crowded cinema, false bomb threats, slander or libel that causes quantifiable injury, can and are covered by law. The general banning of hate speech is illogical. The fact that many countries have done it is no proof if its wisdom, any more than is the banning of prostitution.
Thank you V.W. Singer, I really appreciate your thoughtful arguments against my position, and I’m going to give the issue more thought. I don’t agree with all you’ve said though, but for now will just point out that my definition of hate speech is quite narrow and would not encompass some of the examples you use. Hate speech is about disparaging people or groups based on their immutable characteristics such as race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. But yes, if someone committed suicide because somebody was bullying them with gay taunts, why shouldn’t that person be held criminally accountable? Why should victims of hate speech be sacrificed in order to protect others’ right to free speech?
The other issue that interests me is what Maggie also said, about not trusting the government with that kind of power, and your mention of “mission creep” of hate speech laws. That may be all quite true and it’s a big concern, however, I don’t find such arguments convincing in the end, because they are basically “changing the goalposts.” The problem is not the prohibition of hate speech as such, the problem is abuse of authority and misapplication of laws. This can happen across a range of other issues and laws, so in fact the real problems that need addressing are legal reform, rooting out political corruption, and so forth.
As much as some of us might distrust gov’t and law enforcement, we live in a society of laws. We need laws, they serve very important purposes. People generally agree to living under laws, and on the whole, laws are beneficial for most citizens most of the time. Of course, the law is a human institution like any other, so it’s far from perfect and is often abused. Some laws are just plain bad and should be completely repealed, like anti-prostitution, anti-drug, and anti-abortion laws. Most bad or absurd laws are for victimless “crimes”, but hate speech is not a victimless crime. Targeted people actually suffer and some die. Trying to prevent such harms and making people accountable for harming others is a legitimate reason for having a law. The issue of how exactly that law is written and applied is a different issue, but I also don’t believe it’s impossible for us to craft a good law and enforce it fairly. At least, we have to try, and laws can be improved over time.
I’m going to continue this thought under Roscoe’s post above, because he/she makes a very interesting point about the nature of government power and who the law actually protects.
Thought experiment: suppose I bully someone based on a mutable characteristic; for example, I taunt a sex worker for being a sex worker up to the point that she kills herself. Did I commit a hate crime? How about their weight? The style or color shirt they’re wearing?
Why would it matter whether the trait offensive speech targets is immutable, then? Why should the victims of offensive speech targeted at mutable traits be sacrificed for others’ right to free speech? Why should victims of my poor fashion sense be sacrificed to my inability to color-coordinate?
Once you accept one the reasoning behind rejecting the rest is weakened, and free speech as a concept basically disappears.
If we went through each law one at a time, I don’t think this would be true.
It’s related to discrimination Kevin. Hate speech laws are an adjunct to anti-discrimination laws. So rather than engage in philosophical slippery-slope thought experiments, we can just look at reality. I’ve never seen an anti-discrimination law that includes “occupation” as a ground, let alone “fashion choice.” To cite Canada’s anti-discrimination law as a typical example: “The prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted…” (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-3)
Now let’s compare that with the original anti-discrimination grounds formulated by the UN in 1946: Race, language, sex, colour, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.mittendrinundaussenvor.de/fileadmin/bilder/0304.pdf)
You can see that the prohibited grounds have not changed a great deal in 63 years, putting to rest your fears of a slippery slope. Most countries have had these anti-discrimination laws on the books for decades, including similar prohibited grounds that have not changed much, except for a few modern additions such as sexual orientation and disability.
So that’s the context of hate speech laws – which have also been in force in many countries for decades – and I’m not aware of any evidence that they’ve had a slippery slope effect either. If anything, their scope has been limited – sections of hate speech laws were recently struck down in the UK and Canada. Further, human rights tribunals have generally proved capable of objectively weighing evidence and applying criteria to ensure that legitimate free speech or merely offensive speech are not captured. In Canada for example, courts have applied the “Taylor test” to limit hate speech to that which expresses “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.” As a result, most complaints were thrown out before they even got a hearing because they didn’t meet the stringent criteria of hate speech.
And that’s exactly the principle we’ve been talking about; anti-free speech laws are themselves just another slip down the slope from anti-discrimination laws, which I also oppose.
In the law itself? Probably not. As a run-off consequence? Sure.
http://tinyurl.com/ch86l5m
Whatever a law says, it will be pushed far beyond that point until even the most absurd reading is encoded into legal precedent.
