David Cormack
patreon
"Hate speech", or hate speech?
🕑 Added 2021-06-27 01:28:16 +0000 UTCThe Government has announced its proposed work programme to reform our hate speech laws.
There's a lot of people opining about it online. Tova O'Brien did a Tova interview pushing Minister Faafoi to answer whether millennials calling boomers "cunts" would be hate speech (I may be paraphrasing). Faaf prevaricated and didn't really answer.
Then the usual suspects burst into anger, Seymour, Jordan Williams, Bomber, etc. All angry about their free speech being curtailed. You could almost distil their moaning into "I want to say the N-word and now I'm afraid you won't let me". I'm paraphrasing again.
Free speech "purists" like them say that we should let racists be racist loudly and publicly, and then laugh or ridicule their ideas. Those people who say that are often white and male. Not always, but often. And they have the privilege to laugh and ridicule those ideas because they are usually ideas that don't threaten their existence. However if you're from an often oppressed group - Māori, Muslim, Rainbow, Jewish, hell, even female - those words that we're told to laugh at, and ridicule aren't funny. They're words that make your life uncomfortable and unpleasant to live through. They're words that frighten and degrade you. They are words of hate.
This ties in with the fact we don't often hear free speech purists argue that we should abolish defamation laws, or that we allow Isis propaganda to be broadcast. It's weird how they often like their free speech to be speech that is critical of minorities they're not part of.
These are often the same people who argue that Terf is a slur and shouldn’t be used. Or that Boomer, or Karen, is also a slur and we shouldn’t say them. They’re often very quick to criticise when we say bad things about white people. But minorities? Fuck ‘em.
Yes, we do need to express ideas and debate them and air them. But we also need to protect people and make sure that we can all partake in a life that is worth living. Finding the balance to this is the hard part. Finding the people who should set these rules is the damn near impossible part. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We need to bring in the people who are often on the receiving end of the horrible words to help us make the decisions, as much as we bring in the ruling classes. To do otherwise is to curtail their right to be heard, and we sure don't want to do that, do we?
Hate speech laws should be beefed up. The exclusion of protected categories such as sexuality, religion, age etc is discrimination in of itself.
I suspect this is going to go the way of the anti-smacking bill. People will gnash their teeth and claim we'll be criminalised for saying "boo", the laws will pass, and not much will change for the overwhelming majority.
But maybe those that become protected will feel a little safer, and maybe like they're a valued part of society too.
Comments
m3me_fr0g
Also to be clear, defamation is different because it involves demonstrable harm to an individual, and what you said has to actually be false. That's very different to "hate speech" where for example it's not even a defence if what you said is true. How long until quoting certain statistics is considered hate speech? ISIS "propaganda"... Who cares if it's broadcast? Who is going to broadcast it anyway? Who's going to listen? No New Zealander is interested in anything ISIS has to say.
m3me_fr0g
Nobody is harmed by speech that isn't already illegal. It's illegal to incite violence, as it should be. It's illegal to abet the commission of crime, as it should be. It's not illegal to disparage other groups of people, nor should it be. If someone is a racist I want to know. I want them to say so so that I can know to avoid them. Most importantly, if it's illegal to say things then people will just dogwhistle instead, and then people that WOULDN'T say those things are accused of dogwhistling when they aren't. The law does not recognise recognise offence as harm. If you're offended by being misgendered or because you hear someone say something then... tough luck. That's part of living in society. Get over yourself. Nobody has the right to tell others what is and isn't acceptable to say. The reality is that what is "hate speech" would not be static. It won't be long before "misgendering" people will be hate speech, before refusing to use neopronouns will be hate speech, etc. etc. Every step towards greater regulation of speech pushes the Overton window towards greater acceptance of speech regulation, and the cycle continues. I quite agree with the gay marriage campaigners when they say "if you don't like gay marriage don't have one". I'd say the same is true of speech: if you don't like certain speech, don't say it. But why should your personal preferences and sensibilities affect what others can say?
David Cormack
Yeah I was a bit unfair on you. Sorry, I'll amend.
Damien Grant
Rubbish . I explicitly said I'm a free speech absolutist. That would include ISIS, Holocaust deniers, even those racists who claim that the Wuhan virus escaped from a lab.
