Gnostic: And there is no clear definition of "hate speech" enforceability and the government only use it to suit them. If hate speech on immigrant should be punished, surely Kill All Man is hate speech too, why nobody under that hash tag is punished too?
https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen Why hate speech only apply to one group?
MaGo72: In a paper Roger Kiska explained it quite well:
"It is first worth considering, therefore, what “hate speech” actually is. The central problem is that nobody really knows what it is or how to define it. Humpty Dumpty’s conversation with Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass seems very relevant to the discussion.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean —
neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.” 13 “Hate speech” seems to be whatever people choose it to mean. It lacks any objective criteria whatsoever. A recent fact sheet of the ECHR admits that there is no universally accepted definition of hate speech 14
Similarly, a previous fact sheet observed that the identification of expressions of ‘hate speech’
is sometimes difficult because this kind of speech does not necessarily manifest itself through the expression of hatred or of emotions. It can also be concealed in statements which at a first glance may seem to be rational or normal.” 15
The purpose of the fact sheet is to simplify for the general public the meaning of the legal concept behind “hate speech. Instead the fact sheet defines “hate speech” as: (1) without definition, (2) difficult to identify, and (3) speech that can sometimes appear rational and normal. 16 As will be discussed below, the ECHR, which uses legal certainty as a keystone in its interpretation of the legitimacy of interferences with Convention rights, upholds
vague “hate speech” laws criminalizing certain forms of expression."
"Those who express views that are unpopular or not part of the politically correct orthodoxy of European society can lose their jobs, be fined, or even spend time in jail. 27 The aims of “hate speech” laws are legitimate only in as much as they seek to protect minority groups. However, the laws almost universally fail to
meet the requisite levels of legal certainty, foreseeability and clarity as required by the European Convention on Human Rights..28"
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v25n1/04Kiskavol.25.1.pdf As you said, the government can use them as they see fit. Although there was in 2008 a framework decision which "forces" EU member states to crack down on hate speech.
"EU countries were obliged to transpose the Framework Decision into their national laws by 28 November 2010." "With regard to natural persons,
EU countries shall make these offences punishable with maximum criminal penalties of no less than between one and three years of imprisonment."
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/framework-decision/index_en.htm I would add that given a choice between giving a small group of crazy people with little power sprouting crazy statement the power to speak whatever idiocy they want.
And giving a gigantic organization with vast amount of power additional power to shut down crazy people speech that can be easily abused and it already show favoritism in using that power.
I would prefer letting crazy people speak. At least I can easily avoid them by not frequenting their media.
