Talk:Hate speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Praise

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this article. Keep it up =D

this whole page is bs...let me see...if you are a conservative you engage in hate speech...if a liberal then no...this is reason...please...what this is is an attempt to silence political debate...why a cross in urine not hate speech from liberals...a double standard in intellectual hypocrisy...welcome to the land of the ignorant...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.135.78 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Plagiarism

Okay, are you guys aware that the section on speech codes is copied word for word from answers.com? I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to do that. Rogue 9 02:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Er you wouldn't happen to be refering to the answers.com section that is taken from Wikipedia now would you? If so, of course it is copied word for word except you got the direction wrong. They copied it from us, fully legally... Nil Einne 15:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist POV

The title and tone of this article is nothing but Marxist-PC propaganda, which is why the neutrality of this article is disputed.

We can play revert wars with these Marxist-POV's until the cows come home if you'd like?

This is the talk page and only a NPOV should be allowed on Wiki articles. --Paul Vogel

I agree with you. There is a clear double standard when it comes to "hate speech," one that seems to be propagaded by those on the left. It is invariably biased against white, conservative males. Hate speech legislation in general seems to exist only to marginalize those with so-called "politically incorrect" views. angrywhiteman

Wow. Vogel, you really don't know what you're talking about. I don't agree with hate-speech legislation, either, but there isn't a whit of Marxism in this article. "The left" does not equal "Marxists."--WadeMcR 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted: exposure of ADL

The Anti-Defamation League is primarily responsible for getting hate crime laws on the books in the USA. The Jews behind this anti-First Amendment bullshit should get the spotlight they deserve.

How is that relevant to this article? (Besides maybe as an example) --IceflamePhoenix 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples, Please?

NO cursing man!


What universities have such codes, and can we see an example? --Dmerrill

Can't say off the top of my head, but my brain whirls with half-remembered anecdotes of students forced to choose between expulsion or attend a re-orientation class of sorts (diversity training?), after expressing a 'politically incorrect' opinion. Generally these anecdotes were in the context of debate over gay issues, afrocentrism, feminism... Vice President Cheney's wife wrote a book full of such ancecdotes, concerning professors who often lost tenure or jobs because they took their academic freedom farther than political correctness allowed. I'll need at least a day. --Ed Poor

Hey, take two. :-) But it does need to be more specific. I tend to doubt any university's policy actually says flat out "you can't say foo", although I could be proven wrong. Universities have done some bone-headed things. More likely it is couched in other terms. Also we need to discuss the rationale behind the against-hate-speech people, i.e., the high level of hate crimes. But I'm leaving work now, so maybe later or tomorrow. --Dmerrill

Ed, AGAIN!!!

Please stop. You are oversimplifying a serious topic because you don't agree with it.

You misunderstand: it is not true that I don't agree with the topic. I disagree with the way hate speech rules and laws are used to stifle free speech.

After all, the ACLU supports the Nazi party's right to speak, and that speech is always hate-ridden. And yes, many institutions, public and private, have banned certain kinds of speech -- but it is seldom at the level of "you can't make such a comment in conversation" unless, of course, you happen to be in a position of authority.

If it is "seldom", then it does occur. What is your position on such bans when they occur?

Plus, your article implies that Universities only push leftist, politically correct speech policies.

I have heard only of cases of conservative, politically incorrect speech being punished. Please provide examples of leftist, poltically correct speech being punished, other than 9/11.


That would, of course, explain why several university professors who (after 9/11) made comments as mild as, "the arab world has plenty of reasons to hate the US" or, "I think invading Afghanistan is a bad idea and here's why..." were threatened with job loss if they didn't retract their statements. In institutions where I've studied and taught, Hate speech includes anti-gay speech, but focuses much more on racist and misogynist speech.

You are proving me point here. Are you aware of it? Anti-gay, racist, and misogynist speech is politically incorrect.

At one school, some white students were required to take down a confederate battle flag in their window, because many other students, white and black, found it an offensive reminder of a racist past (the students with the flag claimed they were Lynard Skynard fans).

