Tag: hate speech

State ‘Bias Response Hotlines’ Encourage People To Snitch on Their Neighbors for ‘Hate Speech’

By the end of this year, as many as 100 million Americans could live in a state where they can be reported to a “bias response hotline” for a wide range of protected speech. While states claim that these reporting mechanisms don’t punish people for non-criminal speech acts, many also claim to attempt to stop hateful speech incidents “before they occur.”

According to a recent report in The Washington Free Beacon by reporter Aaron Sibarium, these reporting systems allow people to “snitch” on their neighbors. Connecticut allows people to report “hate speech” they “heard about but did not see.” Vermont encourages citizens to call the police over “biased but protected speech.” Philadelphia actually directs people to give the names of alleged offenders so they can be contacted.

“If it is not a crime, we sometimes contact the offending party and try to do training so that it doesn’t happen again,” Saterria Kersey, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, told Sibarium.

Oregon’s Bias Response hotline encourages citizens to report not only hate crimes, but also “non-criminal hostile expression motivated in part or whole by” someone’s protected identity. These incidents can include “hate speech,” “displaying hateful symbols or flags,” and “telling or sharing offensive ‘jokes’ about someone’s identity.”

What happens when someone calls this hotline? The Free Beacon called the hotline and reported a fictional incident—a man, identifying himself as a Muslim said that he felt “targeted” by his neighbor’s Israeli flag. 

“Within 20 minutes, a hotline operator had logged the display in a ‘state database,’ referred to it as a ‘warning sign,’ and suggested installing security cameras in case the situation ‘escalates,'” Sibarium writes. “He also informed this reporter that, ‘as a victim of a bias incident,’ he could apply for taxpayer-funded therapy through the state’s Crime Victims Compensation Program, which covers counseling costs for bias incidents as well as crimes.”

Even though nothing criminal had allegedly occurred—or even something that could be fairly described as objectively offensive—the operator nonetheless treated the report with immense gravity.

“Even if it is not very explicit, we go with whatever the victim is experiencing,” the operator said during the call. “And if your sense is that this is based on discrimination against your faith or your country of origin…that’s how I would document it.”

Keep reading

EU Updates Digital Rules Requiring Big Tech To Allow ‘Reporters’ To Monitor Hate Speech

Under a revised code of conduct on online speech, the European Commission says that Big Tech signatories need to allow a network of “monitoring reporters” to regularly monitor hate speech notices.

On Jan. 20, the European Commission announced that updated hate speech guidelines will be folded into the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The DSA is an EU-wide regulation that regulates the obligations of digital services.

Part of this requires social media platforms to remove, and take other specified steps to deal with, what is deemed disinformation. The DSA fully came into force in 2024.

Under the revised code, companies that are signed up must allow a network of “monitoring reporters” that are nonprofit or public entities with expertise on illegal hate speech to regularly monitor how the signatories are reviewing hate speech notices.

They will have to review at least two-thirds of hate speech notices received from monitoring reporters within 24 hours.

The EU said that the updated code of conduct, a voluntary instrument, builds on a 2016 code on “countering illegal hate speech online.”

European Commission Spokesperson Thomas Regnier told The Epoch Times by email that Facebook, Instagram, and X are among the signatories of the new code of conduct. These platforms were also part of the previous code of conduct, initiated in 2016, he said.

It was also signed by Dailymotion,  Jeuxvideo.com, LinkedIn, Microsoft-hosted consumer services, Snapchat, Rakuten Viber, TikTok, Twitch, and YouTube.

The EU also wants signatories to present “country-level data broken down by the internal classification of hate speech (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation).”

Some of the monitoring reporters include Amnesty International Italia, German organisation HateAid, and the French Ministry of the Interior’s dedicated portal to cybercrime, PHAROS.

Keep reading

Great Britain Cracks Down On “Non-Crime Hate” Speech, Including Playground Taunts

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”

According to the Daily Mail:

“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”

“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines.

It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.

The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”

Keep reading

EU’s Věra Jourová Labels Elon Musk a “Promoter of Evil” for Permitting “Hate Speech” on X

Věra Jourová is not a psychologist but she decided to play one during an interview, by “diagnosing” X owner Elon Musk as a person unable to “recognize” good and evil.

