Recognizing Hate Speech

[Demonos]

In the real world, as well as in our simulated ones within Nationstates and Lazarus, there have been trends of intolerant movements led by individuals who target groups of people and incite violence or prejudicial treatment against them. Labels such as; religion, nationality, race, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, and language; are utilized to identify groups of people with the intention of abuse. Such speech, when left to continue without any type of check, can and has been the prerequisite action for further subsequent acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Deplorable acts that are the downfall of civilized societies. Hate speech destabilizes peace between nations. It grows like a cancer and fosters distrust and ill will between people. 

The United Nations defines hate speech as, "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour [sic], that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour [sic], descent, gender or other identity factor."(1) Věra Jourová, VP of the European Commission for Values and Transparency said, "The spread of illegal hate speech online not only distresses the people it targets, it also affects those who speak up for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our society."(2) As all communications of our community are done online, hate speech has an especially negative role affecting our Lazarene population. When individuals publish statements either on the RMB, offsite forum, or discord that are hate speech what can be done?

Are we a region that will condone this type of communication? Will we continue to do nothing while others utilize hate speech time and time again? The argument which arises from this discussion is what to do with nations who utilize hate speech as part of their RP. It can be argued that hate speech is an OOC problem to be handled by an NS moderator in the end. What if hate speech is an IC device? What happens when the mods continuously censure a nation and yet that nation does not change course but pursues their direction attacking others based on their identities? 

Freedom of speech is often thrown around wither to excuse this behavior or argue for inaction. Yet in real free societies, freedom of speech has its limitations. In the United States, Schenck v. United States, (3) argued that one can not go into a movie theater and yell, "fire!" Should one's speech in the US incite an action that would harm someone else, that statement is not protected free speech. When a "clear and present danger" exists, it can not be ignored that such speech is criminal. The Human Rights Act of 1998 in the United Kingdom specifically states that freedom of expression, "“may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.”(4) In the German interpretation of free speech we find that the freedom of expression, "shall find [its] limits in the provisions of general laws"(5) and has found it in regards to individuals denying the holocaust or displaying nazi propaganda.(6) Such speech is implied hate speech even by German standards.

In Lazarus, our freedom of speech is assumed and broadly interpreted because we bring our countrys' values along with us. Some of us here are from the US, the UK, Canada, the EU, etc. We often interpret our freedoms by bringing our real world values with us. The 12th Mandate falls short of enumerating our right to free expression. Nor does it reserve the adjudication and abridgment of the right to free expression. Therefore, it will shelter the prejudices of the few whose modus operandi is to spread discordance through divisive hate speech thus presenting a danger to our peace and harmony throughout our region.

We therefore recommend that the assembly adopt an amendment to the criminal code that forbids hate speech on the RMB, off-sight forum, and discord that will be enforced with an ejection and ban from Lazarus should action already have been taken by NS moderators to censure the hate speech of resident nations. 

Sources

(1) pg.2, "UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH",  https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention...NOPSIS.pdf  

(2) United Against Hate Speech on the Web: Where do we stand? - Speech by Commissioner Jourová at Conference with German Justice Minister Maas; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscor...CH_16_3188

(3) Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

(4) See Schedule 1, Art. 10, The Human Rights Act 1998, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

(5) See. "Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany" ; https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-exp...ermany.php

(6) See " Holocaust Denial Laws and Other Legislation Criminalizing Promotion of Nazism; https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/holo...-laws.html

[joWhatup]

It can be argued that hate speech is an OOC problem to be handled by an NS moderator in the end.

Forgive me for the awful quoting.

I don’t think anyone wishes to argue so. Rather, hate speech is something that should be dealt with outside of IC laws. We have maintained this same policy with spammers: the delegate or the Auditors are free to ban them, with no laws required. Same goes for admin banning harrassers from the forums or discord. Hate speech, like the aforementioned instances, is something purely OOC. Our law, on the other hand, deals with the IC side of things.

In summary, I do not believe a change in the law is beneficial or required - the delegate and Auditors are free to ban hate speech, as well as spammers, as they always have.

[Apimenia]

In the United States, Schenck v. United States, (3) argued that one can not go into a movie theater and yell, "fire!" Should one's speech in the US incite an action that would harm someone else, that statement is not protected free speech. When a "clear and present danger" exists, it can not be ignored that such speech is criminal.

That argument was used to try and prevent people from criticizing the draft, and punish them for doing so. Such speech was considered "dangerous" by that particular lawyer. It says so even in your source. Facts of the case:

"During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment."

(Schenck and Baer won that appeal, by the way, and the original case was overturned.) Everyone seems to have a different opinion about what "dangerous" speech looks like. It's a subjective matter. That's why people in the U.S. are leery of hate speech laws. They are amazingly easy to abuse and leaders are human enough to do just that, if they think they can get away with it.

That being said, that's my stance IRL. Online groups are basically exclusive clubs and they should be able to ban anyone for any reason. So, regarding Lazarus and online discussion, I agree with joWhatup. It seems the passing of this law would be extraneous.

[McChimp]

Nobody said that such incidents are to be left to the NS moderation alone. We have our own OOC administration who supersede all IC laws and this falls very much in their domain.

Against.

[Mzeusia]

I agree with McChimp, but I also think that, given what led to this discussion, the administration should make a strong statement about what is allowed, what is not, and the punishments people can expect if they don't comply.

[Demonos]

Rather, hate speech is  something that should be dealt with outside of IC laws. We have maintained this same policy with spammers: the delegate or the Auditors are free to ban them, with no laws required. Same goes for admin banning harrassers from the forums or discord. Hate speech, like the aforementioned instances, is something purely OOC. Our law, on the other hand, deals with the IC side of things.

In summary, I do not believe a change in the law is beneficial or required - the delegate and Auditors are free to ban hate speech, as well as spammers, as they always have.

There is no change in law because 1) the custom is already weighted against hate speech 2)there isn't a law recognizing hate speech as okay. What we suggest is publishing a concrete statement in Lazarene active laws that will display our intentions to end the practice. We must stop hate speech. The laws shelter them in their current state. Truly, it is easy to ban puppet nations, yet do they do so for WA nations? Rarely. There must be a policy that recognizes the protection of a person's identity from abusive attack.   

Nobody said that such incidents are to be left to the NS moderation alone. We have our own OOC administration who supersede all IC laws and this falls very much in their domain.

Against.

So let me get this strait, you are against an overt law that recognizes hate speech? Granted, there may be admin but as of now they have done nothing to prevent nations from continuing their hate speech. Their actions, so far, have been to suppress and alert moderators but nations in Lazarus continue to use hate speech. We believe the admin does very little to really combat the practice. It's mostly ignored after the fact.

[Demonos]

That argument was used to try and prevent people from criticizing the draft, and punish them for doing so. Such speech was considered "dangerous" by that particular lawyer. It says so even in your source. Facts of the case:

"During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment."

(Schenck and Baer won that appeal, by the way, and the original case was overturned.) Everyone seems to have a different opinion about what "dangerous" speech looks like. It's a subjective matter. That's why people in the U.S. are leery of hate speech laws. They are amazingly easy to abuse and leaders are human enough to do just that, if they think they can get away with it.

That being said, that's my stance IRL. Online groups are basically exclusive clubs and they should be able to ban anyone for any reason. So, regarding Lazarus and online discussion, I agree with joWhatup. It seems the passing of this law would be extraneous.

The case also contains a test used by judges called "clear and present danger". When certain forms of speech are put to this test and show that their intent is to harm individuals, then the speech in question is not protected constitutionally. The case has been used in subsequent cases to strike down a defendant's claim to protected speech. We refer to this case because it is necessary to determine what hate speech is then make a policy to enforce a punitive action against it much like they do in the US today.

[Ryccia]

This should not be in the criminal code. The Administration alone can deal with such OOC matters. To codify hate speech into IC law means recognizing it as a legitimate crime worthy of the attention of Lazarene society. It should not even face our courts to begin with. Rather, it must be flushed away immediately, for it has no place in the NS universe we play.

[Demonos]

This should not be in the criminal code. The Administration alone can deal with such OOC matters. To codify hate speech into IC law means recognizing it as a legitimate crime worthy of the attention of Lazarene society. It should not even face our courts to begin with. Rather, it must be flushed away immediately, for it has no place in the NS universe we play.

Then why is Loftegen 3 still here?

[Ryccia]

This should not be in the criminal code. The Administration alone can deal with such OOC matters. To codify hate speech into IC law means recognizing it as a legitimate crime worthy of the attention of Lazarene society. It should not even face our courts to begin with. Rather, it must be flushed away immediately, for it has no place in the NS universe we play.

Then why is Loftegen 3 still here?

I have never heard of any region explicitly codifying hate speech into criminal law. If you feel it to be necessary, I would suggest making your case to the Administration. Acknowledging hate speech in IC law means that we acknowledge it as an IC offense which can be punished by IC methods, and thus it has a role (albeit negative) in IC society. I am not willing to have that. We don't prosecute sexual harassment or doxxing with IC laws, for example, the Administration is in charge of punishing such vile behaviour.