Opinion Florida Makes It Defamatory To Call Someone Transphobic, Racist or Sexist

[Jack V Savage]

So it's simply that the speech must be accompanied by an action and the speech then can elevate the crime to a hate crime? Nowhere is the speech alone considered criminal?

Not aware of any examples, and I know that's generally been rejected. Are you aware of any exceptions? That's also not how "hate crimes" generally work.

 

[mkess101]

Not aware of any examples, and I know that's generally been rejected. Are you aware of any exceptions?

I remember reading about a few but I think what happens is that the courts interpreted very broadly things like incitement or defamation in order to sort of find a backdoor to the illegality of someone using what most would deem hate speech. And iirc at least one (maybe more) were overturned on appeal. So it was sort of de facto hate speech laws but since I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar there admittedly could have been nuance that I missed.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Or someone that supports free speech. Remember this legislation takes out the requirement to prove malice in defamation cases. That's directly opposed to the 1st Amendment.

Actual malice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free speech? That's bullshit.
Calling a white person racist does untold damage much of the time. It's almost like they are then guilty till proven innocent. Then the wolves come for them.
Call a black person racist, and everyone is like "awww nah bro, only white people can be racist". And no one gives a fuck.
Plus the act of racism is treated completely differently depending on your skin colour. White people can't get away with even slightly offending a black person, but the other way round, well that's a different story.
"But my distant ancestors were slaves doe! Well I assume they were anyway......".

 

[Islam Imamate]

America doesn't have hate-speech laws.

Kind of funny that the go to argument here is about the supposed hypocrisy regarding non-existent hate speech laws. I think that alone tells us a lot about the cultural sphere from which laws like the one in the OP are downstream from.

 

[panamaican]

So it's simply that the speech must be accompanied by an action and the speech then can elevate the crime to a hate crime? Nowhere is the speech alone considered criminal?

Correct. The speech alone is not criminal. The speech can be an indicator of the intent of the actor. And that makes it an aggravating factor.

Sort of like the how possession of drugs is one crime but possession with intent to distribute is another (requires more than just a larger quantity). Or how possessing a deadly during a robbery changes the severity of the crime vs. a nondeadly weapon vs. no weapon at all -- still the same theft.

So much of the distinction in criminal law is about intent and how aggravating factors elevate the punishment. And hate crimes are no different. There has to be a baseline crime before any of the other stuff gets applied.

 

[panamaican]

Kind of funny that the go to argument here is about the supposed hypocrisy regarding non-existent hate speech laws. I think that alone tells us a lot about the cultural sphere from which laws like the one in the OP are downstream from.

There's a push in Florida, and maybe other places, to protect people from ever hearing that they're offending minorities or being offended by the opinions and perspectives of them.

They're legislating Florida into a "safe space". You don't have to learn about people with different lifestyles. You don't have to hear about how bad slavery was. No one can call you out if they think you were offensive. It's one big protection bubble for fragile individuals.

 

[mkess101]

Kind of funny that the go to argument here is about the supposed hypocrisy regarding non-existent hate speech laws. I think that alone tells us a lot about the cultural sphere from which laws like the one in the OP are downstream from.

Yeah I mean he was replying to me, and I pretty clearly stated I don't like this law anyway. Maybe others brought up hate speech laws (I didn't see it itt, but didn't read every post either) but for me it wasn't to justify this law so much as get some context.

And I did clarify that what I've seen isn't really "hate speech laws" so much as certain cases (and honestly, none may have ever even been in FL because I'm just going from memory of reading of them) where other laws that limit free speech were broadly applied to get to a sort of de facto anti hate speech law. And I even qualified that in saying that I don't remember the specifics of them and even if I did I'm not a legal expert so there could be things I missed.

If others are outright using hate speech as a justification for a law like this, I don't agree with it. Especially not from a legal standpoint. I brought it up not really from a legal viewpoint (because again, I don't agree with this law at all) but more just as something to discuss in layman's terms.