But then, he apparently can, after all – because Jourová in the same breath accused him of being “a promoter of evil.”

Jourová is an EU bureaucrat on her way out, after serving as Vice President of the Commission for Values and Transparency for the past five years.

“Good riddance. If she wants to see evil, I suggest she use a mirror,” Musk shot back in a post on X, adding that Jourová is the “epitome of banal, bureaucratic evil.”

Jourová is known for pushing anti-free speech legislation such as enabling mass surveillance of private messages (which she claims is “privacy-preserving” and “not breaking encryption”), combating “disinformation and hate speech,” and even going after whoever the EU decides is a conspiracy theorist by using law enforcement.

Keep reading

American Author Could Face Prison in Germany Over Satirical Swastika

A German court has found CJ Hopkins, an American writer living in that country, guilty of hate speech, which is treated as an unconstitutional activity. This overturned a previous acquittal by the Tiergarten District Court.

“Hate speech” in the case amounts to Hopkins using Nazi imagery to express his protest about Germany’s Covid-era policies, including what he called “New Normal Germany” – a satirical take on how that compares to Nazi Germany.

The imagery that caught the authorities’ attention was posted on X, including an illustration showing a white face mask with a white swastika superimposed on it.

Even though a lower court in January found this did not represent “hate speech,” on the last day of September, the Berlin Appellate Court disagreed. In a blog post, Hopkins, who has been residing in Germany since 2004, says that “the New Normal German authorities (…) were determined to punish me.”

To highlight the absurdity of the situation, Hopkins told the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that the second trial went with anti-terrorism measures in the courtroom. This meant a small number of people were allowed to attend, behind a glass panel, while journalists could not bring in laptops or even notebooks and pens.

Now, the case is back at the Tiergarten Court which is supposed to sentence him – the author is looking at up to three years in prison. And while the Berlin court’s decision itself can’t be appealed, Hopkins told FIRE he would go to the highest legal instance in Germany – the Federal Constitutional Court (ostensibly after the district court rules again).

Keep reading

‘Migrant’ Now Racist Hatespeech, Says Unelected Language Cop

I have a great and abiding disdain — and you should too, if you have self-respect — for social engineers who assume for themselves the moral prerogative to dictate what terms are allowed to be uttered in public or prohibited, on a rolling and arbitrary basis, forever.

English is not their language; they didn’t build it; they have no right to distort it by fiat.

I won’t heed any linguistic commandments, and you shouldn’t either.

Related: WATCH: British State Media Hack Does Migrant Propaganda, Polish MEP Immediately Slaps Her Down

Reading the below screed from The Intercept, if one had been dropped off into the stratosphere from Mars and didn’t have any context, one would assume the term “migrant” emerged straight out of some Holocaust propaganda production — and not where it actually came from, which is the neoliberal international NGO class itself, which facilitates mass migration to drown the West in cultural eradication.

The entire article should rightly come with a giant “Citation Needed” affixation; not one time is there any hard evidence presented that “migrant” is used in a racist manner by racists. It’s very long on innuendo and short on facts.

Via The Intercept (emphasis added):

“Consider the word “migrant.” Today, it’s the term of art from both the right and the left…

It used to be fairly rare to call human beings migrants. From the 16th to 19th centuries, the word mostly referred to birds and other animals that moved back and forth between different climates and terrains every year, not from desire or planning but from pure, immutable instinct…

Now, everyone who leaves a poor or troubled country and comes north to the United States is a “migrant.”…

The word “migrant” implies that they’re traveling around unsettled: rolling stones with no intention of gathering moss and no right to land in one place.”

Naturally, no Social Justice™ manifesto would be complete without a reference to the Nazis, who notoriously pinned “migrant” stickers of shame on the Jews while corralling them into the trains… or something.

Keep reading

Ireland drops controversial “hate speech” legislation to criminalise online speech deemed as “incitement to hatred”

On Saturday, The Irish Times reported that the Irish government will drop the incitement to hatred section of the bill, focusing instead on hate crime legislation that provides for tougher sentences when hate is proven as a motivation for an offence.

Justice Minister Helen McEntee said that the “incitement to hatred” element of the bill does “not have a consensus” and will be dealt with at a later time.  She is “adamant” that hate crime legislation would be enacted.  In the meantime, she plans to include committee stage amendments to the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 in the Seanad.

The decision comes after increased opposition from within the government, opposition parties and free speech groups, including tech billionaire Elon Musk, who vowed to fund legal challenges against the proposed legislation.

The controversy surrounding the bill highlighted concerns about the potential for vague definitions and overreach, with critics arguing that it could criminalise memes, books or videos deemed politically offensive.

Keep reading

The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate”

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

In societies which uphold the value of individual liberty, the only purpose of the criminal law should be to restrain and punish those who commit acts of aggression against other people or their property. The criminal law should not be used to prevent people from “hating” others or to force them to “love” each other. In announcing yet another raft of laws “to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that “During these challenging times, we will continue to show up for each other. We are making it clear: love will always have the last word in New York.” To that end, she introduced “legislation to significantly expand eligibility for hate crime prosecution.”

Attempts to promote love between different racial or religious groups in society, for example, by charging people with stirring up “hate” when they protest against immigration, misunderstands the role of the criminal law. Threats to public order entail violating the person or property of others—as happens in a violent riot—not merely the exhibition of “hate” towards others. Yet increasingly, public order offenses are linked to hate speech or hate crimes.

Laws prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes typically define “hate” as hostility based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Often, hostility is understood simply as words that offend others. For example, in the UK, the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act 2023 targets illegal content online including both “inciting violence” and the publication of “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.” Conduct online includes writing posts or publishing blogs or articles on websites.

Given that inciting violence is already a crime—“conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection”—there seems to be no discernible purpose in adding the concept of “hate” to such crimes. To give an example, writing “burn down the store” on social media might be seen as inciting violence, but writing “burn down the Muslim store” in the same circumstances would be categorized as a hate crime. Arson (actually burning down the store) is a crime, but based on the racial or religious identity of the store owner arson is deemed to be a “worse” crime—a hate crime—even though the harm in both cases and the loss suffered by store owners who are victims of arson does not vary based purely on their race or religion.

Keep reading

Free Speech at Risk: UN Pushes for Global “Hate Speech” Eradication

In a statement issued on the occasion of the “International Day for Countering Hate Speech,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for the global eradication of so-called “hate speech,” which he described as inherently toxic and entirely intolerable.

The issue of censoring “hate speech” stirs significant controversy, primarily due to the nebulous and subjective nature of its definition. At the heart of the debate is a profound concern: whoever defines what constitutes hate speech essentially holds the power to determine the limits of free expression.

This power, wielded without stringent checks and balances, leads to excessive censorship and suppression of dissenting voices, which is antithetical to the principles of a democratic society.

Guterres highlighted the historic and ongoing damage caused by hate speech, citing devastating examples such as Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and Bosnia to suggest that speech leads to violence and even crimes against humanity.

“Hate speech is a marker of discrimination, abuse, violence, conflict, and even crimes against humanity. We have time and again seen this play out from Nazi Germany to Rwanda, Bosnia and beyond. There is no acceptable level of hate speech; we must all work to eradicate it completely,” Guterres said.

Keep reading

The EU is on the Brink off Making “Hate Speech” a Serious Crime

The EU’s European Commission (EC) appears to be preparing to include “hate speech” among the list of most serious criminal offenses and regulate its investigation and prosecution across the bloc.

Whether this type of proposal is cropping up now because of the upcoming EU elections or if the initiative has legs will become obvious in time, but for now, the plans are supported by several EC commissioners.

The idea stems from the European Citizens’ Panel on Tackling Hatred in Society, one of several panels (ECPs) established to help EC President Ursula von der Leyen with her (campaign?) promise of ushering in a democracy in the EU that is “fit for the future.”

That could mean anything, and the vagueness by no means stops there: the very “hate speech,” despite the gravity of the proposals to classify it as a serious crime, is not even well defined, observers are warning.

Despite that, the recommendations contained in a report produced by the panel have been backed by EC’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova as well as Vice President for Democracy and Demography Dubravka Suica.

According to Jourova, the panel’s recommendations on how to deal with “hate speech” are “clear and ambitious” – although, as noted, a clear definition of that type of speech is still be lacking.

This is the wording the report went for: any speech that is “incompatible with the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect of human rights” should be considered as “hate speech.”

Keep reading