[williamscales]

> Don't discuss anything about the PRC or its politicians? Don't discuss the history of Chinese empire? Don't discuss politics in Mandarin?

In my mind all of these could be relevant to Chinese politics. My interpretation would be "anything one can't say openly in China". I too am curious how such a vague instruction would be interpreted as broadly as would be needed to block all politically sensitive subjects.

[rvnx]

There is no difference to other countries. In France if you say bad things about certain groups of people then you can literally go to jail (but the censorship is directly IN the models)

[komali2]

You don't feel there's a difference between a State banning criticism of the State, and a State passing anti-hate speech laws to protect people from, e.g., nazis?

[rvnx]

Hate speech laws are totally a political tool.

They are asymmetric in favor of certain communities.

The same way that “making LLMs safe” or “neutral” is actually a way to inject an ideology.

Look into France, which case can lead you to jail:

Criticize islam: risk of jail

Criticize white: ok

Criticize black: risk of jail

Glorify nazis: risk of jail

Glorify soviets: ok

Quite the reflection of influence if one side is forbidden to speak and the other can shit on them

Extremists in France love these laws, but only the left ones.

[komali2]

France banned burqas, it would be very funny to insist that Muslims get some kind of special treatment. Not to mention countless French rightwingers have been flinging Muslim refugees under the bus for the last decade with almost no consequences for it.

Glorifying nazis is glorifying naziism, an ideology that's predicated on the need to kill all Jewish people, among other things (gay people and whatever the nazis hated). That easily falls under hate speech.

Glorifying soviets is just glorifying a failed political regime. You can also glorify the Napoleonic era, or the Kingdom of the Franks, or whatever other politics you want. There wasn't genocidal intent baked into the very fabric of Stalinism, despite his genocide of the Ukranians.

[throw10920]

No, there isn't a difference. "Hate speech" has no meaning, and laws purporting to be combatting it are actively used to prevent criticism of the State (e.g. in Germany).

[komali2]

This is strange to me. I have no difficulty seeing the difference between hate speech and criticism of the state. Of course if someone tries to muddy the waters, they should be criticized... but that's what you're trying to do here, so you're no better than a State that does the same. Hate speech very clearly has meaning, the legal definition may change a bit of course, but in Germany the meaning is quite clear, banning expressions that incite hatred or violence against people based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. What's unclear about that?

I'm not sure what specific incident you're referring to, however I do know that if Germany was more willing to leverage the hate speech laws more strictly, the AFD would have been banned long ago. Now they're finally willing to leverage it to ban the new nazi party, which is a relief.

[throw10920]

> I have no difficulty seeing the difference between hate speech and criticism of the state.

You have no difficulty manufacturing what you believe to be a difference (that clearly does not survive contact with reality), because you're ignorant of the world around you.

> Of course if someone tries to muddy the waters, they should be criticized

No, if someone tries to falsely claim that there's a clear and objective difference, as you are, they should be criticized.

> Hate speech very clearly has meaning

No, it very clearly does not, and the fact that you're expressing that opinion indicates that you're extremely uninformed about history. "Hate speech" wasn't even a concept that existed until the 20th century, originally only referred to race when it was defined by the ICERD, constantly changed and increased in scope, and still even today not only has no commonly agreed-upon definition, but is used to suppress relevant-to-society free speech that the State does not approve of.

If you go and ask 10 random people in your country what the definition of "hate speech" is, they will not be able to agree on a definition - anyone who has gone out and actually interacted with different groups in their country (as opposed to being isolated to a single community) knows this to be true. That by itself is factual proof that there is no consensus definition of the term.

Not that there needs to be any further elaboration than that, but...

> I'm not sure what specific incident you're referring to

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser, a German politician, posted a social media post with the text "Afghanistan refugees; Hamburg SPD mayor for 'unbureaucratic' admission; Welcome culture for gang rapes?" and was charged under German hate speech laws. You're extremely authoritarian and progressive, so you probably feel that a penalty should have been given out, but regardless of your feelings, the fact is that that was not clearly incitement to hatred or violence, and that the poster was charged for "hate speech" for making political statements about immigration.

> banning expressions that incite hatred or violence against people based on [...]. What's unclear about that?

It's very clear to anyone who has contact with reality that not only does "hatred" also have no consensus definition, but neither does "inciting", and so both of those terms can be and are interpreted in an extremely wide spread that is abused by the State.

Not only is the lack of consensus of definition of the concept of "hate speech" factual evidence that your claims about it being clear are false, but even your citation of the German legal definition contains terms that have neither consensus population definition nor objective test (legal or otherwise).

[komali2]

> You have no difficulty manufacturing

All law and words are manufactured.

> "Hate speech" wasn't even a concept that existed until the 20th century,

And? "Capitalism" wasn't a word in any language until the 17th century. We make new words when we need them.

> originally only referred to race when it was defined by the ICERD, constantly changed and increased in scope

Turns out as we opened our eyes to our collective bigotry, we realized we were doing it in more ways than one.

> but is used to suppress relevant-to-society free speech that the State does not approve of.

Would love to you point to an example of this that isn't racist or bigoted :)

> If you go and ask 10 random people in your country what the definition of "hate speech" is, they will not be able to agree on a definition -

Great, that's why we have representative democracy and laws and dictionaries. I could ask anyone in Texas (my home state) the legally required pre-driving check that must be performed before operating a motor vehicle, every time, and I wager 90% will not even know such a lawful requirement for such a check exists, and 100% will fail to list every step required. This doesn't mean such a law doesn't exist or, if someone learns about it, then isn't clear.

Of course in my opinion more people should know about it and enforce it personally but I accept that one of the unsolved problems of liberal democracy is how to manage the massive nest of rules and regulations in a fair and equitable way. After all, almost everyone speeds.

> "Afghanistan refugees; Hamburg SPD mayor for 'unbureaucratic' admission; Welcome culture for gang rapes?" and was charged under German hate speech laws. You're extremely authoritarian and progressive, so you probably feel that a penalty should have been given out, but regardless of your feelings, the fact is that that was not clearly incitement to hatred or violence, and that the poster was charged for "hate speech" for making political statements about immigration.

Lmfao I knew there was some racist shit behind your position. It's absolutely racist to imply that Afghanistanian refugees are rapists, which is exactly what the tweet does. It makes sense that Germany would have more strict application of hate speech laws, and it makes sense to punish German politicians that swing a bit too far into "But what if one of the types of peoples were not actually totally human?" again.

> that not only does "hatred" also have no consensus definition,

Law should be decided by popular consensus? So you're an anarchist as well? Well, excellent, then we can get into the inherent moral wrongness of racism and our role to engage in direct action against racists. This probably will be sloppier than using liberal democracy and well defined hate speech laws but I prefer it, as do you apparently. In the end, the people who know what hate speech is and abhor it far outnumber those who want to be able to call all muslims racist, I've seen this time and time again at protests across the USA. Even when the nazis are organized into cute little militias (such as when the proud boys came to our city), people are able to organize 10x more counter protestors on the drop of a hat with nothing more than an Instagram post. So, I'm confident that my anti-racist side will win out, and your position of wanting to be allowed to dehumanize people will lose.

What's bizarre to me is you clearly have a more subtle understanding of race relations than this comment would lead me to believe - in another comment for example you demonstrate that you understand that there's a difference between the PRC and its (alleged) "Chinese" race ("Han" is a word that is vague enough to basically mean "white"), so why this desire to defend racist politicians? Cause, that's your argument here, and as of yet the only people that have been negatively affected by these hate speech laws are racists.