Countering hate.

[Nearholmer]

Decide a law that applies to material published, by which I mean made available, to users in the UK; decide the range of penalties up to and including being “cut off”; apply it.

 

I'm sure it wouldn’t be simple to set fair law (although we manage to do so for printed material), or to enforce “cutting off”, and the platform owners would contest it in every possible way, but it’s about two things (1) the principle that the platform owners should be accountable to some degree for the harms they enable, and (2) making it more profitable for them to behave responsibly than to behave irresponsibly.

 

There are plenty of overseas companies who are bound by UK law when operating on UK territory (and who spend a lot of effort trying to dodge costly obligations) - providers like facebook should be no different.

[Fenman]

On 06/10/2020 at 11:59, Neil said:

 

...
it set me wondering where misogyny comes from. If you're a man can you be afraid of a woman who (with very few exceptions) will be physically weaker, have a lower earning potential and less power/control over her life. Will it be fear of losing your dominance or fear that your belief in the right of this imbalance is wrong?

...

Thanks for starting an interesting thread. Your comment reminded me of the pithy phrase by Margaret Atwood: 

 

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them.

Women are afraid that men will kill them.

 

The first of those, fear of being laughed at, seems to me to be a powerful motivator for many haters. A sense of self can be fragile. Something we perceive as threatening to undermine us (to make us look “small”) can quickly lead to what objectively is an over-reaction.

 

Paul

[Kickstart]

7 hours ago, Fenman said:

 

The first of those, fear of being laughed at, seems to me to be a powerful motivator for many haters. A sense of self can be fragile. Something we perceive as threatening to undermine us (to make us look “small”) can quickly lead to what objectively is an over-reaction.

 

Paul

Problem is for many that one thing leads to another. Being laughed at means being seen as small, which can lead to being assaulted, etc.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[caradoc]

Of course inciting, promoting and encouraging hate is wrong; But who decides what is or is not hate ? Here in Scotland we currently have a hate crime bill passing through the Scottish Parliament, a bill which has attracted widespread condemnation for its possible effect on freedom of expression: 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53526843

 

 

[Nearholmer]

10 minutes ago, caradoc said:

But who decides what is or is not hate ? 

Parliament, through debate, and I would wager parliament again a few times later, to either correct errors they didn’t spot first time, or amend it as the view in wider society changes over time.
 

I know it’s a trite answer, but the virtue of a representative democracy is that it provides a peaceful mechanism to ‘come to a position’ on such incredibly difficult questions as ‘what constitutes an unacceptable expression of hate?’.

 

 

[Classsix T]

The OED definition:

hate/heɪt
▸ verb [with object] feel intense dislike for:
the boys hate each other
two separate polls confirmed he is hated by the public.
▪ have a strong aversion to (something):
he hates flying
[with infinitive] I'd hate to live there.
▪ [with infinitive] used politely to express one's regret or embarrassment at doing something:
I hate to bother you.
▪ [no object] (hate on) informal express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse:
I can't hate on them for trying something new.
▸ noun [mass noun] intense dislike:
feelings of hate and revenge.
▪ [as modifier] denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice:
a hate campaign.
▪ [count noun] informal an intensely disliked person or thing:
Richard's pet hate is filling in his tax returns.
– DERIVATIVES
hateable (also hatable) adjective
– ORIGIN Old English hatian (verb), hete (noun), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch haten (verb) and German hassen (verb), Hass ‘hatred’.
 

Few of those apart from the ones that specifically mention to wish actual harm upon click with me as hatred TBH. I'm alien to the concept of hatred (or love for that matter) towards an inanimate object for example.

To hate (or love) an art form, sausages or task seems absurd to me, but perhaps I put too much emotional emphasis on the words. Aren't they at the heart of it a logically irrational emotion, driven by the release of endorphins?

 

C6T. 

[Reorte]

I'm afraid I think I'd rather put up with the consequences of them being able to have a platform (which isn't the same as saying that anyone has to let them use their's) than have more than the barest ability to order what people can and cannot say. And trying to silence them just makes it easier to claim they're being persecuted.

 

[Chrisr40]

I think sadly we have grown to believe the only right opinion is our own and that we are the only one with a right to an opinion.

This song is pretty close for me...but that's just my opinion.

 

[Neil]

18 hours ago, caradoc said:

Of course inciting, promoting and encouraging hate is wrong; But who decides what is or is not hate ? Here in Scotland we currently have a hate crime bill passing through the Scottish Parliament, a bill which has attracted widespread condemnation for its possible effect on freedom of expression: 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53526843

 

 

 

I've read the linked article. As a general principle it's possible to say what you think, to disagree with another persons standpoint without stirring up hatred. Freedom of expression is a very different thing to freedom to incite hatred.

