TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Former ACLU Head Ira Glasser explains why there’s no such thing as “hate speech”

18 pointsby techmememeabout 4 years ago

2 comments

schoenabout 4 years ago
I think this summary conflates at least four different concepts:<p>* &quot;Hate speech&quot; is an ill-defined or incoherent concept<p>* People will never agree about what belongs in this category<p>* No one can be trusted to make an authoritative decision about this<p>* U.S. law, unlike that of European countries, has never included such a category of unprotected speech, and it would not be constitutionally permissible for the government to prohibit it
评论 #26559509 未加载
currystabout 4 years ago
This is likely unpopular, but I don&#x27;t care for any of the laws regarding hate crimes. I do think hate crimes are awful, but I can&#x27;t find a good reason why someone shooting their neighbor because of their race&#x2F;religion&#x2F;gender&#x2F;etc is worse than shooting them because they don&#x27;t like the color their neighbor painted their house or because they slept with their SO or whatever it may be.<p>I do get that racially motivated crimes can create fear among whatever demographic has been targeted. On the other hand, that sounds like terrorism, which we have laws prohibiting.<p>At the end of the day, hate crime laws end up looking like they&#x27;re toeing the line of &quot;thought crimes&quot; to me. Robbing a store is bad, but if you decide to rob a store run by Latinx people because you (probably wrongly) blame them for losing your job is worse. But if you blame WalMart for losing your job and decide to rob a WalMart to get back at them, that&#x27;s somehow better in the eyes of the law.<p>I just don&#x27;t see the need to delineate. I&#x27;m totally open to changing that view though; someone else (or everyone else) may have found a way to reason about that that I haven&#x27;t though of.<p>I&#x27;m generally opposed to these kinds of &quot;under these circumstances, it&#x27;s worse&quot; laws though. I don&#x27;t like DUI laws for the same reason. We already have reckless operation laws in most states. If someone kills another person through their reckless driving, I doubt their loved ones care whether it was because of alcohol, lack of sleep or playing on a phone. Why is swerving between lanes because you&#x27;re drunk terrible, but swerving between lanes because you haven&#x27;t slept in 2 days is just a slap on the wrist? Ticket&#x2F;arrest people based on the threat they pose to others, not based on the threat they pose multiplied by some &quot;we don&#x27;t like that&quot; factor.