Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Why Hate Speech Laws Backfire" video.

@derekisthematrix No, I'm sorry, I absolutely disagree. Any inability to define it comes down to a lack of precision and will to do so, although accept that there may be some fuzziness around the edges as there is with most laws. I would suggest that arguments based upon evidence, facts and science, by and large, would not count as hate speech. Saying that gay people are sick, or all women are bitches, or black people are all criminals clearly has no evidentiary support, so would count as hate speech because it's to the detriment of a section of society. Saying that many Muslims or Christians are hateful bigots would clearly NOT be hate speech as it demonstrably true. The fuzziness arises from conversational statements which are not designed to harm anyone: saying there are only two genders, would not be hate speech, but nor is it based upon evidence. In certain contexts it could be used as part of hate speech, such as when Tucker Carlson uses it, but mere disagreement on facts is not hateful in and of itself. I certainly perceive why people would be very cautious to protect the right of disagreement, but when that disagreement, in contradiction of established facts, carries life and death consequences, I would err on the side of caution.
3
It's not the beliefs that are illegal, it's expressing them to the disadvantage of other people who have done nothing wrong. For instance "All white people should be killed" or "all men should be castrated." These are not mere expressions of (ignorant) opinions - these are calls to arms.
3
The success of Trump and Fox News utterly undermines your postulate.
2
@edgarbm6407 I'll just choose the simplest example; Jan 6th. Questionably hate speech against Democrats and liberals. Calls to action. Result - several people dead. Fox News constantly telling white, aging Americans that everything they have is being taken by communist liberals. Result, permanent fear of the left while ignoring the real threats: excessive policing, government corruption, constant wars, lack of health care, the loss of democracy, etc.
2
@f1champ551 Totally agree. I'm no libertarian, but that is an example of MASSIVE government overreach.
2
Utter nonsense. Hate speech is speech designed to generate hatred towards a particular community of people. It's far more than simple disagreement of opinion.
2
@jebremocampo9194 Also, thank you. I don't feel hatred. I feel disagreement.
2
America has laws against verbal crimes ALWAYS has. Even if you removed hate speech, it still would. How do YOU draw the line?
1
@agrameroldoctane_66 We're not talking about defamation. And entire racial or gender demographic does not have the standing or finances to due defamers in court, nor would it be viable to do so.
1
@bh7622 What does their ability to make money or feelings have to do with anything? I am talking about speech which endangers or harms groups of people by creating a negative narrative about some part of their existence.
1
@agrameroldoctane_66 Gender demographic - male, female, whatever. Oh the scawy socialists. Have you realised yet,m it's the capitalists who are going to be the death of you?
1
Really? You think that this is simply about freedom? What about the freedom of the people vilified and murdered because of YOUR expression of freedom?
1
@claycopopo This is not about the right to offend people. Obviously murdering people is illegal - but so is incitement to murder, and that's where hate speech and dog whistling comes in. What if you live in the Pakistan, and I keep on using a public platfor to say "Americans are evil and should be dead." I didn't literally call for your murder, but that could EASILY be the result. Surely you can appreciate that words have power?
1
@ElitePraetorianGuard You're correct, it's a narrow path to tread, like the prohibition of religion in US politics, yet the founders dared to tread that path. And yes, it is abused regularly, but they were absolutely correct to try. The laws need to be sculpted in such a way that there is a delineation between debate and incitement to hatred.
1
@Alek Stanton Oh, the great statesman and philospher George Carlin - must be true then. Easy to advocate taking a chance when you're unlikely to be on the receiving end.
1
@jebremocampo9194 God almost certainly doesn't exist; there is no evidence because he's fictitious. It's not the job of people to prove the negative. Why would you BELIEVE, much less argue something for whicyh no evidence exists? At best, you may choose to keep your mind open until you have the facts. "Who gets to say it is not backed by evidence when most often hot button topics are sooo nuanced that even academics are dumb founded?" Such as? Truckers in Canada are largely fucking idiots, but irrelevant to this discussion. If they want to protest, let them. Then the police can go in with rubber bullets and water canons, arresty them all and impound their trucks. The lab leak theory was a simple disagreement of interpretation. I still think it unlikely but not impossible but where's the hate speech? If you start calling in the China Virus or Kung Flu as a derogatory racist term, then you stepped over the line into hate speech. People died when Trump started using that. Words have power. "You take for granted a lot of reality's complicated situations." no I don't. Black people - equal but poor, women different but equal, trans people - a reality, abortion, better than the alternatives, jews - ordinary people, vaccines - better than the alternatives, god - a fantasy made up by ignorant primitives - shall I continue? "You assume that you know what someone means when they say something, and you assume the intent, and you assume that you know the truth, and you assume the truth is simple." People may use weasel words for plausible deniability, but if they care to be understood, it's up to them to speak with clarity. There really isn't all the ambiguity that you introduce for the sake of argument.
1
@AnyVideo999 Not at all. If I say "It's about time black Americans started murdering white police" I'm inciting violence despite the generality. If I instead say, "The police deserve to die," I'm no less targeting them because I use passive aggressive language. I'm sure you've heard the term "stochastic terrorism." If the term BKP is then substituted, or commonly understood euphemisms such as "It's time the ghetto helped the police to sleep", that is still a call to action. Repeatedly planting the seed, or using dog whistles is absolutely a threat.
1