To put it another way:

Legality aside, if we all agree that hate speech is heinous (even if legal), can we also agree that falsely accusing someone of it is equally as heinous (while again, even if it's also legal)? I think most would agree but seems like the sentiment of some isn't just that this law violates the constitution, but that anyone that pushes back on accusations of bigotry are just whiners. (Even if the accusation is unfounded).

 

[panamaican]

Yeah I mean he was replying to me, and I pretty clearly stated I don't like this law anyway. Maybe others brought up hate speech laws (I didn't see it itt, but didn't read every post either) but for me it wasn't to justify this law so much as get some context.

And I did clarify that what I've seen isn't really "hate speech laws" so much as certain cases (and honestly, none may have ever even been in FL because I'm just going from memory of reading of them) where other laws that limit free speech were broadly applied to get to a sort of de facto anti hate speech law. And I even qualified that in saying that I don't remember the specifics of them and even if I did I'm not a legal expert so there could be things I missed.

If others are outright using hate speech as a justification for a law like this, I don't agree with it. Especially not from a legal standpoint. I brought it up not really from a legal viewpoint (because again, I don't agree with this law at all) but more just as something to discuss in layman's terms.

To put it another way:

Legality aside, if we all agree that hate speech is heinous (even if legal), can we also agree that falsely accusing someone of it is equally as heinous (while again, even if it's also legal)? I think most would agree but seems like the sentiment of some isn't just that this law violates the constitution, but that anyone that pushes back on accusations of bigotry are just whiners. (Even if the accusation is unfounded).

I don't think calling someone a racist is the same as hate speech. IMO, it's no different than calling someone a liar or a thief. It might be offensive if unfounded. But it's also an expression of how someone interprets another's actions or speech.

If my wife says something I find offensive, saying that she's rude or that she's lying or that she's inconsiderate, etc. is me expressing how I perceive her words. If she doesn't want me to call her a liar or rude or whatever, the answer isn't for me to not express myself. The answer is to better understand why I feel that way and then decide if my feelings are justification for a change of behavior on her part.

I understand that no one wants to be called racist or transphobic but it's nowhere near the same as hate speech. Hate speech, legally, targets people based on their part of a group (race, gender, sex, etc.). Calling someone racist or transphobic is responding to something that the person has actually said or done, it's not because they're part of some group, it's because of something that they've actually said or done.

 

[mkess101]

I don't think calling someone a racist is the same as hate speech. IMO, it's no different than calling someone a liar or a thief. It might be offensive if unfounded. But it's also an expression of how someone interprets another's actions or speech.

If my wife says something I find offensive, saying that she's rude or that she's lying or that she's inconsiderate, etc. is me expressing how I perceive her words. If she doesn't want me to call her a liar or rude or whatever, the answer isn't for me to not express myself. The answer is to better understand why I feel that way and then decide if my feelings are justification for a change of behavior on her part.

I understand that no one wants to be called racist or transphobic but it's nowhere near the same as hate speech. Hate speech, legally, targets people based on their part of a group (race, gender, sex, etc.). Calling someone racist or transphobic is responding to something that the person has actually said or done, it's not because they're part of some group, it's because of something that they've actually said or done.

I mean, I think there's shades of gray for sure but I'm not talking really about something that might be misinterpreted because on that front I agree with you. Someone's intent and how it's received are two different things and the offended person might truly feel bigotry from the offender when none is remotely intended.

I'm talking about a situation where someone flat out makes up a lie about what someone said to paint them as a bigot. A true false accusation of bigotry, with no room for interpretation.


I think iirc there was a situation in sports awhile back where someone accused someone else of calling them the N word and used it as justification for some sort of retaliation. After a long inquiry etc it came out that it was never said, that was just a heat of the moment reaction by the guy to defend his actions was to claim racism. I wish I could remember the details better but I do remember thinking "Damn, he labeled dude a racist and it sure looks like that was total BS. People's lives are ruined if they're branded that. If they are actually racist, too bad and they deserve what they get. But something like this...wow."