[Torper]

I find myself innately opposed to the concept of "hate" crimes.  First, I see no justification for the fact that someone who calls me a string of abusive names and then hits me over the head with a bottle causing severe injury and trauma should receice a lesser sentence than someone who gives a gay man some homophobic abuse and then hits him over the head with a bottle causing similar injury and trauma.  An assault is an asault and each should be treated equally seriously.  Secondly, it seems to me that the current "woke" agenda is rapidly eroding the concept of free speech that it has taken centuries to establish.  I entirely agree that intentional incitement to violence is wrong, whoever it is against, but other than that people must still be free to express their opinions however offensive these may appear to some others.

 

DT

[Nearholmer]

Interesting points.

 

So how would you reduce the spread of hateful behaviour, without making it an identified crime?

 

I ask because I cannot think of any way, yet I’m certain sure in my mind that it does need to be dealt with somehow, given the harm it causes.

[Torper]

Hitting me over the head with a bottle would be pretty hateful behaviour.

 

DT

[Nearholmer]

Indeed it would, but that isn’t an answer to my question.

 

Physical violence is only the end point of hateful behaviour, usually resorted to only when the perpetrators can’t achieve their objectives (subjugation by intimidation) by non-physical means.

 

How do you propose to counter it without identifiable laws?

[Binky]

14 minutes ago, Torper said:

I find myself innately opposed to the concept of "hate" crimes.  First, I see no justification for the fact that someone who calls me a string of abusive names and then hits me over the head with a bottle causing severe injury and trauma should receice a lesser sentence than someone who gives a gay man some homophobic abuse and then hits him over the head with a bottle causing similar injury and trauma.  An assault is an asault and each should be treated equally seriously.  Secondly, it seems to me that the current "woke" agenda is rapidly eroding the concept of free speech that it has taken centuries to establish.  I entirely agree that intentional incitement to violence is wrong, whoever it is against, but other than that people must still be free to express their opinions however offensive these may appear to some others.

 

DT

 

I've been assaulted by some people who decided they didn't like the look of me. However as someone who doesn't appear to be any kind of minority I don't worry about leaving the house through fear of it happening again. Someone was drunk and wanted a fight and I was just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are no facebook pages or newspaper articles questioning my validity as a human being or trying to stir up hate against me.

 

This is different to the experiences of minorities who are aware that bigoted views and campaigns against them exist and who see such hateful views being passed off as legitimate opinion online, in social media and sometimes in the press, leading to a society where the chance of descrimination or violence against them is higher.

 

The concept of "woke agenda" (a made up concept) eroding free speech is a nonsense. It seems there are just some people trying to push this concept beause they are worried they can't get away with saying certain stuff any more without being rightly called out on it, namely bigotry or outdated jokes that should have been left in the 1970s.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Interesting points.

 

So how would you reduce the spread of hateful behaviour, without making it an identified crime?

 

I ask because I cannot think of any way, yet I’m certain sure in my mind that it does need to be dealt with somehow, given the harm it causes.

 

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'd say "I'm not sure" - the idea that it should be reduced doesn't mean I'd support any particular measure, particularly when I'd start questioning whether the cure's worse than the disease. I'm not in a group likely to be targetted by most of the usual though, although I do try to think "would I feel the same if I was in their position?"

 

We can surely look around though and see where we are now - things might not be perfect but there's definitely less racism, sexism, homophobism etc. than there used to be - what's made society's attitudes change to the degree they have?

[Nearholmer]

I genuinely think it’s difficult, and can’t dream-up what I would call “a perfect answer” either.

 

The thing that keeps popping-up

in my mind is that we expect schools to deal with bullying very proactively these days, because we all recognise the harm that bullying way short of physical violence causes. 
 

What we’re talking about is preventing adults, who can bully by the most sophisticated, sometimes subtle, means, and can organise into bullying mobs, from doing what we forbid children to do in schools.

 

Maybe (and I mean maybe) the answer is not specific laws against specific forms of bullying, but better-drafted laws against all forms of bullying, backed by some solid las enforcement.

 

Three challenges with laws in thIs area, of course, are:

 

- setting a reasonable boundary between the acceptable and the unacceptable in a way that doesn’t squash fair criticism, Fair humour, robust debate etc.;

 

- questions of intent of words/actions; and,

 

- and questions around ‘victim defined crime’.

 

English and, I guess but don’t know, Scottish law tends to deal with a lot of this sort of thing by concepts of ‘reasonableness’ and ‘person on the Clapham omnibus’ tests.

 

What surely can’t be right is the idea that ‘freedom’ should be exploited to effectively rob other people of their freedom by intimidating them. 
 