You’re missing the much-contested Section 213(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which deems discriminatory speech…
The idea that this is somehow specified so that only the most egregious of hatemongers will be hauled before the commission is absurd. Beyond that, there are other well-known horrors incorporated into a system you suggest is typical… (from the Canada Post)
It’s an unrestrained kangaroo court policing speech; it’s absurd and inconsistent with the very notion of freedom and human rights.
If you oppose anti-discrimination laws, then you can’t have much respect for human rights in general. Without anti-discrimination laws (including the Civil Rights Act btw), minorities and women would be at the mercy of anyone who wishes to deny them public services, fire them, pay them less etc. Most anti-discrimination laws relate to employment. So that means you would support an employer’s “right” to, say, hire only white workers, or pay black workers half wage? And you think that courts should uphold that? Seriously?
You’re citing Section 13 of the CHRA, which has been repealed. It may have needed some revisions, but total repeal was going way too far. You listed some criticisms of Section 13 from a Wiki page it looks like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy), while omitting the defenses of Section 13 from the same page. Actually this is a good example of why Wiki should not be used as a source because the page is pretty biased against S.13. This piece rebuts the opposition to S.13 much better: http://www.digitalcuriosity.maisonneuve.org/pressroom/article/2009/aug/20/controversy-entrepreneurs/
“It’s an unrestrained kangaroo court policing speech; it’s absurd and inconsistent with the very notion of freedom and human rights.” Both parts of your sentence are ridiculous falsehoods. As I said above, the tribunal threw out most complaints before they even got a hearing because they didn’t meet the stringent criteria of hate speech. It even acquitted McLean’s magazine and Mark Steyn. So I don’t know how your dictionary defines “unrestrained” but I think you should get a new one. Second, no human right or freedom is absolute; rights often have to be limited or balanced against other rights when they conflict. That is a foundational and self-evident legal principle (not an opinion or interpretation). In terms of free speech, decades of case law from around the world have established that speech has limits. Treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantee speech, but also limit speech that harms the rights or reputations of others. More than 150 other countries have signed on to that treaty. The U.S. is a minority outlier in its attitude and laws regarding free speech, and frankly, its worship of the sacred 1st amendment appears pretty irrational and strange to most of the world. I think it hampers human rights progress in the U.S., and suspect it might be one of the reasons the U.S. is often further down the ratings scale on various social and quality of life measurements, compared to other western countries.
Yes. I think it’s a repugnant thing to do, but yes. Absolutely.
Indeed. In a rare stroke of sanity, the government has actually pulled back on tyranny.
As per the reading of the law I provided, essentially any offensive speech could hypothetically qualify for having one hauled before the kangaroo court, at one’s own expense. That is tyrannical madness befitting a Third World dictatorship.
I’m a bit less worried about the US’s “worship” of our “sacred” First Amendment than I am about our talent for carving out exceptions to it. For worshipers of something sacred, we sure are fond of spitting in our god’s eye.
Governments are made u of human beings, and human beings are fallible. Try though we might, we will ere. When it comes to speech rights, if ere we must, I feel that it is better to ere in favor of too much freedom of speech rather than of too little. You may find that “irrational,” but I’m sure that there are people who would find your beliefs irrational also. Your beliefs are no more a Great and Holy Truth than are mine, so don’t act as if they are.
As for our position on a ratings scale, well I could criticize the very idea of ratings scales, ask who set it up and then point out that how far down a country is on said scale depends not on some Cosmic Goodness Quotient but rather on how far a country deviates from the scale-setter-upper’s personal idea of Utopia, etc. Instead, I’ll just admit that we don’t do nearly as well as we should, and that the reason isn’t too much defense of the First Amendment, but too little of the others. We lock up far too many people. Do you think that this is because we let people talk too much, or because we don’t sufficiently restrict what they can talk about? Hell no; it’s because we’ve decided that Amendments Four through Ten don’t really mean what they say.
And thanks to free speech, I can point this out without going to prison. Unless I mix sex into it somehow, because, you know, the First Amendment doesn’t say “even sex,” so maybe it doesn’t mean that too.
I’ve got an even better example of a mutable characteristic: religion. You can’t be a former black, but you can be a former Mormon. You can’t give up being white, but you can give up being a Muslim.
I note that political affiliation or political opinion (different statutes differ slightly, as is to be expected) on the list. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Well you didn’t have to be you know. Deciding you don’t want to be a Communist (Labor, Libertarian, Democrat, Green, Republican, etc.etc.etc.) isn’t the same as deciding you don’t want to be Polynesian.
This is why I always found the argument over whether or not homosexuality is “a choice” to be stupid, at least as far as discrimination law is concerned. Being Catholic is a choice, being Chinese is not, and refusing to rent to either is against the law. So what difference does it make if somebody is gay by birth, or chose it?
