CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
My problem with the idea of Hate speech is that it is entirely contingent on the sensibilities of other people. Almost anything can be construed as hate speech and indeed any form of criticism can be declared as hate speech, but we know that progress rides on the back of criticism. Hate speech is the modern equivalent of blasphemy.
What is happening in much of Europe right now, is that religion is being granted special treatment so that people are no longer able to criticize religion or religious views for fear of offending someone. If a belief is so frail that it cannot tolerate mere words, then perhaps it is not worth being believed in the first place. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to criticize something that somebody strongly believes simply because they really really really believe it to be so. In fact it is just such censorship which has allowed these intellectually and morally bankrupt beliefs to persist, these are the beliefs that benefit most from censorship, blasphemy, and hate speech laws.
Absolute freedom of speech, is one of two principal liberties (the other being the right to bear arms) from which all other liberties arose.
I agree...but the opposite is happening in America. Secular groups are gaining more laws and protection that prevent religious groups from speaking out on issues. This is what the hate crimes law is all about. It affords certain groups,..minorities and gays...more right. It is totally against the 2nd amendment.
This is an example of how a minority group works.
"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector...Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice."
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, PhD After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (New York: Doubleday. 1989), 183.
Hate crimes sets up special classes of victims afforded a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes. That violates the concept of equal protection. And it politicizes criminal prosecutions.
Hate crimes is the cornerstone to criminalizing Christianity.
To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime? Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice. The same crimes should receive the same punishments.
To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime?
I disagree. Not all murders are hate crimes. For example, a mother who murders her children because she thinks the world is going to end isn't committing a hate crime - not under jurisprudence and not definitionally.
Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist in his closing opinion on Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a sentiment I agree with, hate crimes do more damage to individuals and to society. And as he cites Blackstone: "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." Hate crimes, as they are defined, certainly fit that bill. And we also have to consider that we do take into consideration the circumstances of various violences. That's why we distinguish between degrees of murder. A premeditated murder is more severely punished than one that wasn't willfully conceived (i.e. voluntary manslaughter). And, there's little reason not to.
a mother who murders her children because she thinks the world is going to end isn't committing a hate crime
Yes, but you understand my point. What sense does it make to call a racially motivated murder a hate crime, but somehow a man who murders his wife because she cheated on him isn't committing a hate crime?
Perhaps "Prejudice crime" doesn't have the same ring to it...
it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." Hate crimes, as they are defined, certainly fit that bill.
What sense does it make to call a racially motivated murder a hate crime, but somehow a man who murders his wife because she cheated on him isn't committing a hate crime?
In the sense that precising definitions describe different uses for terms. You're using the word "hate" normatively (i.e. a particular emotional state that may or may not give impetus to activity). However, the term "hate" - in hate crime - delineates a particular biased-motivation in which the impetus is underpinned by categorization. "Hate" is a homonym in this case, and without being precise, in extending lexical definitions, we get muddled in convoluted back and forths, like we are now. You're using the word "hate" inappropriately in this case, to be concise. It's like the difference between "theory" in regular conversation and "theory" in scientific vernacular. Same word connoting different uses depending on the context.
Perhaps "Prejudice crime" doesn't have the same ring to it...
Prejudice isn't necessarily an adequate term to attend to the issue.
How do hate crimes do more damage to society?
That's a difficult question, and one that I don't think can be satisfactorily addressed here. Nor do I think that I'm adequately prepared or capable of making an even half-decent argument. But, I'll try. I think that, first and foremost, we must at least acknowledge that there are some axioms that we use to evaluate the severity of crimes and their proportional punishments. For example, we generally agree or assume that the intentional and unjustified act of taking someone's life is worse than an accidental act of taking someone's life. Implicit in this is the recognition of contextual differences: state of mind, specific impetus etc. And it is from this particular axiom where our judgments depart.
A murder, let's say, that does not constitute a hate crime is generally recognized as only involving the two parties: the offender and the victim in the crime. While we certainly take into consideration those people involved in the victim's life, it is not for them for whom we seek justice (presumably). It is the victim. Hate crimes, however, aren't simply acts of violence that do injury to the specific victim - because the victim is only a representative of the greater category to which the hatred is actually aimed. That is to say, the victim in this case only acts as a substitute for the category. And it is that category that is, thus, victimized.