I think that, if you find yourself typing the word 'homosexual', you should step back, remove the sentence, and take a deep breath. And maybe even step away from the article.  :-) JHK

Whence comes this desire to censor the word homosexual? Do you believe that my opinion of homosexuality is hate speech? If so, why? -- Ed Poor

No, Ed, I don't-- I think that it is a buzzword we all recognize from you and we know it means you are about to try to infuse an article with your moral viewpoint.

What's a buzzword? Is that a term which has no actual meaning, as in Orwell's duckspeak?
I am indeed infusing the article with my viewpoint. If my viewpoint needs labeling or attribution, please edit for completeness.

You might do the same. Private institutions have a right to censor some speech, generally to prevent tensions leading to violence.

You seem to be saying that certain groups must be protected from criticism, lest they become violent. If so, it seems to me that members of such groups should be excluded from universities if they cannot control their propensity for violence. Or at least, people who tend to react violently to criticism should be taught to control themselves. I see no reason to restrict free speech, just because thin-skinned people might run riot.

If a stuident chooses to apply to such an institution, he has agreed implicitly to abide by those rules -- just as, if a student were to apply to and study at Bob jones, and was caught having sex, he could expect to be expelled. Not a big difference. I am not a proponant of PC -- I think it often keeps us from looking at the real underlying problems. Still, actions based on hatred of particular groups is illegal in the US.

I hate people who think particular groups should get immunity from criticism. I'm taking "action" against one right now, by posting this comment. Am I guilty of a hate crime? --Ed

And more hate crimes are perpetrated against minorities (or at least reported) than against white males.

I vigorously oppose discrimination based on race, religion, country of origin, and sex. But hate speech rules do nothing to stop this discrimination. -- Ed

And now, Ed, I have actual meaningful work to do. I know you're trying to pick fights, which is hardly Christian or charitable, and I regret being drawn in.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I am just explaining and defending my edits. If there is something un-NPOV in an article, feel free to edit it. But please don't delete text simply because it differs from YOUR POV. You can call me an axe-grinder if you want (even though according to your own definition that would be hate speech), but ad hominem arguments are useless here.

I have already resolved that I do not have the time to explain legitimate edits (based on NPOV grammar, and facts) to people with axes to grind. Your axe is way too big. You refuse to accept that you write most of your articles from a non-NPOV, and then pick fights when people point this out. You don't deserve the amount of time people put into dealing with you. JHK

I concede that some of my first drafts contain sentences that are from a non-NPOV, but that doesn't mean that most of my articles are from a non-NPOV. Anyway, if there are errors, fix 'em. Be a cooperative citizen. --Ed Poor

Ed, if you can't say off the top of your head, shouldn't you take some time to research the topic before writing an encyclopedia article on it?

I think your idea to write an article on this topic is commendable, but this article seems vague and sloppy. Some suggestions

1) The first ammendment protects us from Congress, not from private individuals or corporations. Therefore, the only hate-speech rules that would threaten first-ammendment rights are those rules promolgated by Congress. (for example, if my father tells me that he will not tolerate certain kinds of speech at the dinner table he is NOT violating my first ammendment rights; indeed, many mericans would challenge Congress's right to prevent my father from making certain rules.

So any reasonable article must distinguish between Federal law and rules instituted by individuals or corporations

2) a useful article should be based on facts -- please provide summaries of various anti-hate-speech laws/codes/statuts, as well as summaries of any court rulings on the constitutionality of such codes.

Also, what is the theoretical/legal basis of this category? I would expect any encyclopedia article to provide a brief history (when was the concept first developed, when was the first piece of legislation) and also a review of the theoretical basis for the concept (Judith Butler, maybe?)

Someone else recently criticized you for submitting articles in which you had a bias. I do not agree with that -- we all have biases, and we can all struggle to bring some NPOV into our contributions, and I know you have tried to do that.

My only objection is when someone write an article about something they are ignorant of or have not sufficiently researched. SR

Actually, you're not quite accurate there. The First Amendment protects us from government action in general. Government entities, including states and state universities, may not limit speech beyond the very narrow definitions of illegal harassment, incitement to riot, and the infamous fighting words doctrine. Many universities try to get around this by simply calling their speech codes "harassment policies," but calling it a harassment policy doesn't make it not a speech code, not if it goes beyond banning actions that fall under the strict legal definition of harassment. Rogue 9 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

SR, you raise some good points:

  1. To what extent are universities permitted to curtail First Amendment rights? I suppose a private university could require students to practice the university's religion (establishment of religion) rather than some other religion (freedom of religion) and avoid expressing certain ideas aloud or in print (freedom of speech and press). But what if they accept public funding?
a fair point, a constitutional scholar would have to address this
  1. I had hoped my stub would encourage someone more knowledgeable than me to provide "summaries of various anti-hate-speech laws/codes/statutes."