What also can’t be right is for the UK to attempt to solve a problem in a way that is defined by a US Legal/constitutional context that is actually quite different from ours, even if half the problem is the import of US modes of thought and bullying ........ I really do wish they’d change their language, to make it harder for us to get caught-up in their domestic lunacies.
 

Edited October 11, 2020 by Nearholmer

[jcredfer]

21 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'd say "I'm not sure" - the idea that it should be reduced doesn't mean I'd support any particular measure, particularly when I'd start questioning whether the cure's worse than the disease. I'm not in a group likely to be targetted by most of the usual though, although I do try to think "would I feel the same if I was in their position?"

 

We can surely look around though and see where we are now - things might not be perfect but there's definitely less racism, sexism, homophobism etc. than there used to be - what's made society's attitudes change to the degree they have?

 

It would seem that people's attitudes get altered as a general trend, in civilised societies, towards tolerance of others and a wish to live peaceful lives, themselves.  A wish for our own behaviour to be tolerated develops a realisation that the principle applies equally in both directions.  It seems that in most cases that the changes in attitudes are followed by attempts to make supporting Laws, which attempt to deal with dissenters. 

 

One of the interesting comments in the BBC article was that the Element of Intent had not been included in the Draft law being discussed, which is strange, as theft has to have Intent to permanently deprive proved.  It would seem that the difference between a genuinely amusing joke and hate would be the accompanying intended purpose of the behaviour.

 

Julian

 

[Reorte]

Change in social attitudes is inevitably gradual, and trying to push it faster stands a big risk of backfiring. When has anyone known someone who has really changed their minds? It happens occasionally but not very often, so mostly attitudes change as the people with particular ones die off and the remainder are more and more isolated.

[Nearholmer]

5 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

It would seem that the difference between a genuinely amusing joke and hate would be the accompanying intended purpose of the behaviour

Trouble is that as soon as you include intent, it becomes really nigh-on impossible to prove in this area, which is why I wonder whether a formula around ‘reasonably likely to cause’ might work better, in that there is an established concept of reasonableness.

 

This is where expert legal drafters come in, and barrack-room lawyers leave!

[Fenman]

3 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

It would seem that people's attitudes get altered as a general trend, in civilised societies, towards tolerance of others and a wish to live peaceful lives, themselves.  A wish for our own behaviour to be tolerated develops a realisation that the principle applies equally in both directions.  It seems that in most cases that the changes in attitudes are followed by attempts to make supporting Laws, which attempt to deal with dissenters. 

...

 

 

I think the changes in laws are more varied than that: the Race Relations Act and Sex Discrimination Act seemed at the time to be very significantly ahead of majority public opinion, leading social change; while sexuality equality laws appear to have lagged very significantly behind majority public opinion.

 

If you take a longer term view, most societies seem to oscillate between greater personal freedoms and greater social control. We've been generally moving towards greater personal freedoms (especially for most minorities) for a long time now.

 

Paul 

[Classsix T]

22 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

I think the changes in laws are more varied than that: the Race Relations Act and Sex Discrimination Act seemed at the time to be very significantly ahead of majority public opinion, leading social change; while sexuality equality laws appear to have lagged very significantly behind majority public opinion.

 

If you take a longer term view, most societies seem to oscillate between greater personal freedoms and greater social control. We've been generally moving towards greater personal freedoms (especially for most minorities) for a long time now.

 

Paul 

I know it wasn't the crux of your post Paul and I'm not criticising you for it, but I have to give a wry smile at the thought ending (legal) slavery, the right to vote and not having your bottom pinched is somehow an increase in personal freedom as opposed to the realisation that it is in fact the right thing to do. 

 

C6T. 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Trouble is that as soon as you include intent, it becomes really nigh-on impossible to prove in this area, which is why I wonder whether a formula around ‘reasonably likely to cause’ might work better, in that there is an established concept of reasonableness.

 

This is where expert legal drafters come in, and barrack-room lawyers leave!

 

It’s really not that difficult, provided (and only provided) that you confine yourself to the sort of context in which our system of Common Law evolved.

 

Theft, in the sense of depriving someone of ownership, is quite simple. If Person A appropriates Item B from Person C, and disposes of it to Person D; thereby denying its lawful use by Person A; the question of “intent” is a self-explanatory, because what other intent could have been held? Res ipsos loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. 

 

Similarly if Person A strikes Person B, an assault has been committed. The suggestion that Person A might hold strong feelings against Person B is of no consequence, the offence consists in the contravention of the principle that either, or both shall be protected against being struck by the other, or indeed anyone else, regardless of the reason. If Person A can establish that there was no intent to strike Person B, why, good luck to him; but he can expect such a defence to be fraught with difficulty for obvious reasons.