But, how does that do injury to society? Hate crimes are not simile to other crimes. The crime, while committed against a single individual or group of individuals is actually an intended crime, substitutively, against a category of people to which the victim belongs. To not take into consideration that fact is to (1) give credence to the impetus that gave character to the crime, by not openly repudiating it. And (2) it ignores the fact that the impetus in question presents a danger to everyone in that category. That does direct injury to the pluralistic philosophies and practices that underpin much of societal formation in a variety of countries. To not reject the impetus and treat it as a "normal" crime is to suggest that while the crime is wrong insofar as a law has been broken, the motivation isn't by necessity wrong as well.
In the sense that precising definitions describe different uses for terms. You're using the word "hate" normatively (i.e. a particular emotional state that may or may not give impetus to activity). However, the term "hate" - in hate crime - delineates a particular biased-motivation
You insult my intelligence. I'm well aware of what 'hate' refers to in regards to hate crimes. In case you weren't aware this is the very matter that I'm disputing. I contend that the term 'hate crime' is itself a poor label for what it is supposed to be describing.
You're using the word "hate" inappropriately in this case
Read my last sentence.
Prejudice isn't necessarily an adequate term to attend to the issue.
Oh, but hate is an adequate term? Prejudice is a much closer approximation to what these laws are describing.
Why not call them 'Bigotry-based crimes'?
Hate crimes, however, aren't simply acts of violence that do injury to the specific victim - because the victim is only a representative of the greater category to which the hatred is actually aimed. That is to say, the victim in this case only acts as a substitute for the category. And it is that category that is, thus, victimized.
But, how does that do injury to society? Hate crimes are not simile to other crimes. The crime, while committed against a single individual or group of individuals is actually an intended crime, substitutively, against a category of people to which the victim belongs.
I don't buy this argument. Everybody belongs to one group or another. Everybody can can be categorized in one way or another, whether or not they were targeted because of this category. So in that sense a murder still represents a danger to a community or to society in general.
To not take into consideration that fact is to (1) give credence to the impetus that gave character to the crime
We are not just talking about just taking something into consideration, the jury takes everything into consideration, rather we are talking about treating it as a more serious crime.
Should a man who murders people for the thrill of it receive less time than a man who murders people based on skin color or sexual orientation? Does it really matter why he did it when we have the same end result?
it ignores the fact that the impetus in question presents a danger to everyone in that category
As does murder committed for nearly any reason.
Perhaps what you're trying to say, is that a man who commits a crime based on bigotry is more likely to commit murder again, but juries and court systems already take into account the likelihood of a repeat murder. So these 'hate crimes' are basically double-dipping.
Not intentionally. However, being aware of the particular definition in use and acknowledging it are two different things. By suggesting that all murders constitute a hate crime, you are not acknowledging the difference and are instead choosing to equivocate the two uses of the term.
Oh, but hate is an adequate term?
Neither prejudice nor bigotry are sufficient terms.
Everybody belongs to one group or another. Everybody can can be categorized in one way or another, whether or not they were targeted because of this category.
Correct, but the premise upon which we allege bias-motivation characterizing the hate crime is on the relationship with the offender, the victim and the category, and not only the offender and the victim. The victim in a hate crime is merely incidental. The victim could have been anyone who fit the appropriate criteria. However, in non-hate crimes, the victims aren't purely incidental. The man who discovers his wife's infidelity isn't murdering a woman because she's a woman, thus posing a danger to all women or any woman. He's murdering his wife who cheated on him - and she's the object of his ire, not the category of "woman" to which she belongs. She doesn't substitute for the category. She isn't merely a representation. It is, in fact, not the case that "murder committed for nearly any reason" constitutes a danger to everyone in a particular category.
Perhaps what you're trying to say, is that a man who commits a crime based on bigotry is more likely to commit murder again, but juries and court systems already take into account the likelihood of a repeat murder.
This is, however, not at all what I was trying to say. I wrote what I meant to communicate.
Not intentionally. However, being aware of the particular definition in use and acknowledging it are two different things. By suggesting that all murders constitute a hate crime, you are not acknowledging the difference and are instead choosing to equivocate the two uses of the term.
My contention evades you still. Acknowledging the difference is a requisite of disputing the usage of the term, which is what I am doing.