For the record, I am in favor of anti-discrimination laws,* against hate speech laws,** and kind of wavering on hate crimes laws.***
* I could imagine hypothetical anti-discrimination laws which I would be against: a law saying that you can’t refuse to hire a convicted child molester as a baby-sitter.
** Likewise, I would be for a law saying that it is a crime to use your speech to organize and carry out lynchings. This however is already covered under existing law.
*** The argument that taking motive or state of mind into account makes assault or murder into a “thought crime” is bogus. The difference between first and second degree murder is whether it was in a heat of passion spur of the moment, or was it planned. However, prosecutors will always be under pressure to turn every crime they can, from an act of littering to a mass murder, into a hate crime if they are able.
In the case of first and second degree murder, both instances involve an act that is criminal regardless of the underlying thought-process. In the case of hate speech (or discrimination) laws, it criminalizes something that otherwise isn’t criminal only because, allegedly, hate was the motivating factor. As such, it constitutes a thoughtcrime.
Refusing to hire a person because of that person’s race or other such factor is wrong and can constitute a crime in and of itself. Whether I refuse to hire a black homosexual atheist because I, personally, hate blacks, homosexuals, and atheists or because I have nothing against them personally but am afraid of what the neighbors will think is beside the point.
I know that you (and libertarians in general) tend to hold the opinion that if it’s his business it’s his property so he can do whatever the hell he wants, no matter how repugnant. You tend to hold that property used for business is no different than property used as a private residence, and that property rights are the same as speech rights.
Because of speech rights, you have every right to not only hold such beliefs but to state them and to support them. I, however, do not hold that property and speech are the same, not that a home and a business are the same. So I’m using my speech rights to say so.
And Joyce, that’s a perfect example of why, when it comes to speech rights, it’s better to ere on the side of more speech instead of less. You wouldn’t want either you or me to be shut up because our speech might offend libertarians, would you?
Nope. It’s an example of another thoughtcrime. Refusing to hire someone isn’t in and of itself a crime, but refusing to hire them out of hate is; the law criminalizes a thought, namely hatred. The only way to claim it’s a crime ‘in and of itself’ is to essentially argue that it should be illegal because it is illegal.
You misstate me. I didn’t say because of hatred. I said because of race or other such things. I even specifically said that it doesn’t matter if I refuse to hire him because I hate him, or because I’m afraid of what the neighbors might think. Let me now add: because I think black homosexual atheists are adorable but innately childlike, and thus lacking the maturity the job requires; because I think he’s a wonderful guy actually, but his gayness might be catching and I don’t want to work next to him every day lest I start wanting to suck dicks; because he refuses to pray over the beaded bracelets my company makes and the more religious bead-stringers don’t like that.
Or because I hate blacks, gays, and atheists.
WHY I won’t hire a gay black atheist doesn’t matter, only that I refuse to hire gay black atheists. Saying that such refusal is only a crime if motivated by hatred would actually be a step backwards.
If not aimed at biggots, what do you think such laws are based on? The laws infer hatred in the same way as speech laws do.
I gave examples of what, other than hatred, could be at play. If you choose to skip that, I can’t force you to read it.
“Unintended consequences. Just like assassination and physical suppression, the suppression of speech actually adds legitimacy to the supposed hate speech. “If it wasn’t true, why would they need to ban it?” would be the claim. Martyrs are always dangerous.”
I think this is a good example of an entirely unsupported ideological assertion from those who don’t like hate speech laws. It doesn’t even make sense when you think about it. The law is a powerful symbol of society’s “official” values, so one thing the law is pretty good at is making something seem NOT legitimate when it’s criminalized. We all know this because we see how the criminal laws stigmatize sex workers. Therefore, the suppression of hate speech would logically serve to reduce its legitimacy over time.
I think the fear of martyrs is way overblown. We’ve had a few free speech “martyrs” in Canada, but I can assure you they are neither heroes nor dangerous (at least not anymore). When leading hatemongers are exposed and prosecuted, they generally end up discredited by society at large, with their position greatly weakened. As a bonus, their prosecutions seem to marginalize any associated hate groups and reduce their influence and size.
joycearthur wrote on February 10, 2013 at 11:55 am:
Yes, the Canadian Islamic Congress persecuting Mark Steyn for “hate speech” through the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007 certainly “reduced his influence”.
By 2010 Steyn’s influence was so reduced that he only got the Sappho Award from the International Free Press Society for “his ample contributions as a cultural critic” and “his success in influencing the debate on Islam, the disastrous ideology of multiculturalism and the crisis of the Western civilization.”
Guess they’ll have to try to lock up the International Free Press Society next time.
