'Hate Speech' Laws Are Just Another Way For Governments To Punish People They Don't Like
from the adding-more-tiers-to-the-'equitable'-justice-system dept
Two recent legislative efforts have been mounted to add police to the rolls of "disadvantaged" citizens in need of the additional shelter of "hate crime" laws. Hate crime laws are immediately problematic. They add additional punishments to criminal acts already punishable under existing laws. It's exactly the sort of thing justice isn't meant to be: vindictive. A murder is a murder, whether or not it was propelled by someone's underlying biases. A threat is a threat, no matter the threatener's personal views on race, marriage or human sexuality. Adding additional punishments solely because of a perceived motive serves no purpose other than to make those who support these laws feel like past racial/sexual wrongs are slowly being righted. The sinners of the present pay for the sins of the past sinners.
Adding police officers to this mix is not just stupid and completely antithetical to the underlying rationale of "hate crime" laws. It's also incredibly dangerous. Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason takes a look at how hate crime laws are being deployed in other countries. What she's found is that hate crime laws are like any other: they're abused most frequently by those in power and deployed inconsistently to further governments' aims.
The agency tasked with prosecuting hate speech in Kenya is called the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC); it was formed in 2008 to address ethnic conflicts in the nation. Onyando asserts that NCIC has ignored the bulk of complaints it has received and acts "more like an arm of the ruling coalition" than an independent agency, honing in only on those who speak out against the Jubilee Alliance, a coalition established in 2013 to support the candidacy of current President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto.In this case, the government only cares about hate speech when it's on the receiving end of the hate. But this selective enforcement isn't limited to non-Western governments with a history of corruption. It's also happening in Europe.
Because "hate speech" is not narrowly defined, it's up to those in power to decide what qualifies as hate and what doesn't, and often that depends very much on both whom the speaker is and the sympathies of those in power. France has been accused of treating anti-Semitic sentiment with kid gloves while ignoring anti-Muslim expression. In the U.K., a British teenager was arrested after criticizing British military actions in Afghanistan.So, selective enforcement should work out great when it's cops who are targeted. Threats against law enforcement officers will be treated as exceptional crimes, even though they're facially indistinguishable from threats made against non-uniformed individuals or groups.
The government in general is supportive of law enforcement, even when agencies' track records indicate this trust is unearned. The selective application of hate crime/hate speech laws will almost always favor this particular "protected" group. "Hate crime/speech" sentence enhancements will be piled on top of existing sentence enhancements pertaining to the assault of government employees. Fines and bail amounts will increase dramatically.
In San Francisco, for instance, leaders recently condemned graffiti saying "No More Chinese" as hate speech. The suspected spray painter was charged with 13 crimes, including felony vandalism with a felony hate crime enhancement. "We're exposing a man to somewhere around six years of jail time for spray painting," said public defender Yali Corea-Levy. And while bail for felony vandalism is normally set around $25,000, the suspect's bail awas set at $155,000. Similar outrage has not been summoned in San Fran for street art advocating the killing of hipsters or urging "techie scum" to die.Our own government has already indicated a willingness to punish speech that "attacks" the home team. It won't take much to persuade it to use its power against those who take aim -- verbally or physically -- at law enforcement professionals. These new rights won't be equally granted. They will be used almost exclusively to ensure groups with considerable amounts of power and protection are given just a little more.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abuse, free speech, hate crimes, hate speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Think of all the silver linings this bestows:
-Fox News gets shut down
-Facebook goes away
-Comments online disappear
-The human race is forced to shuts its damn mout
I'm looking forward to this peaceful outcome by the government.
For those who may have missed it, this is sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Your gov't" is not really *your* gov't. It apparently never really has been. It did try for a while, but has long since given that up as unworkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weak argument
You could use the above headline and make the same exact arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak argument
The very idea of all it all is for people to remain vigilant which is completely not happening.
All laws are nothing more than people with power establishing what they do not like, this will never be different at any other time or any other place.
You can concoct all manor of blame or excuses like "separation of church and state" to try to block something you don't like in a law... but the reality is this. If enough people in power want you marginalized or marching to their orders... you either march or you fight back.
The idea that all religion is bad only creates a cover for the real evil... humanity and it contrived institutions... some do manage to do some good, but when they become trusted... that is moment corruption has become its core and it will be slowly eaten away. Hate Speech is the same... an idea of corruption that breeds and props corruption up. A construct of sheep that live in fear and weakness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak argument
Before we had laws and separation of powers, governments were absolutely free to destroy any citizen they disliked.
Laws are a way to -PREVENT- the government from simply punishing who they dislike, specifically defining what kinds of behaviors are punishable, and guaranteeing that everything not listed is ok.
Vaguely worded, subjective, overly broad laws, are a way for governments to punish people they don't like.
It's why we oppose them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry, but no
But hate crime laws speak to motive.
If you beat someone up because you don't like their hat, that's a lesser offense than beating someone up because you don't like the color of their skin.
Just like punishment for homicide hinges on motive.