However, I believe there is some value in submitting incompletely researched articles. I call them "stubs" and have often found that the mere act of submitting a stub often results in an expert taking a few moments to dash off an adequate article.

On the other hand, I have been often frustrated to find that people adhering to the politically correct orthodoxy would rather waste tame fruitlessly accusing me of bias than to fix incomplete articles. As one who frequently stumbles over the distinction between what I really know and what is merely my personal bias, I can sympathize with such people: they don't know any better.

So let's all stop the pissing match and start working together to fix the articles. --Ed Poor

Ed, I have done little to fix the article because I am not an expert in constitutional law or hate-speech. When I see a Wikipedia article and turn to it it is in the hope of being educated. This is why I expect authors of articles to have researched their contributions. Perhaps like you I would indeed like to see a good article on hate speech. I just prefer to leave it to people who are qualified.
My advice to you is this: if you would like to see an article in Wikipedia that you personally do not have time to research, propose it as a proposed article, and invite others to write it. SR
For example, for a college professor to say, "Lesbians should not be schoolteachers", could be considered hate speech.

The professor could be denied tenure, even if he were expressing his religious belief

Have there been cases like this or is this just a hypothetical in an attempt to discredit hate speech codes? If no evidence is provided, I will remove this paragraph. AxelBoldt

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5671.html. There are also plenty of other examples on that site, in both public and private university institutions. In fact, I'd add that site to the external links if I wasn't so certain someone would remove it for not being specific enough to the article. --I am not good at running 17:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I cut this:

Thus, the accusation is hypocritical because it condemns a person for a thing he didn't do.

because it is not true. Actually, I question the value of the hypothetical example itself; I think an encyclopedia article would be much bette served by providing a few real examples. I may end up cutting the whole hypothetical. But in the meantime, this one sentence is patently falst, the hypothetical itself presents a professor as having soaid something, and he is being condemned precisely for having said it, in other words, for what he actually did do. SR

I just NPOV'd this article some more. It isn't only "conservatives" who object to these codes. I object and I am not a conservative. Please look at the diffs. In most cases, I damped the enthusiasm for hate-speech codes down slightly. In one case (the hypothetical example), I strengthened the argument. I added serious objections to the notion that the First Amendment prohibits only government censorship. Ortolan88 15:18 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

This article says nothing about Canada or Europe, which have laws, some very interesting about hate speech. However, as we say on the Straight Dope Message Board, IANAL (I am not a lawyer). - user:Montrealais

I rewrote the introduction in an attempt to describe positions for and against the use of the term "hate speech". Seeing as it is a controversial term (as the disagreement here demonstrates) I think it is reasonably NPOV to call it one, and to outline the POVs involved. The details on academic speech codes are still sorely needed. --FOo

This entry really should emphasize the legal context. Anyone know what the story behind the "water buffalo" being hate speech is? --The Cunctator

Cunctator, a quick google search on "water buffalo" "hate speech" will provide you multiple references. Quick story - a white student called some female black students "water buffalo" - hate speech charges ensued.
In fact, the "caller", Eden Jacobowitz, was Israeli, and (at least according to some articles) he came up with "water buffalo" as a translation for behemah, a piece of Israeli Hebrew slang for "fool". There seems to me little meat to the idea that this was racist; it was a foreign student being misunderstood and put through hell for it.
A similar incident happened on a much smaller scale when I was in college; a white student working on a group project with two black students became frustrated with the lack of effort the two were putting into the project, and remarked, "You people are lazy." She meant "you (two particular students) are lazy", but the two took her statement as meaning "black people are lazy". This is a dialect difference: in some areas of the U.S., "you people" is used to refer to two or more individuals being addressed by the speaker, whereas in other areas, it only refers to a larger group such as a population. It almost became a campus "hate speech" incident, but thankfully, this was after Jacobowitz and the water buffalo, and people had better ways to respond to "racist" misunderstandings. --FOo

A new case is in the works that's just making the news -- two African American women are suing an airline because a stewardess, trying to get everyone to sit down so they could take off, said, "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo, grab a seat, we've got to go." -- Zoe

I dont think thats hate speech though... perhaps racist speech, but not... -&#35918&#30505

Hate speech in other countries: don't Germany and Canada, other countries, have actual laws on this? Ortolan88

Australia has hate speech laws. Can't say about other countries, bu I thought most civilised countries did. Tannin

Not the US. Laws like that are against the law in the United States (see article) and most of us are fine with that. My point was that those laws ought to be in this article. Ortolan88

The article needs a major rewrite:

  • How do proponents of hate speech codes define hate speech?
  • What do they hope to gain by promulgating these speech codes?
  • How do opponents of these codes feel about the issue?
  • What sort of punishments or adverse actions have been taken, e.g., in academia, against those deemed to have violated these codes?
  • What is the relationship of hate speech to hate crimes? That is, if someone stabs you and takes your wallet, is that worse or bettr than calling you a faggot and giving you a few bruises? (In the law's eyes, I mean)

--Uncle Ed 19:29 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, I like your rewrites, but this example has to go. It doesn't fit into the first para of the article, and it's pretty silly any way you cut it. Personally I think your definition is sufficient, though perhaps one could mention that determining what is and is not hate speech can be a complex issue.

Calling Netanyahu a "war criminal" for his role in a massacre, for example, would not be hate speech. Referring to Michael Jackson as a "nigger chimpanzee", however, would be.

Dachshund

Hate speech is language held to express hatred or contempt towards a person or group of people for reasons other than their behavior. Can we safely exclude behavior? I don't think we can. Arguably, some people's hatred of homosexuals is based on homosexuals' (perceived) behavior, e.g. disgust for the idea of gay men having anal sex. There are certainly plenty of rude and hateful words for it based on that act.

Also, that the idea that a category of speech called "hate speech" exists or is useful in public discourse is still a controversial idea. I for one do not think there is a meaningful boundary between "hate speech" and "hateful speech" or "aggressive speech with which the speaker disagrees." Therefore it seems to me that the article should not be about what "hate speech" is, but rather what are those things which some people call "hate speech", and why do they call them that? In this regard, it bothers me that my explicit use of the word "controversial" in the introduction has been removed more than once in the editing of this article. --FOo

France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of Anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters.

California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the very right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds. + 207.200.116.71 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving stuff

I am moving a couple things in here. I find the "untenable" comment to be innaccurate, and POV. If somebody wants to reword these, so be it. Also, this page in general has some pretty hearty POV issues, and I think it needs some help. I am half tempted to dispute the neutrality, but I think I should complain in here for awhile 1st. :) Here are the things I cut:


Critics of this position hold that such a position is untenable, in that it depends on denying what they argue are historical truths, i.e. that hate speech in practice sometimes is used to incite murder and genocide.


Critics of this position hold that such a position is untenable, in that it depends on the presumed goodwill of those purveying hate speech, and it assumes without proof that one can avoid incitement to murder and genocide by discussion alone.

JackLynch

Why? Hate speech codes, and speech codes in general, in any public institution are untenable; the 1989 Supreme Court case Doe v. University of Michigan saw to that. Rogue 9 03:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

It is obvious to me and to some others that there is a LEFTIST cabal within the Wiki community that is ALWAYS enforcing Marxist-PC Dogmatism and REVERTING and editing and censoring, accordingly, and without any real regard to enforcing the WIKI NPOV. For example:

[snip]

--Paul Vogel

I have moved this snip I found in final list of articles related to Hate speech, that looks much more appropriate here:

All bands contained in the Wikipedia Category Neo-nazi music, which seems to have as only purpose to spam Wikipedia with hate contents. NPOV does not mean spam all your external links on the Nazi side, and then put anti-nazi content. No, anti-nazi form not only a majority, but a neutral point of view (devoided of revisionism), and should ask for deletion of such pages (Rock Against Communism is the only exception, as it is not a spam entry made for promotion of hate-bands, but an entry on the history of this nazi movement).