 

[Jack V Savage]

Legality aside, if we all agree that hate speech is heinous (even if legal), can we also agree that falsely accusing someone of it is equally as heinous (while again, even if it's also legal)? I think most would agree but seems like the sentiment of some isn't just that this law violates the constitution, but that anyone that pushes back on accusations of bigotry are just whiners. (Even if the accusation is unfounded).

Yes. Though "falsely" is doing a lot of work there. I think a lot of rightists have this idea that false allegations of that type are really common and destructive, and that's just silly. It can be damaging to a business or someone's rep if there are *credible* reasons to think they are bigoted, but not just because some random person says they are.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Nope. I should be able to tell a tranny they're a man and they should be able to tell me to fuck off.

Stuff like this should fall under harassment/defemation laws. If I take out a whole page of the paper to call you a homo that goes well beyond free speech.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah I mean he was replying to me, and I pretty clearly stated I don't like this law anyway. Maybe others brought up hate speech laws (I didn't see it itt, but didn't read every post either) but for me it wasn't to justify this law so much as get some context.

And I did clarify that what I've seen isn't really "hate speech laws" so much as certain cases (and honestly, none may have ever even been in FL because I'm just going from memory of reading of them) where other laws that limit free speech were broadly applied to get to a sort of de facto anti hate speech law. And I even qualified that in saying that I don't remember the specifics of them and even if I did I'm not a legal expert so there could be things I missed.

If others are outright using hate speech as a justification for a law like this, I don't agree with it. Especially not from a legal standpoint. I brought it up not really from a legal viewpoint (because again, I don't agree with this law at all) but more just as something to discuss in layman's terms.

To put it another way:

Legality aside, if we all agree that hate speech is heinous (even if legal), can we also agree that falsely accusing someone of it is equally as heinous (while again, even if it's also legal)? I think most would agree but seems like the sentiment of some isn't just that this law violates the constitution, but that anyone that pushes back on accusations of bigotry are just whiners. (Even if the accusation is unfounded).

I think you're grasping at straws to come up with some kind of equivalency or analogy to put the law into a more favorable context. In reality though we have no hate speech laws, not de jure or de facto, so it falls apart upon the slightest examination.

 

[mkess101]

Yes. Though "falsely" is doing a lot of work there. I think a lot of rightists have this idea that false allegations of that type are really common and destructive, and that's just silly. It can be damaging to a business or someone's rep if there are *credible* reasons to think they are bigoted, but not just because some random person says they are.

Agree, the threshold needs to be pretty high. There's some "Boy who cried wolf" aspect too. (It's basically the same in reverse of those who claim racism about everything diluting things to where real racism gets lost in the shuffle. But with this it's in reverse, where those claiming grievous harm due to false accusations when it's more a nuisance end up hurting those who might truly face ruin in real cases of targeted false accusations.

 

[mkess101]

I think you're grasping at straws to come up with some kind of equivalency or analogy to put the law into a more favorable context. In reality though we have no hate speech laws, not de jure or de facto, so it falls apart upon the slightest examination.

Well I don't like the law. You can take that at face value or not, makes little difference to me. I think there are cases (rare) where other laws do become de facto hate speech laws, you're of course free to disagree. But even if that wasn't rare, I still wouldn't believe that would justify a law as dumb as this one.

So it seem to me like you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one. My intent was to discuss a little the impact of false accusations of bigotry OUTSIDE the legality issue. I even plainly stated that. I actually couldn't have put it more clearly to be honest.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well I don't like the law. You can take that at face value or not, makes little difference to me. I think there are cases (rare) where other laws do become de facto hate speech laws, you're of course free to disagree. But even if that wasn't rare, I still wouldn't believe that would justify a law as dumb as this one.

Can you name such a case?

So it seem to me like you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one. My intent was to discuss a little the impact of false accusations of bigotry OUTSIDE the legality issue. I even plainly stated that. I actually couldn't have put it more clearly to be honest.

