We don’t need to protect the security of employment of someone who celebrates the suicide of a child.
I think you have it a backwards. We should have legal consequences for such hate speech against minorities, and protections from employment discrimination for reasonable political speech.
In principle I agree with you, and this is a very clear example of hate speech. But as with so many things, the issue is where you draw the line for acceptable vs not, and how do you ensure the laws don’t get abused and twisted to inverse effect. There are many examples of that process happening right now. You can’t legislate morality. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to impove things, but I think trying to fix root issues in society will have better effect than adding more complex to implement laws to a struggling legal system. Not to imply that is easy either.
I disagree. The law should be the common moral ground of a society recorded as a set of written down rules. What else would be meant by “justice”?
Ensuring the laws don’t get abused is the job of a fair and accountable judiciary.
The real fundamental issue within the american society is of course capitalism, which ensures that
The law is written to bind and suppress poor people or anyone trying to fight for them; and to protect and benefit rich people and their lapdogs (by bribing the congress)
Any loopholes or ambiguities to the contrary are interpreted in favor of rich people, whether that means following the “letter” or the “spirit” of the law (by bribing the judiciary)
The law is enforced vigilantly against the poor and not at all against the rich (by bribing the executive)
As such, I might agree with you on your last point. Adding laws such as what I proposed to the american legal system would be very difficult and not very beneficial. But in a less corrupt society it would be the “correct” way to do this.
Laws are based on morality, but they can only cover peoples actions, not their motivations. People who’s motivation is to be nasty to people they see as lesser will find a way to do so, and trying to eliminate any action they could take to show their hate would lead to a tyrannical micromanagaing government and a society that can’t be called free. Obviously we have to legislate against physical harm, and do what we reasonably can against financial harm, and threats, and more reasonable things I’m too tired to enumerate, but at some point social pressure and personal consequences are a better way to handle such behavior. The more society is improved, the better it will be at this function.
I have no disagreement with your 3 points on how the wealthy have coopted the legal system.
Motivation is already a very important concept in all modern legal systems. Mens rea can be the difference between spending years in prison or walking off with a community service sentence; evidence of a motive, or lack thereof, can be the deciding factor in the success of the prosecution; the list goes on, really. Establishing people’s motivation, and separating good faith actors from bad faith actors is one of the most important factors for any judgement, from forum moderation to a criminal court.
As such, it is possible (and I would argue necessary) to prohibit hate speech in the law, clearly defining what it is and what it isn’t, and let the courts decide for each individual case.
I think you have it a backwards. We should have legal consequences for such hate speech against minorities, and protections from employment discrimination for reasonable political speech.
In principle I agree with you, and this is a very clear example of hate speech. But as with so many things, the issue is where you draw the line for acceptable vs not, and how do you ensure the laws don’t get abused and twisted to inverse effect. There are many examples of that process happening right now. You can’t legislate morality. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to impove things, but I think trying to fix root issues in society will have better effect than adding more complex to implement laws to a struggling legal system. Not to imply that is easy either.
I disagree. The law should be the common moral ground of a society recorded as a set of written down rules. What else would be meant by “justice”?
Ensuring the laws don’t get abused is the job of a fair and accountable judiciary.
The real fundamental issue within the american society is of course capitalism, which ensures that
As such, I might agree with you on your last point. Adding laws such as what I proposed to the american legal system would be very difficult and not very beneficial. But in a less corrupt society it would be the “correct” way to do this.
Laws are based on morality, but they can only cover peoples actions, not their motivations. People who’s motivation is to be nasty to people they see as lesser will find a way to do so, and trying to eliminate any action they could take to show their hate would lead to a tyrannical micromanagaing government and a society that can’t be called free. Obviously we have to legislate against physical harm, and do what we reasonably can against financial harm, and threats, and more reasonable things I’m too tired to enumerate, but at some point social pressure and personal consequences are a better way to handle such behavior. The more society is improved, the better it will be at this function.
I have no disagreement with your 3 points on how the wealthy have coopted the legal system.
Motivation is already a very important concept in all modern legal systems. Mens rea can be the difference between spending years in prison or walking off with a community service sentence; evidence of a motive, or lack thereof, can be the deciding factor in the success of the prosecution; the list goes on, really. Establishing people’s motivation, and separating good faith actors from bad faith actors is one of the most important factors for any judgement, from forum moderation to a criminal court.
As such, it is possible (and I would argue necessary) to prohibit hate speech in the law, clearly defining what it is and what it isn’t, and let the courts decide for each individual case.