It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I’m not sure about you, but if anything it’s the contrary—hate speech repulses me. I am certainly not “incited” to hatred and discrimination upon hearing it, and if anything, I am incited in the exact opposite direction.
. If someone says, "You know, black crime is really most of it," that's hate speech, but if a leader of the Black community suggests "whitey" ought to be terminated, that's okay.
"The most self-absorbed people display an ironic pension for the smallest minds and the largest mouths."
- A. Matthews
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It appears censorship is more likely to contribute to hate crime than free speech. I would argue that nothing incites hatred more than the suppression of hatred, forced into the underground where it festers, far away from the eyes and ears of reasonable people, whom are denied the right to hear and thus know what hatreds are being promoted. And because hate speech is illegal, so to is its analysis and refutation, and so to is its defeat and ridicule in public debate.
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
Of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.
Paulo Coelho.
You seem to post the same or similar sort of question every few weeks? I said the last time you posted that freedom of speech is fine and dandy, I agree with freedom of speech. it's how and where that speech is used by others to incite hate, is where it can all goes crazy. You then went into a rant about magic and how words are just that, words, not magical incantations. I postulated that words can and do lead to actions, just go and listen to Hitler's speech's leading up to WW2, how he incited hatred amongst his fellow Germans against the Jews. It's where those words are said and how they're used that can be the problem.
Also, your post is incorrect, freedom of speech and religion was part and parcel of Weimar. Link
The term hate speech was first used by communist countries. link
You tried to say that words and people are two separate things last time, which they are not, humans and words go hand in hand, without us, we wouldn't have words. Humans have emotions and use words to express them, which in turn can, and do effect the people around them emotionally, good or bad.
Of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.
Paulo Coelho.
I don't agree with the notion that you have to hear different types of hatred to know what's going on in the world so you can make informed decisions on how to counter them. I know the basics of what's going on out there, I have no need for the specifics. Hatred is hatred, I don't need to know from where it comes. It doesn't matter anyway. Not on this level, at least.
And it is also strange that, despite the modern and stringent hate speech laws and censorship of hatred in Weimar Germany, Nazism and genocide was able to flourish and take power there.
People and words are two separate things as evidenced by any standard of measure.
Try your words on the battlefield and see how long you last.
Does hate speech incite you to hatred?
You never reputed anything you stopped posting!!
Hate speech laws weren't introduced till after the WW2, you tried to make out that the laws were there before Nazism.
Weimar Criminal Code
1. Incitement to Class Struggle (Paragraph 130, Criminal Code)
Whoever publicly incites different classes of the population to violent
actions against one another in a way that jeopardises the public peace
will be punished with a fine of 600 marks or with a prison term of up to
two years.
2. Religious Insult (Paragraph 166, Criminal Code):
Whoever blasphemes God in that lie causes annoyance in public by
expressions of abuse, or whoever publicly insults one of the Christian
churches or another existing religious society with rights of
corporation in the federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs;
likewise whoever commits insulting mischief in a church or in another
specific place that is specified for religious gatherings, will be
punished with a prison term of up to three years.
3. Insult (Paragraphs 185-187, 189, 190, 192-196, Criminal Code):
(186) Whoever asserts or spreads a fact in relation to another person
that serves to make the other contemptible or demeaned in the public
view will, if this fact is not demonstrably true, be punished with a
fine or with arrest or with prison up to one year, and, if this insult
is done publicly, or through the .spread of literature, pictures, or
representations, with a Vine or prison term of up to two years.
(187) Whoever against his better knowledge asserts or spread,.,; a fact
in relation to another person that makes him contemptible in the public
view or that serves to threaten his credit will be punished with prison
for a term of up to two years on account of defamatory insult, or if the
defamation is done publicly or through the spreading of literature,
pictures, or representations, with prison for not under one month. If
extenuating circumstances are present, the penalty can be reduced to one
day in prison or a fine.
(189) Whoever insults the memory of a deceased individual in that lie
asserts or spreads an untrue fact, which would have served to make the
deceased contemptible or demeaned in the public view in his lifetime,
will be punished with imprisonment of up to six months. If extenuating
circumstances are present, this can be reduced to a fine. Prosecution
occurs only upon request of the parents, the children, or the spouse of
the deceased.
(193) Rebukeful judgments of scientific, artistic, or occupational
performance, as well as utterances that are made for the execution or
defense of rights or for the protection of legitimate interests, as well
as reproaches and reprimands of superiors against their subordinates,
employment reports, or judgments on the part of a civil servant and
similar cases are only, punishable when the presence of an insult arises
from the form of the expression or from the circumstances under which it
occurred.
Levitt, Cyril. , "What Are the Lessons for the Modern Democracies" in
"Under the Shadow of Weimar: Democracy, Law, and Racial Incitement in
Six Countries," Louis Greenspan and Cyril Levitt, Eds. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers, 1993, pg. 16-17
There is, in fact, little historical basis to the
claim that the Weimar Republic was a bastion of
free speech, tragically overwhelmed by unfettered
Nazi agitation. Paragraph 166 of the Weimar
Criminal Code stated ‘whoever publicly insults
one of the Christian churches or another existing
religious society with rights of corporation in the
federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs
… will be punished with a prison term of up to
three years’ (emphasis added).21 This included
hate speech against Jews, and there were plenty
of such convictions under Paragraph 166 and
other provisions. For example, the oft-prosecuted
Nazi publisher Julius Streicher (author of the
anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Sturmer and
a contemptible and marginal individual widely
hated by his own party colleagues), was handed a
two-month prison sentence in 1929 for ‘libelling
the Jewish religion under Paragraph 166 of
the Weimar Penal Code.’ As a result of the jail
sentence, ‘Streicher’s racial views received more
publicity than if Der Sturmer had been allowed
to publish unchallenged … within weeks of the
verdict, the Nazi Party tripled its 1927 vote in the
Thuringian Landtag elections’—an outcome that
should give pause to any aspiring censors.
Remove the people and there are no words to be uttered, they are linked!!
It's called command and without orders, as an example the soliders would have no goal or postion to take.
I made my arguments, all of which you dismissed.
they didn't call them hate speech laws, but they were hate speech laws by todays standards.
No one said otherwise.
Try it out in a fight.
You stopped responding to anyone in your previous thread and refused to read all the links I provided that proved your argument was wrong.
blaspheme Laws have been around for has long as people have believed in a god and used by many nations. You made a specific reference to Weimar and "Hate Speech" and Nazism which was wrong, it was the soviet union and it's allies not the west who wanted to introduce hate speech laws (it's obviously the same as last time, you don't read any links to prove you are wrong), no if's and's or but's about it!
In your last thread you claimed words were just words and tried to separate them from people, which i said was impossible as people are emotional and respond to words in different ways, you then tried to make out that people are just superstitious when it comes to words.
Is that an offer, or are you being sarcastic. Are my words causing an emotional response maybe?
In the majority of battles, wars are fought on the orders of others. There are orders that are taught as standard to the U.S. military.
Again, like I said before, I agree with freedom of speech but...
Sorry but a link isn't proof of anything, just like the link you posted in this thread.
It's not a "blaspheme law", it's a religious insult law.
Whoever blasphemes God in that lie causes annoyance in public by
the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
That is a complete misrepresentation of my views. You can quote me or you can continue to fight your straw men.
How do they affect humans if they have no substance?
A human is an object. So words can affect objects. That's called sorcery.
Your emotions are a product and result of your biology, your chemistry, not words.
Yet in the first sentence of said law.......
Julius Streicher was prosecuted under this law, which is a blaspheme law, at the time Germany had both Catholics and protestants, this law was "to keep the peace" between both parties. The term hate speech came a lot later and was introduced by the soviets......
...or whoever publicly insults one of the Christian
churches or another existing religious society with rights of
corporation in the federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs;
likewise whoever commits insulting mischief in a church or in another
specific place that is specified for religious gatherings
This is when Hate speech was introduced into law, it was the universal Declaration of Human Rights. Look it up because posting a link is useless to you as it proves you wrong.
And here is a quote.....
it's not a "blaspheme law", as evidenced by the title of the paragraph, "Religious Insult".
Whoever blasphemes God
They didn't call them hate speech laws, but they were hate speech laws by todays standards.
And it is also strange that, despite the modern and stringent hate speech laws and censorship of hatred in Weimar Germany, Nazism and genocide was able to flourish and take power there.
Elections for the national assembly were duly held on January 19. The social revolution had been defeated, and the way was clear for a democratic republic to preserve the economic order and the military values of imperial Germany. Ebert and Hindenburg, the two presidents of the Weimar Republic, were also the partners who brought it into existence.
You're confusing international law with the laws of Weimar Germany, proving yourself wrong once again.
the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
One can estimate the likelihood that speech will spark violence in any given situation using just these five criteria: the speaker, the audience, the speech itself, the social and historical context, and the means of dissemination.
Yet the first line states....
I'm proving that I'm right and showing you that the term "hate speech laws" were introduced by the Soviets with Nazism used as a cover and have nothing to do with the Weimar criminal code, again is an old quote for you.....
Again I don't need to go on about how words can be used as weapons as there are many papers written on this subject.
Again, you suspiciously dismissed the other lines.
You're wrong. You're proving that you misrepresent what I said, and that you dismiss evidence to the contrary. That's all you can do and all you have done.
Name one person harmed, injured, or killed by a word. You're speaking superstitious nonsense.