undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmanigandham6y ago0 comments

The discussion is about speech, and speech is not action. Harmful action is already a crime, and any crime can be upgraded to "hate crime" based on the motivation.

Group membership doesn't have anything to do with minorities though. You can define groups however you want, so a "minority" is entirely dependent on the context of the situation and just as subjective as the hate speech. So who are you considering minorities and what is this anecdotal data that claims they did not participate in forums? Must every forum be welcoming to everyone? Did no other forum exist? Could they not have created their own forum? If they talked to each other, does that mean a forum exists? And if so, doesn't that mean they are free to engage in their own discourse after all?

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

foldr6y ago· 3 in thread

I don't see how membership of a minority group is all that subjective in most cases. E.g., LGBTQ individuals are pretty clearly a minority, Jews were pretty clearly a minority in Europe in the 20th century, etc. Minorities tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech for obvious reasons.

manigandhamOP6y ago

How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority.

Either way, the point that if hate speech is targeting against a "group", then that group can be anything and anyone. There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. It just dilutes the discussion about defining hate speech.

foldr6y ago

>How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority.

That is entirely specious, pedantic and irrelevant. In the context relevant to hate speech, there is no doubt that, say, LGBTQ individuals or Jews are minority groups. I don't think you can really be serious about denying this (given that the numbers are what they are). I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

>There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you.

There is no essential connection between hate speech and minorities, but there's a very obvious connection. Historically, many victims of hate speech and other hate crimes have been members of minority groups. And it's not difficult to see why. It's a lot easier for a majority group to persecute a minority group than vice versa.

1 more reply

banmeagaindan26y ago

Obvious and inaccurate.

Minorities are likely to use persecution because their position is vulnerable.

klyrs6y ago· 1 in thread

The US has a pretty well defined notion of "protected class" since at least 1964. Like all of law, there are ambiguities and edge cases that have not been fully enumerated or explored in case law. You're acting like this is a huge nebulous concept, and displaying confusion about minorities.

People often say "minorities" when they mean "protected class." Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class. Billionaires are a minority, but they are not a protected class. Who decides what constitutes a protected class? Case law. When a suitable number of cases demonstrate harm on the basis of membership in a class, then that class may be considered for inclusion in the definition.

The definition of hate speech in Canada is quite narrow, and hinges on the definition of protected class. Progress is slow and methodical, and not the slippery slope thay you drscribe.

MockObject6y ago

> Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class.

No, in the US, women are not legally a protected class. Gender is a protected class, which prohibits discrimination against women, or men.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse