The Online Harms Act states that any person who advocates for or promotes genocide is “liable to imprisonment for life.” It defines lesser “hate crimes” as including online speech that is “likely to foment detestation or vilification” on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other protected categories. And if someone “fears” they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the judge finds “reasonable grounds” for the fear, the defendant must enter into “a recognizance.”
I don't want to defend the bill as it currently stands, it's probably horribly drafted, but I do want to question why we're saying that imprisoning people who advocate for genocide is a bad thing. In my mind, the purpose of all the liberal human rights stuff is specifically to keep governments from doing genocide. So protecting the people who are advocating for genocide is an own goal.
To be clear, there's a lot of potential for a cure worse than the disease. But I don't think "censor the censors" is categorically invalid in a liberal society. The question is one of proportionality, not scope. Human rights as an institution and a concept are under attack worldwide. Illiberal right-wingers are very loudly calling for censorship because the Overton window has stopped working in liberalism's favor. It is important that we defend our rights in a way that does not damage them.
But amendments would not go far enough. No one who favors allowing the state to imprison people for mere speech, or severely constraining a person’s liberty in anticipation of alleged hate speech they have yet to utter, is fit for leadership in a liberal democracy. Every elected official who has supported the unamended bill should be ousted at the next opportunity by voters who grasp the fraught, authoritarian folly of this extremist proposal.
Ironically, the person who penned this article seems to understand what I'm getting at.
There's a big difference between advocating a crime, and perpetrating a crime. Do you really want to live in a world where something you say on your favorite social platform can be used as reasonable grounds for your imprisonment?
I don't know how to feel about that. Social media is like a gigantic public square. If you do that in the real world and advocate for genocide, talk about hanging the PM, talk about killing migrants or gender diverse people etc, what would happen in that case?
I'm actually not sure at all about the law but I would expect to get a visit from law enforcement eventually.
We have a good standard in the US: is a statement a “true threat?” Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression. For example, the folks bringing guillotines to Jeff’s Bezos’s house are making a political point. So are Islamic imams advocating violence (in the abstract) against infidels.
Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression.
In the risk-benefit analysis, let's be sure we consider another factor: Unknown, unpredictable, armed, nut-job third parties who are triggered to act — sometimes in concert — when dog-whistle rhetoric goes viral.
Depending on the circumstances, a prudent analysis might limit 1A protection for certain types of rhetoric because of its unacceptable risk to others. That might be the case even for facially non-violent speech, e.g., so-called dog whistles.
It's been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact [0] — neither is it a license to kill.
Comments
I don't want to defend the bill as it currently stands, it's probably horribly drafted, but I do want to question why we're saying that imprisoning people who advocate for genocide is a bad thing. In my mind, the purpose of all the liberal human rights stuff is specifically to keep governments from doing genocide. So protecting the people who are advocating for genocide is an own goal.
To be clear, there's a lot of potential for a cure worse than the disease. But I don't think "censor the censors" is categorically invalid in a liberal society. The question is one of proportionality, not scope. Human rights as an institution and a concept are under attack worldwide. Illiberal right-wingers are very loudly calling for censorship because the Overton window has stopped working in liberalism's favor. It is important that we defend our rights in a way that does not damage them.
Ironically, the person who penned this article seems to understand what I'm getting at.
There's a big difference between advocating a crime, and perpetrating a crime. Do you really want to live in a world where something you say on your favorite social platform can be used as reasonable grounds for your imprisonment?
I don't know how to feel about that. Social media is like a gigantic public square. If you do that in the real world and advocate for genocide, talk about hanging the PM, talk about killing migrants or gender diverse people etc, what would happen in that case?
I'm actually not sure at all about the law but I would expect to get a visit from law enforcement eventually.
We have a good standard in the US: is a statement a “true threat?” Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression. For example, the folks bringing guillotines to Jeff’s Bezos’s house are making a political point. So are Islamic imams advocating violence (in the abstract) against infidels.
In the risk-benefit analysis, let's be sure we consider another factor: Unknown, unpredictable, armed, nut-job third parties who are triggered to act — sometimes in concert — when dog-whistle rhetoric goes viral.
Depending on the circumstances, a prudent analysis might limit 1A protection for certain types of rhetoric because of its unacceptable risk to others. That might be the case even for facially non-violent speech, e.g., so-called dog whistles.
It's been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact [0] — neither is it a license to kill.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
I disagree, I think the Constitution is a suicide pact. And I wouldn't trust anyone to define what's a "dog whistle."
Courts are up to the task — it's Con Law 101.