I will say it plainly so that there is no confusion. The term "Hate crime" is misleading as to what the term actually describes. Violent crimes motivated by prejudice, should not be called "hate crimes".
Neither prejudice nor bigotry are sufficient terms.
I beg to differ.
American Heritage Dictionary: Hate Crime
n.
A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group.
Correct, but the premise upon which we allege bias-motivation characterizing the hate crime is on the relationship with the offender, the victim and the category
Your claim was that murders motivated by prejudice and bigotry pose a greater threat to society. I fail to see how the 'relationship' the offender has with the offending group, causes his crime to be a more serious crime when the end result is precisely the same. .
As if to say the fact that the perpetrator was a murderer AND a racist somehow makes the crime worse. No it doesn't. That's complete nonsense!
The man who discovers his wife's infidelity isn't murdering a woman because she's a woman, thus posing a danger to all women or any woman.
If he isn't likely to murder again then he isn't posing a danger to all women, however if he is likely to murder again then he should receive a greater sentencing on that basis and not on the basis that he's a bigot. In fact juries and judges already take into consideration the likelihood of a repeat murder. Any rational basis for giving hate crimes a higher sentencing is already covered by the court systems.
No, it doesn't. You chose, in the middle of our discussion, to introduce that contention. That is not, in fact, the contention I have been responding to. Nor do I care to respond to it, which is why I have never once acknowledged it.
Your point is provided in a few responses.
(1) To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime?
Implicit in this language is not the issue of whether the term is appropriate, but whether there is a difference between a murder - as hate crime - and a murder that is not. The question is not a terminological one, but one of meaningful distinction between the types of criminal activity. You reiterated this sentiment in the very following sentences:
(2) Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice.
(3) The same crimes should receive the same punishments.
Again, the issue you introduced is not one of terminological faults, but that there isn't any reason to distinguish the two kinds of behavior.
I beg to differ.
You can't beg to differ. I did not argue that the terms weren't necessary. I simply stated that they weren't sufficient. So, that they are included in the description of a hate crime isn't a contradiction of the point I made.
Your claim was that murders motivated by prejudice and bigotry pose a greater threat to society.
I argued that hate crimes are (1) indiscriminate, because anyone who fulfills the category that the victim represents was and is also a potential victim. Therefore, the entire category that the victim represents is endangered. That is why a man who kills his cheating wife isn't committing a hate crime and there is a difference between it and murdering a Jewish person, because he's Jewish. The latter presents a danger to every Jew. The former isn't a danger to every "cheating wife". (2) Non-hate crimes are discriminate, because they are not based on category judgements, and thus, only impact the intended victim. (3) Hate crimes can do greater injury to society, if they are not given proper attention - i.e. recognizing their difference and impact on the pluralism that underpins our societal formation.
As if to say the fact that the perpetrator was a murderer AND a racist somehow makes the crime worse.
You're making a category mistake. A person who murders a member of another race, who also happens to be racist, isn't necessarily committing a hate crime. His or her racism could have been purely incidental. The issue, as you have acknowledged, is largely one of motivation. You fail to acknowledge, however, that acting on that specific motivation presents a danger to more people than just the specific victim(s) in question. The victim in hate crimes are representative.
If he isn't likely to murder again then he isn't posing a danger to all women....
This isn't an appropriate response to the emboldened quote.
No, it doesn't. You chose, in the middle of our discussion, to introduce that contention. That is not, in fact, the contention I have been responding to. Nor do I care to respond to it, which is why I have never once acknowledged it.
No my contention was implied from the beginning and later I explicitly stated my contention in the following posts, yet you chose to ignore that contention for the entire duration of this argument.
Your point is provided in a few responses.
(1) To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime?
I will admit that I was being simplistic when I stated that all murders were hate crimes, of course I excluded cases of severe mental impairment. However I was attempting to illustrate that murder in general is a very hateful and malice-driven crime and so to classify only murders motivated by bigotry as being 'hate crimes' is nonsense.
(2) Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice.
(3) The same crimes should receive the same punishments.
I stand by these statements.
Again, the issue you introduced is not one of terminological faults, but that there isn't any reason to distinguish the two kinds of behavior.
Except we're not talking about two kinds of behavior, we're talking about one kind of behavior with different attitudes and motivations involved.
With all other factors being equal you believe between:
A murder motivated by discriminate hate
and
A murder motivated by indiscriminate hate
...
It is the first one that should be treated as a more serious crime. I disagree; I believe both should be treated as equal offenses.
You can't beg to differ. I did not argue that the terms weren't necessary. I simply stated that they weren't sufficient. So, that they are included in the description of a hate crime isn't a contradiction of the point I made.
I can beg to differ and I will.
You talk about precising definitions, but did you know that many precising definitions (or is it precised definitions?) are chosen to influence public perception. Words frame our thoughts.
In the book Crimes Against Logic, author Jamie Whyte talks about one such example. In sociology exploitation is a term that means that the workers don't receive the full value of their work, which would be necessary to produce a profit. The word 'exploitation' was chosen by Marx because of the negative connotations it holds.
Similarly I posit that the term 'hate crime' was chosen for reasons of influencing the public perception.
I argued that hate crimes are (1) indiscriminate, because anyone who fulfills the category that the victim represents was and is also a potential victim. Therefore, the entire category that the victim represents is endangered.
Suppose that a man has committed a murder for the mere thrill of killing, wouldn't he represent a danger to ALL OF SOCIETY rather than just a single social group within that society? Yet under certain hate crime laws he would receive a lessor sentence to a man who kills only people of a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation.
This is why your argument doesn't hold up.
that acting on that specific motivation presents a danger to more people than just the specific victim(s) in question.
The only reason a motivation would present any extended danger is if it were indicative of additional crimes. As I have stated exuberantly, this is already considered by current law making 'hate crime' laws unnecessary.
This isn't an appropriate response to the emboldened quote.
The appropriate response is one which acquiesces to your point of view.
What is happening in much of Europe right now, is that religion is being granted special treatment so that people are no longer able to criticize religion or religious views for fear of offending someone.
I haven't been this annoyed about anything in a good while, this was a law passed by our last government, I'm hoping it will be thrown out soon, our current Taoiseach has denounced the Papal anuncia for lack of action in child molestation cases so here's hoping.
Such laws are incredibly barbaric. It's not as if we aren't aware of what happens when these law are instituted, there is a plethora of historical examples of how these blasphemy laws are used to stifle dissent and to extinguish free speech. I hope this law is repealed.
Barbaric, archaic, injurious and retrograde. Our government is trying to push a smart economy, with specific interest in biotechnology and materials and is out of nothing but fear stating that it wishes to dwell in the past, I feel that a lot of well meaning and high profile individuals will bypass our institutions because it wouldn't be worth the hassle. Imagine trying to publish under these criteria.
What's more, North African countries are citing Irish laws and pushing for similar legislation.
The law defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".
.
.
My first thought is, "Well, the truth is often grossly insulting in regard to matters held sacred by religion". This law has just made speaking the truth a criminal act.
On what grounds should the views of the religious take precedence over those of the non-religious? Why should beliefs held upon faith be treated with the special protection of the law but not beliefs held upon evidence or reason?
"Well, the truth is often grossly insulting in regard to matters held sacred by religion". This law has just made speaking the truth a criminal act.
What worries me is that "blasphemy" is open to interpretation, an interpretation that is not defined by the blasphemer, but by the "victims".
On what grounds should the views of the religious take precedence over those of the non-religious? Why should beliefs held upon faith be treated with the special protection of the law but not beliefs held upon evidence or reason?
There should be no grounds for this. It is a prime example of "those that shout loudest are most heard", I think humanity is coming to a crux point and I actually fear the future, retrograde legislation is possibly the start of a new era of mass censorship. Maybe my views are a bit dystopian, but there is some worrying international trends.
Absolutely. I think this may have contributed to the sectarian extremism that has taken such a stranglehold on the middle east. There hasn't been very many pro-democracy movements in Muslim majority nations. We can speculate as to why that is, but the fact of the matter is that this has had a profound impact on the political climate there.
Of course, all speech should be protected by free speech. That is what the founders intended; otherwise, contingencies would have been put into place in the Constitution.
Free speech is completely and totally necessary in order to preserve creative thought, and novelty in general, hate speech is a real phenomenon but how much is based soley on the collectivised concensus about what opinions and beleifs are culturally acceptable is another important question. I doubt if any views can be categorised as being totally and unequivocally hateful (and only hateful) because ultimately they must be measured relative the morals of a given society, this is predicated on the prevailing traditions, culture, ideology, and religion (or lack thereof) etc., which are intrinsically linked to the societies collectivised consesus on morality i.e. what is considered moral and what is amoral behaviour, and by extension what are considered moral and amoral thought's
I beleive this question of categorisation is an interesting one, can any thoughts be categorised only as hateful? I can think of plenty of unbeleiveably hateful thoughts but none that can only be called purely hateful as everything is relative, if a thought can be purely hateful then does that justify it not being protected as free speech? Even if the answer is yes i don't think it could be justified due to the implications of such a move.
ya im surprised in this day and age that something like that can actually be passed at government level, it just goes to show we haven't completely cast off the veil of the theocracy this country used to be.
What it shows me is that there is a serious fear of theocratic societies, we have to assume that what happened because of that Norwegian cartoon is having repercussions all over Europe and who was the first to stand up, the Irish whipping boy!
An Artists gets death threats from drawing a cartoon, and they (European lawmakers) think the problem is with cartoons? How fucked up is that? How about we worry about the ideology that says it's okay to kill someone over a cartoon.
It's just the way the world at large views religion, it is an enemy that can't be beaten, even in a society where reason is properly presented, dogma exists, the religious are not willing to budge and will and have laid down their lives, and fuck shit up without a moments warning.
I hate Seth McFarlane. Can I not call him sell-out, just because my intentions were hateful?
OH WAIT!!! I'd have to call him a Patty McFinnigan in order for it to THEN be hateful.
If someone hates someone, they have every right to express their hatred. Be it towards a bunch of blacks, a bunch of jews, or a shitty animator (Seth McFarlane). This country was built on Civil Liberties. Taking them away just because they could be insensitive is total bullshit.
If someone dislikes this country just because of the blasphemy and hate speech is allowed they can go off to some speech regulated country. They'll be very happy not being allowed to say w/e they want but also not getting their feelings hurt.
For all the people who say that I'm a bigot, fuck off you niggerfaggots.
Yes, it must be. Sometimes hate speech is a contingent by or without context. It is the most effective form of speech that leaves the intended impact. If your using a language of such sought, the reason must have been core.
Hate Speech i think should be considered free speech. If i say something about person x then person x is not obligated to listen to what i am saying and neither can i use force to compel him to listen to what i am saying so therefore it should be considered free speech. I am merely expressing my views and opinions about a particular subject or person to which i am entitled to especially if we all would agree that we are living in a society where we are entitled to our basic rights.
Also, we all have our differences in society because we all think and act differently except in rare circumstances. We cannot expect everyone in society to be perfect when our leaders and rulers themselves are not perfect. Hate speech is not bad for the public. It is rather a tool to speak out against the unjust actions of a particular group or person.
There is no objective way to prove whether or not it is hate. There is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the action was hate related or if the person is just not very tactful.
And do you suppose by the cultural standards of depression era Germany, what he was saying would have even been considered 'hate speech'?
Is it right that people who criticize the Vatican or who criticize Islam should be convicted of Hate speech? I certainly don't think so. If I have a problem with either of those institutions, I have the right to speak my mind even if it may offend people, but here is the thing nobody has a right to not be offended.
While it is a form of hate speech by today's societies standards, I doubt they felt so sympathetic back then. The speeches used to empower Hitler were based on a common feeling among many at the time, anger. His speeches merely amplified this feeling and made it a physical thing and directed it toward certain groups of people. Regardless if your country supports Free Speech then it should legally be protected. Morally correct or not it would have to be protected.
Verbal abuse is still abuse. I'm getting frankly tired of people not remembering this. Hate speech is abusive to certain people who hear it, and that makes it unprotectable in such situations.
If hate speech is verbal abuse, then why not treat it as such? If hate speech constituted verbal abuse then why would we require the creation of new laws?
The problem is that some practitioners of hate speech do not know the line in between abuse and mere speech, and therefore argue their rights all the way into the Courts. Such as the Westboro Baptist Church. The hate speech they assert has caused some people, inadvertantly, to become psychologically damaged. This does not stop them though from arguing that they have the right because of freedom of speech.
Therein lies the problem.
I don't suggest that new laws by created necessarily, but if they need to be created to protect people from verbal abuse, so be it. Make them very specific so that there's no possibly way any judge could rule that certain abusive hate speech is legal.
