Welcome to the Action Report. We break down the big, hairy problems the news and tell you what you
can do to actually fix them. Today, we're going to be discussing hate speech, and
whether or not it has a place in our society. Bare with me though because
first we've gotta break this down. First of all, what do we mean by hate speech?
The American Bar Association defines hate speech as "speech that offends,
threatens, or insults groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, disability, or other traits." If I called all Republicans
subhumans that deserve to be exterminated, then that would be hate
speech because it targets a shared trait among a group of awful people. This
should not be confused with hateful rhetoric and of the peculiarities of an
individual. For example, if called Taylor Swift a manipulative robot built by
Hollywood to capitalize on the sentiments of empowered white women, then
that would not be hate speech because it's not targeting Taylor Swift for belonging
to a particular group. She, individually, is just the worst. In countries around
the world, certain types of hate speech are
constricted by law. In Belgium, Holocaust denial is illegal, and in most of Europe
for that matter. In Germany, it is not permissible to defame certain segments
of the population. In Chile, it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of
gender, religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, appearance, or handicap.
In the United States, however, prevailing norms around freedom speech make the
passage of hate speech legislation a near impossibility. With a few important
caveats that we will be exploring later, the United States government refuses to
abridge anyone's speech, even that of white supremacists and Nazis. We are
going to be covering why our country is so uniquely resistant to this idea, and
whether or not they have a point. And after that I promise we'll get to the
things that you can do. Just hang in there!
The reason the United States is so darn insistent that most forms of
speech be permitted unabated can be pretty much boiled down to one word -
freedom, or more specifically, freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the US
Constitution prohibits "...abridging the freedom of speech."And while many
countries around the world enjoy freedom of speech. in the USofA. we interpret
it quite literally. In a recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling, the court struck
down an attempt by the federal government to regulate disparaging
speech because they believed such regulation went against the very spirit
of the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito asserts: "...speech the demeans on the
basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar
ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that
we protect the freedom to express the 'thoughts that we hate'." Now proponents of
this interpretation do freely admit that the First Amendment does come with some
limitations. In general, threats harassment, and incitement to violence
are not considered protected speech, but these, they argue, are always narrowly
tailored towards preventing individual harm. If our definition of unprotected
speech were ever widened beyond harassment, threats, and incitement to
violence, they caution, then the very sanctity of our democracy would be at
risk. In that very same Supreme Court ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy
argues: "a law that can be directed against
speech found offensive to some portion of the public, can be turned against
minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all." At the heart of the
hate speech debate is an appeal to the slippery slope argument, which is the
claim that if you let "A" happen, which in this case is hate speech legislation, then
some terrible, hypothetical, totalitarian "Z" will befall America. The slippery
slope argument? Now where have I heard that before? START OF CLIP: if marriage is a human invention, then
different types of marriage could have equal value. If humans invented
marriage then polygamy (the taking of several wives), polyandry (the sharing
of a wife by several husbands) END OF CLIP That's right F@ckers pull this argument out
whenever they don't want things to change. The herd of sheep I'm married to
thank you, by the way. The issue with this line of reasoning is that evidence
(and by that I mean actual data not just someone's train of thought) is rarely
provided to explain how we get from point "A" (hate speech legislation) to "Z"
(our complete and utter descent into a repressive regime). Now I'm not saying
that hate speech legislation is above manipulation. Let's be clear - all laws can
be manipulated for unseemly purposes. In Rwanda, for example, a law designed to
halt the spread of genocidal ideology prevents people from publicly identifying
as the ethnic Hutu or Tutsi minority. A law that Rwandan president and dictator
Paul Kagame has used to lock up political opponents. But as we listed n the beginning of
this video, there are plenty of healthy democracies with hate speech legislation.
In Norway, public statements of hate speech are illegal, but according to The
Economist Intelligence Unit Norway ranks as more democratic than the
United States. which itself was downgraded in the ranking to a flawed
democracy just last year. The problem with this debate is that we often aren't
talking about actual specifics, but only principles. Principles that we aren't
bothering to adapt to our evolving understanding of biology and human
psychology. Words have an impact on individuals, and our refusal to judge
them is having real-life consequences. For one, it allows people to pretend as
though their biases don't exist, and obscures their responsibility to address them.
While the content of speech in the United States is allegedly untouched by
lawmakers, politicians are allowed to place content neutral restrictions on
speech all the time. You're probably familiar with many of these. Noise
ordinances that constrain loud noises to certain times. Limitations on the amount
of people that can gather in a certain place without a permit. These time, place,
and manner restrictions are used all the time to
restrict your speech. The line between content-neutral and
content-based restrictions, however, is very blurred. It always has been, and
politicians biases constantly come into play. Take, for example, the 2012 Honoring
America's Veterans Act that, in part, was passed in response to protests of
veteran funerals done by the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist
Church, by the way, has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern
Poverty Law Center. The law increased the distance all protesters could protest
during said funerals. Like it or not, a value judgment was made here to protect
the rights of a specific political identity - in this case veterans. I'm not
necessarily saying that anything's wrong with that, but it is hypocritical to
protect the rights of some groups and not others under the banner of
objectivity. This type of double standard has always existed, and it usually
impacts the most vulnerable. In many localities, for example, people are barred
from giving the homeless food, and aggressive panhandling is illegal. Are
these restrictions truly content-neutral or are we simply respecting the rights
of the more privileged to not feel guilty? I think we all know the answer to
that question is the latter. From using health regulations to prevent same-sex
marriage to voter ID laws to suppress minority turnout, oppressors have always
assumed that their biases are an innate fact of life. In a system such as
ours, addressing systemic inequalities becomes that much harder when you allow
your oppressors to operate under the banner of neutrality. Another problem
with our society's resistance to hate speech is that it ignores the effect
abusive words can have on an individual's psyche. Stress pervades our lives, and
while it is true that there is tolerable, and even good stress, there's also toxic stress
that can lead to adverse health outcomes. When we don't have the resources to handle
stressful situations, our bodies can become mentally and physically ill. What
I mean by resources is that chemicals in our body, specifically cortisol and
adrenaline, help us to adapt to difficult situations, allowing our bodies to
return to normal when the stressful situation subsides. But if the situation
doesn't subside, then these periods of long-simmering stress have been known to
lead to bad health outcomes. Long periods of stress, even ones with no physical
contact, can correlate to reduce life expectancy, chronic illnesses, and altered
brain chemistry. In essence, stress kills. These harms correlate unsurprisingly
with marginalized identity groups such as racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual
minorities. You can therefore make the case that when you allow people to say
abusive language towards said minorities you are causing harm. Your
words - drumroll please as the conservative internet
loses its collective shits - cause violence. Yep you heard it here. The use of
language is violence. Come at me brawhs. To be clear, this is not an argument
to censor all uncomfortable language. There's certainly a value in debating
viewpoints you disagree with. That is good stress, and a necessary and quite frankly
unavoidable part of life. Yet there's a huge difference between picking apart
the philosophies of people you disagree with, such as Ayn Rand whose magnum opus,
Atlas Shrugged, this liberal snowflake has read twice, and this: START OF CLIP: "I will tell you one UW Milwaukee
student that does not need to man-up. That is Justine Cramer. Do you know about
Justine Cramer? Have any of you fallin - come into contact with this person?
This quote-unquote non-binary trans. You're not laughing now.
You know him. This quote unquote non-binary trans woman forced his way
into the women's locker rooms this year. Who knows about this story, any of you? I
see you don't even read your own student media. He got into the women's room the
way liberals always operate, using the government and the courts, to weasel
their way where they don't belong." END OF CLIP. That awful person
is Milo Yiannopoulos outing a transgender student at a school he was touring for no
discernible reason. There is no educational value in allowing bullies to
harass the oppressed. When someone says that abusive language is a necessary and
vital part of a healthy democracy, they are placing the burden of their ideals
on the most marginalized, and harming them in the process. They are creating the
perfect environment for bullies like Milo to flourish. This is what
philosopher Karl Popper termed the "Paradox of Tolerance" in his book "The
Open Society and Its Enemies," writing: "If we extend unlimited tolerance, even to
those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend the tolerant society
against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and
tolerance with them." Essentially, if you allow all people in your society, even
pieces of shit that want to kill other people, to express their viewpoints
equally with non-pieces of shit, then you shouldn't be surprised when they start
killing people. Today, we talked about hate speech legislation and the cultural
barriers that make its implementation so difficult in the United States. We
Illustrated how the slippery slope fallacy is often used to perpetuate
those barriers. We discussed content-neutral speech restrictions and
how they are often used to perpetuate systemic racism. We also talked about how
and why abusive language is a form of violence. Lastly we talked about Karl
Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance." Now this may all sound dire, but finally on a
personal level what can you do to help? Firstly, and this should be obvious, don't
perpetuate hate speech. Don't make shitty, hateful jokes and
comments. If your point cannot be rewarded in a way that does not
physically harm those around you, then it's not an important comment to make.
Secondly, try not to let other people say hateful things. This is hard because
every situation is different, but it's also necessary. All of us are on the
front lines of bigotry. The Southern Poverty Law Center
has provided a great resource - one I have linked below - that gives you instructions
on how to respond to bigotry in everyday situations. Thirdly, donate to
organizations trying to fight hate. I mentioned the Southern Poverty Law
Center. They are awesome. Thirdly, call your
legislators and let them know that you support hate speech legislation. This
change in our norms is only going to happen if our leaders know where we
stand. Just so you know, the Capital Congressional switchboard is
202-224-3121. Lastly, become involved in the fight
against bigotry, especially if you're white.
Don't Sheet Cake. Use your white toches to shield brown bodies from harm. The
organization "Safety Pin Box" is really great in this regard. They give you
monthly actionable items to follow up on. I've also linked them in the description.
That's all for now. We shoot a new video every month, so stay tuned. The next topic
will be decided entirely by you. So if you have a problem you need help tacklin'
let us know in the comments below/ This video was made possible by our
action-tastic donors over at Patreon. If you like what you see, consider becoming
a patron. A link is also in the description. Subscribe to ConSpot for
more action-oriented updates on our main YouTube channel, and be sure to check out
more action-packed videos. I'm Alex Mell-Taylor, and thanks for turning on the
Action Report. I will see you next month
For more infomation >> Let's Do It For Houston - Duration: 1:19. 
For more infomation >> [DON'T watch alone] Do you like scary stories? - Duration: 3:10. 
For more infomation >> Should parents be charged when kids use their guns to do harm? - Duration: 2:23. 
For more infomation >> What do fans at Fenway know about KC? o - Duration: 1:32. 
For more infomation >> Refis previdenciário e juros do BNDES são destaques da semana - Duration: 1:23. 
For more infomation >> Leroy Sanchez - Look What Made Me Do (Taylor Swift Cover) (Türkçe Çeviri) - Duration: 3:21. 
For more infomation >> [RECORD NEWS] - Passagem e vinheta de intervalo do JR News com Heródoto Barbeiro - 07/09/2017 - Duration: 2:24. 
For more infomation >> Evolução Ômega | Os Cavaleiros Do Zodíaco Ômega (3ª Abertura) - Duration: 1:41. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét