ZOMBIE FORUMS

In my home country, there has been a lot of talk lately about criminalising hate speech.

This is mostly due to the recent surge in media attention towards a the National Front of New Zealand, who are you're standard racist bigoted morons.

(Though on a side note, I have no idea what they plan to do with the Maori, as they can't say go home, as they were here first).

Also, a prominent Holocaust denier was also barred from entering the country for no particular reason.

Anyway, there is rumour going around that the government is considering criminalising hate speech in public.

I'm curious as to what people's opinions are.

I know most of the Americans are going to use the "thin end of the wedge" argument, but I would love to hear from anybody who's country has already passed such legislation, and what sort of censorship (if any) has arisen from it.

Insert aforementioned argument here.

Seriously. Criminalizing speach? Maybe if they word it so that it only applies to hate-propaganda (as in, minimum distribution numbers, etc.)
Even if you wanted to criminalize speach, it'll get out there. Just like kiddie porn.

Some countries I'm a citizen of (yup, multiple citizenship holder here) passed "hate" laws as far back as the nd of WWII.
Stupid stupid stupid.
One of these countries even consider itself the cradle of liberalism (not in the modern American sense of the word) and open mindedness, yet it makes it a crime to think some thoughts.
The problem with "hate speech" laws is that what one side of the political spectrum calls "hate" is different than what the other side defines as such, which means that your law, once passed, can be used to curb any kind of speech.

R-

Sorta like Cat Stevens?


As long as it is not disturbing the peace, I can't see any (ethical) reasons to restrict rights to free speech. Same goes for obscene speech.

However, I disagree with the contention that hate speech laws are automatically easily redefinable for the purposes of abuse. E.g. I don't think it is that "hate speech" as, say, "using ethnicity-specific invectives for the express purpose of degrading aforementioned ethnicities," is an extremely abuse-for-political-gain-prone definition.

iirc, "Thin End of the Wedge" means that, by letting in one person, you seta precedent to let more in, just like with a wedge, the thinnest point is used to open up room for more of it to get in.

(hmm... that makes less sense as I read it, but I don't nkow how to explain it better)

Getting you foot in the door?

Problem is, that works both ways, in this situation.

One nice thing about America, you really don't have to worry about anti-hate speech laws. Oh, people will make noise about it, but almost invariable only in the minority, and it is worth noting that the American Civil Liberties Union, that great bastion of liberal politics, sent the KKK a lawyer to defend their right to peaceful assembly and free speech etc. etc. etc.

Now, institutional regulations, those we can't do much about. Back when I lived on university campus, a neo-Nazi that tried to speak got his ass summarily thrown off campus by University Police. First Amendment says "The federal government shall make no law that abridges etc. etc. etc.," so public institutions can pretty much do what they want in terms of censorship as long as there aren't local or federal laws saying that they can't. And, in true capitalist form, the only thing stopping universities and corporations from restriting acess to everything that isn't vital to the task and hand is the fear of losing students/employees to less restrictive environments. These days, it's sort of devolved into a cold war of allowing unrestricted Internet access. God bless America, land of the free.