But Steyn was never convicted. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint against him by the Canadian Islamic Congress in 2008. The CHRC ruling stated: “[Steyn’s] writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.” But: “the views expressed…are not of an extreme nature.”
Btw, I checked up on IFPS and it appears to be a two-bit group of anti-Islamic hate-mongers rallying together to protect themselves and their right to vilify Muslims. As I said, hate-mongers do get some support from like minds.
“Eg, the argument that the answer to hate speech is more speech or “good speech”, is inadequate in my view because the marginalized groups being targeted don’t usually have a level playing field on which to respond. Hate speech is largely exercised by the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged.”
But the “privileged” are the ones in power. You propose to correct inequities in power by giving more power to the powerful.
I’ve always found it interesting that Goebbels didn’t have to get new edicts to censor his opposition once in power. He just used what the Weimar Republic had already enacted targeting his ilk.
Of course they eventually went beyond that. But it certainly eased the transition to power.
Maggie, once more you have nailed it. “Truth,” whatever that might be, emerges from the free and open discussion of ideas, no matter how controversial or seemingly odious to some. It is not polite or popular or politically correct speech that the First Amendment is meant to protect, but speech that challenges, provokes, questions, goads, offends. It is unpopular speech that needs protection.
There clearly is a chilling effect that causes those with views out of the mainstream to self-censor them. Whether it is the neo-fascism known as PC (“political correctness”), restrictions imposed by those, like your correspondent joycealexander, who would stifle speech through use of legislation that judges some speech to be “hateful” (and which increasingly reaches into ever more restrictive and even absurd areas as its proponents get a taste for the blood of those they wish to silence), or others who would quash proponents of various unpopular views — including your own views favoring decriminalization of paid sex or those so flippantly decried even by other commentators on this blog.
In my years as a journalist, as well as in my professional journalism training (which fortunately, if uncharacteristically, came after time in actual practice in the field), I came to learn that sometimes one ought not publish or report some things, even if one has the right to. These instances fall not into the realm of self-censorship, which derives from outside pressures, but into what might be called ethics, all too rarely seen in the profession, such as it is, today. This would apply to your example of the derision of the priest calling 911 to get himself out of his self-bondage predicament, or posting the addresses of legally licensed gun owners in New York, or publishing the identities of men accused of soliciting prostitutes.
The last paragraph in your original posting exposes the danger we face so well. I would add only that we no longer publicly shame people on the village green, at least not in our supposedly “enlightened” society. Now technology grants the power to expose, deride, shame, and belittle anyone whose ideas someone somewhere doesn’t approve of before all the world.
According to this article, Julie Burchill and the Observer, the Observer normally engages in self-censorship and just let this article slip past their internal censors as an oversight, which they corrected after the fact.
Now, I suspect if their hadn’t been an outcry, they might not have done so, but my personal position here is I have no dog in this fight.
Kevin,
I thought Steyn’s words on the topic of the final repeal of section 13 to be of interest.
That’s exactly it. A telling quote from a lead investigator (Steacy) from a case transcript…
These people aren’t defenders of human rights, they’re fascists in bunny suits.
If the United States really is an outlier in our defense of free speech, that’s pretty fucking sad, considering that we’re always quick to carve out (yet another) exception any time we get a little scared.
A lot of Americans I know find the Canadian/European-style speech restrictions pretty jarring when they’re explained in more concrete terms. For example, prior to giving a speech in Ottawa, Ann Coulter (quite dislike her, by the by) was advised that she might face criminal charges for saying the wrong thing on stage, and that she should “educate herself” about what speech is allowable in Canada.
Even when you disagree with what someone says or thinks, this kind of censoring is outrageous in a nominally free country; it’s the kind of thing you would expect to see in some impoverished dictatorship.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/canada_5/
And here we do agree. Both on Ann Coulter and, more importantly, on the importance of free speech.
Here’s my problem with what you’re saying, it stops being a free speech matter when it is on someone’s property. I don’t have the right to come & paint a mural on the side of your house unless you’ve agreed to it. I don’t have a right to air my grievances against the city in the mayors living room unless they invited me over.
A business absolutely has the right to not be associated with any particular piece of speech.
That said, if they’ve chosen not to be associated, they shouldn’t stand in the way of it being published elsewhere.
Yeah, I can agree with that. Well, the mayor’s living room is probably paid for by the people of the city, so the rules are a little bit different than for your living room or mine.
But mostly, yeah.
[…] people who lack legal “authority” over others, it’s inevitable that government actors will start doing the same thing. In the recent controversy over the leaking of billionaire Donald Sterling’s racist rules for […]