Quite frankly I think the problem is exaggerated and is easily dealt with under existing norms and laws. Its certainly far less of a problem than something like the law in the OP which doesn't exist in a vacuum but is part of a wider movement within the GOP to concentrate power in state legislatures and governors who then prosecute the culture war with the force of law in their own state, sometimes with no regard to the constitution as with this law and governor Abbot's stunt at the border.

 

[mkess101]

Can you name such a case?

Quite frankly I think the problem is exaggerated and is easily dealt with under existing norms and laws. Its certainly far less of a problem than something like the law in the OP which doesn't exist in a vacuum but is part of a wider movement within the GOP to concentrate power in state legislatures and governors who then prosecute the culture war with the force of law in their own state, sometimes with no regard to the constitution as with this law and governor Abbot's stunt at the border.

Like I said, I remember reading about a few where there was editorializing that stated that incitement or defamation laws were used too broadly and became de facto hate speech laws. I don't remember the specific names involved in the cases, sorry.

Which "problem" specifically is exaggerated? False accusations of bigotry? I don't know if the frequency is exaggerated, but I wholeheartedly agree that the overall impact is. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't worth discussion, but yes the fallout is overblown for sure. Which is one reason of many that I agree this law ridiculous. (It being unconstitutional tops the list).

 

[Islam Imamate]

Like I said, I remember reading about a few where there was editorializing that stated that incitement or defamation laws were used too broadly and became de facto hate speech laws. I don't remember the specific names involved in the cases, sorry.

If you can't even produce one example you can see why I'm skeptical that its a problem at all right?

 

[mkess101]

If you can't even produce one example you can see why I'm skeptical that its a problem at all right?

Well yes...given that I don't think it's a "problem" either LOL. It's very rare, I said that already (and like I told Jack, at least one of the cases I read about was overturned on appeal anyway). I searched again (one of the ones I read about was with church employees, I think in like CT or NH or something) but still can't find it. And anyway, even if I found it you (nor I) would think that makes it "a problem".

I only even brought it up as a segue to talk about false accusations of bigotry in a more general sense, legalities aside. It's a tangential conversation for sure, but imo more worth having than additional discussion about this dumb FL law.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well yes...given that I don't think it's a "problem" either LOL. It's very rare, I said that already (and like I told Jack, at least one of the cases I read about was overturned on appeal anyway). I searched again (one of the ones I read about was with church employees, I think in like CT or NH or something) but still can't find it. And anyway, even if I found it you (nor I) would think that makes it "a problem".

I only even brought it up as a segue to talk about false accusations of bigotry in a more general sense, legalities aside. It's a tangential conversation for sure, but imo more worth having than additional discussion about this dumb FL law.

I think something like this FL law is very worth having a discussion on given the obvious constitutional problems and political implications whereas I don't really think false accusations of bigotry are much of a problem at all.

 

[mkess101]

I think something like this FL law is very worth having a discussion on given the obvious constitutional problems and political implications whereas I don't really think false accusations of bigotry are much of a problem at all.

Right but what else do you want to say about it? Even most of the conservatives replying itt (not all maybe, but most) agree the law is a bad idea. That it won't hold up, that even if we thought false accusations of bigotry WERE a problem...a law like this wouldn't be the way to deal with it.

The R's in FL are way out of bounds on this one. Not really sure what else needs to be said here, unless you've got another angle that you think needs to be covered?

To me, it's a more interesting discussion to speak of false accusations of bigotry in general and the societal implications. Even if it's relatively rare and not a serious problem in a macro sense. We agree a law like this is ridiculous, okay. But we live in times where accusations of bigotry are taken very seriously (as they should be) which leaves openings for people to do real damage to the reputations of others merely by sending a tweet or implying racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. Does someone who levels a false accusation face the same repercussions as someone who is found to actually be a bigot? Should they? These questions hold at least some interest for me. Maybe not for you, that's fine.