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)
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?
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.
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).
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.
> 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).
> "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.
Your response is entirely composed of of irrelevant statements, logical fallacies, and emotional outbursts when you can't muster up a fallacy. Statements like "your position of wanting to be allowed to dehumanize people will lose" indicate a chronic inability to actually think like a rational being - you're ruled by your emotions. You should work on being able to control your emotions rather than believing that your emotional outbursts make you not wrong.
> All law and words are manufactured.
Completely irrelevant to my response to your statement. Your statement was "I have no difficulty seeing the difference between hate speech and criticism of the state." and that's because you are inventing the difference between concepts. It does not exist, and that fact has nothing to do with the fact that words and laws are manufactured by humans.
> And?
If you had read two sentences further, you would have seen the "and" - that there is no consensus definition. The fact that the concept itself is so recent reinforces that. That's pretty easy to see if you read the whole paragraph.
> Would love to you point to an example of this that isn't racist or bigoted :)
I already did. Also, calling out the emotional manipulation in your comment in substitute for any actual point.
> I could ask anyone in Texas (my home state) the legally required pre-driving check that must be performed before operating a motor vehicle
Completely irrelevant, yet again. Laws are categorically different than concepts. The fact is that the concept of "hate speech" does not have anything close to a consensus definition. If you ask a sample of people in Texas what a "car" is, you will get a consensus definition of a car (and because I know you're going to try to be pedantic: to a very high level of fidelity, again unlike "hate speech"), because that's a shared concept in way that "hate speech" is not.
> Lmfao I knew there was some racist shit behind your position
Yet again, substitution of emotion for, well, the ability to think.
> It's absolutely racist to imply that Afghanistanian refugees are rapists, which is exactly what the tweet does
No, it does not imply that - you are reading it like that, because your brain has been conditioned to view everything through the lens of racism, and you cannot fathom that there are things other than race (such as the refugees coming from a different culture, coming from a different legal environment, or not being treated legally in the same way as other individuals because of their refugee status) in Afghanistan that can result in the problem of sexual assault. Heck, the presumption that if you come from Afghanistan, you must be Afghani (or of a particular race), wildly exceeds your own standards for what racism is.
Additionally, reality is not racist. The fact is that there is a huge problem with sexual assault and violence from Middle Eastern refugees in Europe. Pointing out that, regardless of whether the problem is cultural, racial (which would be false - this is not a race problem, but a cultural problem), or due to different legal environments or treatment, there is a problem, is not racist. This is a fact. Again: reality is not racist, and pointing out reality is not racist.
> Law should be decided by popular consensus?
Again, multiple fallacies and total failures of logic. First, you're conflating concepts/morality and laws. Those are obviously not the same. You are making moral arguments about "hate speech" that the laws must necessarily flow from. In your original comment you stated "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?" - that is a moral argument, not a legal one. Second - no, I did not make any argument that would imply that "law should be decided by popular consensus" - that's your failure to read what I wrote.
A misunderstanding that you then proceed to spend a paragraph working off of. Again, you have an inability to actually think logically, and instead just try to frame everything into a race issue, and then emotionally react to it. You finish with
> your position of wanting to be allowed to dehumanize people will lose
No, that is not my position - and you know that. The only person doing any dehumanizing here is you - you are intentionally misreading my point, because you want to turn this into a "racists vs anti-racists" issue that you can then use to justify dehumanizing those you perceive to be racist (me, and politicians).
> a more subtle understanding of race relations
Again with the race. Everything is about race and racism.
> why this desire to defend racist politicians
And again.
> 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.
And again.
And the fallacy that outcomes justify perversion of principles. And the labeling of others as "racist" when you have honestly close to zero idea what their actual principles are, and then the logically, legally, and morally insane idea that just because someone is a racist means that they deserve to be legally punished. That claim doesn't even need to be defended against, because it's insane. (it's not really falsifiable, either, because you can always claim that someone is a closet racist, even without evidence)
You should wait to respond to this comment until you can actually learn to use logic at the high-school level, and have the emotional maturity and control of (at least) a college grad. You have categorically not demonstrated either of those things so far.