Part of the definition is making a false generalization, "Blue-eyed devils"
can serve as an example. This stands for the proposition that all White
people are active evil-doers. True enough in the case of isolated
individuals, sometimes true of pretty good size mobs, even entire
nation-states, but considered seriously, false and resulint in incitment.
Intention is another part of a reasonable definition as an aggravating
factor. Hate-speech is intended to produce action, or at least change in
behavior, perhaps from tolerance to rejection.
Some problems exist with that definition, for example as Bush or Kerry
campaign both attempt false generalizations intended to produce change in
behavior. So it is also a matter of degree, a change in voting being at one
extreme, the holocaust the other, thus addition of the qualifier "extreme".
So hate speech is a false generalization about an ethnic group, religious or
political orientation or other identifiable group which tends to produce a
change in behavior that is extremely unfavorable to that group. Calculated
intention is an aggravation of the offense but not necessary.
Fred
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 16:04:09 +0000
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] in the last year hatespeech seems to have
become acceptable
On 07/04/04 15:02, Robert wrote:
It doesn't matter if the hatespeech is
towards Jews,
blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, or anyone else. It has no
place in an encyclopedia project, let alone in a society
where we claim to respect human life.
Define "hate speech". With a definition that is likely to
achieve consensus agreement. A consensus definition is an
absolute minimum requirement for what you're asking for.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l