tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post5838289827236108657..comments2022-03-24T15:14:12.561+00:00Comments on Inter Kant: Publicity and HateGary Banhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-15406759111136735812009-11-26T18:01:58.375+00:002009-11-26T18:01:58.375+00:00Again, thanks for these points. The general relati...Again, thanks for these points. The general relationship I was drawing between hate speech and publicity was to the effect that hate speech is not a "private" act but a public one and I was intimating agreement with Waldron's point concerning "public order" as inclusive of a relation to the equal status of one's fellow citizens. So I was not suggesting that a decrease in publicity would be a result of laws regulating hate speech, rather, I was trying to point out that a concern with it was a legitimate part of the public sphere.<br />Incidentally, with regard to writing: I acknowledged this point in the first posting.Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-19726168534672812262009-11-25T10:38:13.111+00:002009-11-25T10:38:13.111+00:00One another note:
When you mention the inherent p...One another note:<br /><br />When you mention the inherent publicity of hate speech in general, does this mean that you think bans on hate speech "decrease" publicity? (Alternatively, do the "value" of publicity require staying open to (not makining illlegal) the racists advocacy for a different common good officially?) <br /><br />Incidently, there are a few times where Waldron emphasizes that he is (mainly?) dealing with writing, not oral speech.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-69854709367858098652009-11-25T09:39:59.149+00:002009-11-25T09:39:59.149+00:00Thanks for this Tim. I agree his general case is i...Thanks for this Tim. I agree his general case is in terms of the idea of group libel and I think this is an important way of re-contextualising the notion of hate speech. But he does claim a distinction between hate crime and hate speech on the grounds that hate crimes are concerned with motivation as opposed to intention which latter is the concern of hate speech legislation. In fact you repeat his distinction in more or less the same terms in your comment. But I am unconvinced that the question of motivation need be the ground of hate crime law. I think such can also be understood in terms of intention rather than motivation: that is precisely the issue on which I am disagreeing with his view.Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-2144087689792160732009-11-24T21:32:54.916+00:002009-11-24T21:32:54.916+00:00I have only seen the first lecture, but I think th...I have only seen the first lecture, but I think the key distinction is not "hate speech" vs. "hate crime". What he wants to make clear is that he is talking more about group libel. So for Waldron, the term "hate speech" has connotations that he thinks can be misleading (tho he uses the term) precisely because it might be seen to emphasize the motive ("hate"). So it is not so much hate speech v. hate crime (since hate crime is an entirely different things, as it assumes a crime was committed out of hate should get more penalties -- like assault, etc., motivated by racial animus... whereas hate speech is another story.) Rather, the question is whether we see "hate speech" as being LIKE hate crime laws (concerned with motivation) or whether we are concerned with libel. Again, I think it's important to clarify that, though sorry if he says something against that in later lectures.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02424473980754426257noreply@blogger.com