 

Conversely Person A might argue that on another occasion, they did not set out in their car with the INTENT of striking Person B, that the intended function of a motorcar is transport, that Person B was negligent or incompetent in their own actions; Person B might respond alleging a contrary negligence or incompetence; and a process of, in essence, dealing with the consequences of the observed consequences ensues. But the fundamental assumption, that Person A acted in good faith without any particular reference to Person B, remains. 

 

The question of WHY Person A, or for that matter Person B might regard being struck, or having their property stolen as undesirable, is not regarded as the business of the Law, being regarded as self-evident. The purpose of the Law, is to protect the right of either or both, to go about their daily business unmolested, in the most literal sense. 

 

It might be observed in passing that the American Constitution, essentially an extrapolation of English Common Law, refers to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as “inalienable rights”. It offers no guarantee; you may be as miserable as can be, without any Constitutional implications, provided only that this is due to your own efforts or the inscrutable unfolding of Providence. 

 

This is why our legal system is so troubled in dealing with the policing of intentions; it is not, and never was intended for any such purpose. 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by rockershovel

[Fenman]

43 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

I know it wasn't the crux of your post Paul and I'm not criticising you for it, but I have to give a wry smile at the thought ending (legal) slavery, the right to vote and not having your bottom pinched is somehow an increase in personal freedom as opposed to the realisation that it is in fact the right thing to do. 

 

C6T. 

 

I agree with you.

 

It's sobering to read some of the arguments used by those opposed to the abolition of slavery in nineteenth century England -- when that was an apparently respectable political position to hold. People who you might think of as radical champions of the English peasant, like William Cobbett, also had some (to my eyes) pretty vile racist views.

 

What's "right" and "wrong" changes with time and context.

 

Paul

[Rugd1022]

4 hours ago, Binky said:

 

 

The concept of "woke agenda" (a made up concept) eroding free speech is a nonsense. It seems there are just some people trying to push this concept beause they are worried they can't get away with saying certain stuff any more without being rightly called out on it, namely bigotry or outdated jokes that should have been left in the 1970s.

 

With all due respect it is not nonsense, there are people who would happily call themselves woke, tolerant and liberal (and frequently do so on social media) who actively try to shut down debate. Over the past couple of years some universities have advocated and enacted 'no platform' campaigns to stop any opposing views being expressed, which isn't exactly tolerant or liberal, no matter how abhorant that view is. You don't 'cure' racism, sexism or any other ism by driving it underground where it can fester and flourish. My own brother subscribes to this strange notion, he and several of his chums have a strange zealous puritanical streak where any views which don't agree with their own are shouted down. It's utterly bizarre and counter productive.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Rugd1022

[Fenman]

36 minutes ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

With all due respect it is not nonsense, there are people who would happily call themselves woke, tolerant and liberal (and frequently do so on social media) who actively try to shut down debate. Over the past couple of years some universities have advocated and enacted 'no platform' campaigns to stop any opposing views being expressed, which isn't exactly tolerant or liberal, no matter how abhorant that view is. You don't 'cure' racism, sexism or any other ism by driving it underground where it can fester and flourish. My own brother subscribes to this strange notion, he and several of his chums have a strange zealous puritanical streak where any views which don't agree with their own are shouted down. It's utterly bizarre and counter productive.

But it’s tricky, isn’t it? The BBC had been “maintaining balance” on news programmes by giving a climate change-denier equal space with a climate scientist every time they had a relevant news item. They finally dealt with this nonsense after an internal review that pointed out that if they had an expert commenting on Man U’s 2-0 win over Liverpool, it would be ludicrous to “balance” that by giving equal time to someone who denied that that was the score and maintained that, in fact, Liverpool had won. Unsurprisingly, climate change deniers were unhappy with this decision.

 

Decades ago I ran a big public lecture programme addressing contemporary political issues. At that time I subscribed to the “no platform for fascists” policy, and simply didn’t invite any. The view you have expressed — by not inviting them, their (mostly) ludicrous views could not be properly challenged — niggled me at the time and continues to do so. I don’t know if there’s a right answer, rather than a least-worst answer. Seeing people like Laurence Fox — responding to Twitter critics who described his views as “racist” by calling them “pedophiles”, apparently without a shred of evidence — does make me wonder who would benefit from giving him yet another platform? 
 

Equally, our electoral system locked Farage and his kin out of Parliament, even though they apparently represented the views of a significant minority of citizens. It was to nobody’s benefit except Farage’s, who could present himself as an underdog oppressed by the establishment, shut out of parliamentary debates. Much of the toxicity around Brexit seems to me to derive from that lack of parliamentary representation. 
 

It’s tricky. 
 

Paul