--Cyclopia 14:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

I don't consider Rush Limbaugh "hate speech", but it keeps getting added to the See also section. Since it's a highly debatable point, and the Rush Limbaugh article itself only notes that his broadcasts are "compared by some to hate speech", I think we should pass judgment and leave he and Ann Coulter out of this section.

--Ultra Megatron 18:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disgree, Feminazi is a clear instance of hate speech, though he doesnt use it any more. But if one replaced liberal with Jew in Rush's moronic diatribes, it would be all-too-clear how similar to Joseph Goebbels he is.

[edit] Would these link be relevant material for External Links?

Would these links be relevant material for this article, or would they belong in a more specific article that covers speech codes?

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050524-100551-2231r.htm Italian journalist under trial for "insulting" Islam

http://www.thefire.org The FIRE -- site + relevant news stories pertaining to university speech codes

--I am not good at running 17:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I would like to point out that Sam's demands to cite my sources are rather superfluous, as the article itself states that hate speech encompasses more than simply incitement to violence. Pointing out that any attempt to say that letting hate speech be aired so that it can be exposed to reason is an attempt to reason with would-be murderers is completely disingenuous in light of this fact is simply stating the obvious; anyone reading the whole article can see it. Rogue 9 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

thats a POV. Readers come here to read cited, verifiable POV's, not anonymous editorial POV's. If you cite it, it can be included. if not, (and even you don't seem to think it is needed) it can be left out. Sam Spade 21:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
What can be left out is the illegitimate counter-criticism. Surely you can see that arguing for the refutation of racist speech, for example, is not simply saying that "one can avoid incitement to murder and genocide by discussion alone," since the vast majority of racists are not interested in genocide. It is a ridiculous strawman fallacy, and nothing but. Furthermore, I have my doubts as to whether the article can be considered evenhanded in the first place, since it goes well out of its way to make sure that every counter-argument to hate speech laws has some sort of refutation attached to it, even if that refutation simply doesn't follow. Rogue 9 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and all such "refutations" should also be removed, unless they have acitation. Readers don't come here to find out what wikipedians think, but rather to read encyclopedic info. Please remove any such uncited commentary. Sam Spade 22:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Comments

This is a good article, but it fails to address a critical issue, and that is that so-called hate speech restricts not only political but also scientific discourse

A good example is the science behind homosexuality. There is no scientific consensus regarding the origin or mechanism of homsexuality, and by supressing so-called hate-speech, one also inherently supresses legitimate scientific conjecture. For example, there is a theory that homosexuality is a choice, at least in some individuals, and that this choice may be influenced by environment. By dening statements like "lesbians should not be school teachers", these laws supress legitimate scientific inquiry rather than arguing for or against the question with real scientific evidence..and in doing so these laws are very dangerous for everyone involved

(Actually, it's been scientifically proven that homosexuality isn't a choice, but something that you're born with. I know you weren't stating your views either way, and that this is besides the point, but I thought I'd point this out, as the choice idea can hardly be called a 'theory' anymore.) --DearPrudence 03:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politically-Correct Hate Speech

Need to say something about the fact that hate speech from the Left is usually not classified as such, although it often meets the criteria. For example, had it not come from the Left, much of what Andrea Dworkin said and wrote would be classified as hate speech. -- LKS 5/15/06

It's dangerous to use the passive voice when discussing intentional actions such as classifying. When you say "x is usually not classified as y", you mask the issue of who is doing the classifying. Your grammatical construction gives the impression that some impersonal force is doing it, whereas I'm sure that what you have in mind is specific acts of classification done by specific people. --FOo 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think you need to have in mind specific acts made by specific people about this issue. I guess that LKS just talks about a general statistic. --Cyclopia 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's a "general statistic" then there must be specific examples too. If there's a true general statement, like "Most Americans in May 2006 disapprove of George W. Bush," then there must also actually be a lot of specific instances of it, like individual Americans who have that belief. That's why pollsters ask individuals questions, rather than just making up numbers based on what they feel should be true.
If LKS's claim is true, then there must exist a plethora of individual cases in which someone considered Andrea Dworkin's speech, contemplated whether it was "hate speech", and decided that it was not because she was a leftist. I am challenging LKS to actually present some concrete evidence of this claim. --FOo 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure LKS should substantiate his/her claim (that's quite POV-risky, btw, even if I can agree with it at a certain point, personally). However it is obvious that the chances of the existence of "concrete evidence" of someone positively asserting that speech X is not hate speech just because it comes from the left are slim to none -just because if this phenomenon exists, no one would openly admit it. On the other hand, individual examples would mean nothing to the generality of the claim. Short said, you're missing the point IMHO. What LKS should bring us is evidence of ongoing discussion on the subject, that would gain his hypothesis at least the status of current controversy. --Cyclopia 23:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The concept of hate speech arose from the Left. Politically-Correct Hate Speech is just speech from the Left that is "hateful" but is not defined as such, since it is the Left that (currently) does the defining.-- LKS 5/19/06

