Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You should be allowed to say nigger on YouTube.

You can. You just might not be able to get paid for it.

You should be able to get paid for it, but youtube is too stupid to allow that, and that is of course their prerogative. That just leaves a hole in the market for youtube's competition to exploit.

Yeah, cause gab is crushing it.

Maybe there just isn't the market for edgelords dropping n-bombs that you think there is.

[BjornP]

Driving over the speed limit does not make every speeder a killer. No one is suggesting that inciting hatred makes everyone commit a hate crime. That is a ridiculous standard to use to argue against a law. It only needs to be shown that it has the potential to cause harm.
Inciting hatred may only be a small factor in radicalising a person but it is still a factor. It is disingenuous to say that no one was ever incited to carry out an illegal act of hatred (violence, harassment, threatening behaviour etc) by another person's words.

But surely both the circumstances under which it may cause harm, whether the speech is what causes the harm, and just as importantly, the quantity of cases has to figure into the justification of making these laws? If only 0.0001% of the population can be shown to having resorted to violence because they saw something racist on 4chan, then should the remaining 99.9% of the population be restricted in their speech and what they can be allowed to read because a super-minority has violent tendencies? If the goal is to reduce crime by those people, is limiting their ability to express themselves in public the best way to keep them away from radicalisation and from committing violence, you think?

Racial hatred is defined in the legislation as hatred against a group of people defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins.

The 1986 Act makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (?) with intent to stir up racial hatred in the street or in a public speech. It is also an offence to display, publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to stir up racial hatred. In both cases, it is an offence even if there was no intent to incite hatred, but where hatred is likely to be stirred up regardless.

It is therefore an offence to use threatening words or behaviour, or to display, publish or distribute any threatening written material with the intent to stir up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. It is also an offence to broadcast such material with intent to stir up such hatred.

"You are guilty of inciting hate, even if that wasn't your intent, because we imagine - but are under no obligation to actually prove - that your words or writings have incited someone to a hatred, or degree of hatred, that they didn't hold before."

[BjornP]

You should be allowed to say nigger on YouTube.

Even fucking Grumpy is on our side, for once. Poor Monte.

And now you both went into fully fledged Commie-Land. Ah, and you were doing so well for a time... YouTube is private property, not public domain. They don't owe you a right to say whatever you want in their "house", so you abide by their contract, their terms of service. They can't engage in "censorship" against you, because they're not your government. You have every right to say whatever the hell you want. Doesn't mean you have the right to wander into anyone's private property you want and get on your soapbox and say whatever you want there.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You should be allowed to say nigger on YouTube.

Even fucking Grumpy is on our side, for once. Poor Monte.

And now you both went into fully fledged Commie-Land. Ah, and you were doing so well for a time... YouTube is private property, not public domain. They don't owe you a right to say whatever you want in their "house", so you abide by their contract, their terms of service. They can't engage in "censorship" against you, because they're not your government. You have every right to say whatever the hell you want. Doesn't mean you have the right to wander into anyone's private property you want and get on your soapbox and say whatever you want there.

I don’t want a law enforcing it, I just think YouTube should allow it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

why?

[Montegriffo]

Driving over the speed limit does not make every speeder a killer. No one is suggesting that inciting hatred makes everyone commit a hate crime. That is a ridiculous standard to use to argue against a law. It only needs to be shown that it has the potential to cause harm.
Inciting hatred may only be a small factor in radicalising a person but it is still a factor. It is disingenuous to say that no one was ever incited to carry out an illegal act of hatred (violence, harassment, threatening behaviour etc) by another person's words.

But surely both the circumstances under which it may cause harm, whether the speech is what causes the harm, and just as importantly, the quantity of cases has to figure into the justification of making these laws?

I don't see the relevance of ''quantity'' in making laws. To continue the speeding analogy, there are countless millions of cases of speeding every day but only a tiny fraction of these cases end up causing accidents. This is no reason to abandon laws against speeding. Driving too fast clearly has the potential to cause injury as does incitement to hatred. As with most things the devil is in the detail. The accused is afforded all the means available to defend himself in court. The laws were passed, with amendments, by our legally elected representatives in Parliament. This is not Nazi show trials happening here in the UK it is how modern societies function under rule of law.

[PartyOf5]

Monte, walk the walk. Your posts are inciting hatred here. If you truly believe words inciting hatred need to be stopped, you need to STFU.

[Montegriffo]

Monte, walk the walk. Your posts are inciting hatred here. If you truly believe words inciting hatred need to be stopped, you need to STFU.

You are not a magistrate, your opinion carries no weight in law.
Hating me for having an opinion you oppose is not the same as me inciting hatred.
All it is is ankle-biting.
Ankle biters are not a group protected by UK law. The law defines racial, national, religious, sexual preferences and disabled persons as the protected groups in cases of incitement to hate.

[BjornP]

I don’t want a law enforcing it, I just think YouTube should allow it.

Why "should"?

I'm all for your right to say nigger in public. Same as me being for anyone's free speech right to walk up to your kids and convince them you and their mother died in a horrific car crash, followed by the asshole insulting your kids' physical appearance. But I'd not invite that sort of person into my house, and if they were there already, I'd kick them out. Even if I don't particularly know you all that well. Freedom of speech ain't, nor should be, freedom from any social consequence. It should be the freedom from government consequence, but you're not supposed to just say whatever you want without any sort of consequence, even if that consequence is simply becoming marginalized in your local (or online) community.

[StCapps]

You can. You just might not be able to get paid for it.

You should be able to get paid for it, but youtube is too stupid to allow that, and that is of course their prerogative. That just leaves a hole in the market for youtube's competition to exploit.

Yeah, cause gab is crushing it.

Maybe there just isn't the market for edgelords dropping n-bombs that you think there is.

Gab needs to step it's game up in other ways, just being the edgelord social media service is not enough in and of itself, but it's still an opportunity for the competition to exploit.