Hate Speech vs Satire

[uppityperson]

Do you "know it when you see it" or are there more exact definitons? How subjective or objective are the definitions? What should be legally allowed, disallowed? What is the difference between being mean for the sake of hurting others, and to mock or get others to think?

Discuss.

[arcane1]

1. I see hate speech as being about people, while satire is about ideas and actions.

[uppityperson]

4. Do you mean hate speech is against an individual, satire about the larger ideas?

I am using initials as I will not write the words.
Written on a wall
f you n = hate speech?
drawing of cliched person of dark skin being hugged by kkk=satire?

It is really difficult to figure out what to write, how to address this without examples. I need to think more, but wanted to see what others thought. Thanks arcane1

[arcane1]

6. Pretty much, yes.

I'm sure the boundary between the two can be fuzzy sometimes, but that's how I define them.

[KittyWampus]

9. I agree with you. It might be instructive to see what European countries define as hate speech/

[Nye Bevan]

12. The Scottish police monitor social media and investigate those who make "offensive comments".

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/scottish-police-now-monitoring-social-media-for-offensive-comments/

I would find this quite scary.

[arcane1]

13. I'd also make a distinction between hate speech and a hate crime.

The hate crime can be because of actions/ideas as well as innate personal attributes.

[KittyWampus]

14. I appreciate your thoughtful replies.

[kelly1mm]

16. Hate speech, in and of itself, is almost never a hate crime (or even a crime at all) in the US. The

very narrow exception being incitement (including all 3 prongs of the Brandenburg test 'intent, imminence, and likelihood')

[randr]

2. If I call a Republican an asswipe it may be satirical

Then again it would be hateful to the actual ass wipe.

[Nye Bevan]

3. All hate speech and satire should be legal

with the exception of credible incitement to violence (as in "look at those Muslims over there, let's go kill them!&quot

[uppityperson]

5. sometimes people get charged with "hate crime" on top of their other assholery crime

They obviously targeted someone(s) and yelled out nasty bigoted slurs, so get charged with that crime.

It that ok, legally, to charge them (not in any way ok to do)? I am trying to figure this all out, what makes the difference.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I'm a little wary of the concept of "hate crimes".

The idea is that you get a lighter sentence for beating the shit out of someone to steal their wallet than for beating them up because they are Jewish (for example). But I think the idea is more to change the sentence for the underlying crime than to create a new crime based on hate speech.

[immoderate]

27. The concept of "hate crime," seems like a "license to discriminate."

--imm

[KittyWampus]

7. What a great topic. Perhaps hate speech might be that which incites violence/harm

against actual people?

Perhaps it's definition also depends on intent?

[Nye Bevan]

10. "Imminent lawless action" is the standard.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[Iggo]

11. I dunno. Maybe something like: "Satire is when I do it. Hate speech is when you do it"?

[Nye Bevan]

15. Quite a common approach.

"Oh I LOVE the Rude Pundit when he slams Christians!"

"HA! Those crazy Mormons with their magic underwear!"

"Newspapers should show more responsibility in running those Muhammed cartoons".

[linuxman]

18. That's different.

Because reasons.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. A couple of observations. In France, they have hate speech laws, Charlie Hebdo was sued under

those laws and their output was found not to be hate speech but protected political satire. This fact is currently not as well known as it might be. For those here taking the position that their work was hate speech, know that the French hate speech laws do not agree with you.
My second observation is that in these discussions it always becomes apparent to me that the various religions expect to retain their own right to trash talk and condemnation of others as protected religious speech. So they want to be allowed all language about others while demanding that the language of others about them be limited. I don't agree with that notion.

[nomorenomore08]

28. And if such laws were ever passed here, watch the fundies scream about every other book or movie

being "hate speech against Christians." You make a very good point about their hypocrisy.

[uppityperson]

19. kick for the night crew (usa centric) or whatever time it is wherever you are.

[KMOD]

20. It's a very thin line, imo

All should be legally allowed, no matter how I personally feel about it.

As far as the difference between being mean for the sake of hurting others, or to get others to think?

The former are usually idiots and the latter are usually brilliant.

[Codeine]

21. I reject the entire notion of "hate speech". nt

[Fumesucker]

24. Or maybe it's just crappy art

I just finished reading a 400 plus post thread on another site about crappy songs that get regular airplay on the radio. It was one of the least combative threads I've ever read there and long ones are like long threads here, usually full of sturm und drang.

About half the songs people mentioned were ones I like at least a little and some were songs I like quite a bit.

[greyl]

25. Or how about justified self-defense vs unwarranted physical attack? nt

[KMOD]

26. That's a great analogy

But if it's deemed crap by the public, it won't sell, or it's value will be much lower.

It's always about the messaging. Crap messages won't sell. Your message needs to be art, if you want people to listen.

[greyl]

23. Could it be that falsehoods are central to hate speech, and satire is based on truth? nt