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. Some groups that are quite active in labeling and opposing "hate speech", such as the Anti-Defamation League, are frequently critical of leftist speakers. --FOo 06:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that the concept of "Hate Speech" didn't arise from the Left? Shirley, you jest! -- LKS 6/1/06

[edit] Hate speech codes and censorship in academia

This entire section is biased against speech codes in academia. While this may or may not be right or wrong, wikipedia is not the place to spout one's personal views. Furthermore the example of the teacher not wanting a lesbian to be tenured does not add anything of value to this article except to be inflammatory:

For example, for a college professor to say, "Lesbians should not be schoolteachers," could be considered hate speech. The professor could be denied tenure, even if he were expressing his religiously-based belief that homosexuals should not be put in positions where they can influence young people. Underlying such a claim is the belief that homosexuals in positions of influence over young people might influence their sexuality. Opponents would argue that the underlying theory behind the words suggests a false understanding of the nature of human sexuality with their usage designed to promote fear of homosexuals and their supposed influence on children among non-homosexuals, so leading to hatred of, and discrimination against, homosexuals.

I think that passage should just be removed. This sounds as if the writer is trying to justify a position without regard to the topic of censorship in academia. --VTEX 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The very concept of Hate Speech is anathema to the concept of Free Speech, especially on university campuses and in the press.--LKS 6/1/06


is often made to suppress points of view that are unfavorable to certain "protected groups", which represents a significant infringement of the tradition of academic freedom and gives members of these groups an unfair advantage in the so-called "marketplace of ideas"

This whole passage reads badly and stinks with NPOV using weasel words. What are these "protected groups", can we have examples? What do you mean by so-called "marketplace of ideas" - Should one expect to have freedom of ideas in academia or should ideas in academia be guided by science and reason? Despite the answer to this, it is inappropriate for this section to address this question.

I think all that is appropriate in this section is a statement describing what hate speech codes are and that they exist in academia.

--VTEX 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This actually is already described in the speech code section above, so we should probably just get rid of the academia speech code section altogether. --VTEX 18:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Uses of Hate Speech

This article needs to say something about the fact that labeling speech as hateful is usually an attempt to silence an opposing point of view. Also, this article needs to acknowledge that the concept of Hate Speech arose from the Left. --LKS 6/1/06

That wouldn't be very NPOV. Powers 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I second that. Furthermore, Hate Speech is specifically speech that is demeaning to a person or group of people and has nothing to do with silencing opposing viewpoints. This type of speech is on the same level as yelling "Fire" in a crowded building with the intention to start a panic. It is meant to do one thing: hurt other people. --VTEX 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foucault

What is this stuff about Michel Foucault doing here?

Michel Foucault's statement according to which sexuality has not only been censored during the Victorian era: it was also put in discourse through a "sexuality dispositif", thus transforming "sex" into what the West names "sexuality". In this case, censorship of sexuality has made the discourse of sexuality proliferate, with the constitution of a huge amount of scientific or pseudo-scientific literature on "sexuality", conceived as the secret of our own personal identities.

I can see that it's used as an example of a previous argument. But as such, it just goes on. It's off-topic and it's riotously contentious. Which pseudo-scientific literature? Who has "conceived" this? And who is the "we" of "our own sexual identities"? And what on earth does "dispositif" mean? MacMurrough 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/t/Talk%7EHate_speech_fa6a.html"