Will you argue that a traffic death should be adjudicated no differently than a serial killer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
I think we need to make a clear distinction between hate crimes and hate speech. The former is of course, illegal. The latter is protected by the First Amendment. A lot of hot air gets blown unproductively conflating the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sorry, but no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sorry, but no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sorry, but no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
To use your example if I beat up a person of a different ethnicity from myself because I dislike their hat I'm likely to incur hate crime laws despite my crime being hat motivated. Then it's just a case of painting me as a filthy racist and giving me double or triple jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
YES
if I kill someone with my car,
it should not matter if I was texting, calling, under the influence of legal or ilegal drugs, happy, sad, tired, disappointed, offended, scared, late for an important government meeting, wearing a badge, a hat,an uniform, naked, wearing a tuxedo, wearing an expensive/cheap car, carrying a bat/gun, my credit ratings, my government happy face points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sorry, but no
Yes, if the person was killed with an "assault vehicle" with a "hollow point" grill and a large capacity magazine.
Thousands of people get away with *murder* every year, because they commit it with a *car* instead of a *gun*.
It's high time we start a federal registry for car sales (with a 3 day waiting period) to snuff out the "car show" loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
If I killed you because you had on a Houston Texans hat, would you be any less dead than if I killed you because you were purple?
Finally, they cause division. Anyone left out of the hate crime laws will start screaming that crimes against them aren't as important as crimes against whatever group the hate crime covers. It causes societal tension.
I'm not saying hate crime laws come with bad intent. I'm saying they don't really address the core issue and there is no way to fairly apply them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
Depends on how you get charged. The punishment for homicide does depend on motive, which is reflected in what charge the prosecution brings. In my area:
1st Degree Murder = prosecution must prove you planned this or intended to do it. In my area this is the only charge that can get the death penalty.
2nd Degree Murder = not planned but rather a 'spur of the moment' thing.
Manslaughter = not planned but a malicious or negligent action that resulted in a death.
Involuntary Manslaughter = you did not intend to cause a death but you could not avoid it either.
Vehicular Manslaughter = operation of an automobile caused a death, usually due to maliciousness or negligence.
AFAIK there is no such thing as 'Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter', and 3rd Degree Murder (emotionally charged circumstances) was removed from the books years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sorry, but no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry, but no
If the traffic death was the result of a deliberate attempt to run someone over then yes - of course.
The key here is the word deliberate - which applies to all serial killers and ver few traffic deaths. Motive is not the issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it shouldn't matter why someone gets beat up. The punishment should be the same. The victim is just as beat up regardless of if the criminal didn't like the color of a victim's hat or victim's skin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't worry blacks, we've passed laws to protect you, now you can go back to living in poverty and unequal opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't solve an "inside" problem from the outside, people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As awful as it is, yes, people should be allowed to promote or defend it. Expressing your opinion should never be against the law, no matter how objectionable that opinion is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's already laws to protect cops more then ordinary citizens
If you've ever watched political ads at election time you'll see that politicians often attack each other for not supporting those laws. I've seen so many ads saying "[name] voted against tougher penalties for cop killers".
Bottom line, there's no need to pretend it's a hate crime to attack a cop, that just opens up pro-police groups/politicians to public mockery for supporting such laws.
That being said, hate crime laws are still actually needed to protect actual persecuted groups. And despite misinformation about it, hate crime laws DO apply to majority groups like whites, Christians, and men, as long as you can prove a racist like hatred for such groups motivated the criminal to commit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's already laws to protect cops more then ordinary citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police Hate Crimes Task Force - coming to a city near you!
Whenever the police in any city need a dedicated division that mainly investigates rude behavior, empty threats and petty vandalism -- while neglecting far more serious crimes -- it's a sure bet that the "hate crimes" will be defined as those thoughts and insults against the very people with the most political power.
The elevation of the police to protected "victim" status and recipient of Hate Crimes benefits should not come as a surprise. Not unlike the libel laws in many countries, the Hate Crime provides a vehicle for the wealthy, well organized and politically powerful to suppress speech that's critical of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police Hate Crimes Task Force - coming to a city near you!
Ever heard of ASBO in the UK? It's insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Police Hate Crimes Task Force - coming to a city near you!
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-appears-show-cop-body-slamming-student-s-c-classr oom-n451896
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Police Hate Crimes Task Force - coming to a city near you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you know Stalin and Hitler were Darwinists? Seems when evolutionists go to killing they are quite efficient at it. Should wet hate evolutionists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. It's more like "condemn the hyprocrites pretending to be Christians".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a thought
Governments tend to be the worst discriminators. Try practicing what you preach. But common sense doesn't get votes, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is a thought
Majority groups like whites, Christians, men are all covered already under hate crime laws. While hate crime prosecutions for victimizing those groups are much rarer, they do happen. I think the FBI or some other government agency keeps track of such hate crimes & hate crime prosecutions.
There's no such thing (until now) as hate crime laws that protect people with specific jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here is a thought
None of those are actually majorities.
Most people in the world are non-white. Women outnumber men and Christians are < 1/3 of the world population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The world slides towards tyranny, dictatorship and outright rebellion once more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate Crime Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate Crime Laws
No they are not. Ordinary laws, properly applied, will do that just fine. Hate crime laws simply give an unfair advantage to those who, whilst nominally belonging to the disadvantaged group, are in fact wealthy and powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate Crime Laws
There should be some kind of filter that picks up these words and tags the commenter as an SJW troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hate crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hate crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... techie scum to die."
I hope that's offended enough people, but I'm sure I could improve it if I were begged. Throwing money might help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]