The discussion is about speech, and speech is not action. Harmful action is already a crime, and any crime can be upgraded to "hate crime" based on the motivation.

Group membership doesn't have anything to do with minorities though. You can define groups however you want, so a "minority" is entirely dependent on the context of the situation and just as subjective as the hate speech. So who are you considering minorities and what is this anecdotal data that claims they did not participate in forums? Must every forum be welcoming to everyone? Did no other forum exist? Could they not have created their own forum? If they talked to each other, does that mean a forum exists? And if so, doesn't that mean they are free to engage in their own discourse after all?

I don't see how membership of a minority group is all that subjective in most cases. E.g., LGBTQ individuals are pretty clearly a minority, Jews were pretty clearly a minority in Europe in the 20th century, etc. Minorities tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech for obvious reasons.

How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority.

Either way, the point that if hate speech is targeting against a "group", then that group can be anything and anyone. There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. It just dilutes the discussion about defining hate speech.

>How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority.

That is entirely specious, pedantic and irrelevant. In the context relevant to hate speech, there is no doubt that, say, LGBTQ individuals or Jews are minority groups. I don't think you can really be serious about denying this (given that the numbers are what they are). I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

>There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you.

There is no essential connection between hate speech and minorities, but there's a very obvious connection. Historically, many victims of hate speech and other hate crimes have been members of minority groups. And it's not difficult to see why. It's a lot easier for a majority group to persecute a minority group than vice versa.

It is not subjective in any interesting sense whether a given group is a minority within a particular society. It's simply a question of counting.

The connection, as various people have explained to you, is that minorities within a society tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech and its associated effects.

You can't count until you know the (subjectively chosen) boundary of the whole. For example, a minority in your city may not be the minority in another country.

Either way, so what if it affects minorities more often? The question is What is hate speech? and saying "it affects minorities more" does not solve for that definition at all. Hence why the connection does not matter/exist.

Obviously you choose the ‘boundary of the whole’ according to the location of the instance of hate speech. E.g., Jews were a minority in 1930s Germany; LGBTQ individuals are a minority more or less everywhere; Muslims are a minority in London, etc. etc. There’s nothing about this that’s difficult to understand, and you really just seem to be trolling at this point.

As to your ‘so what’, you now seem to accept that there is a connection between minorities and hate speech, which was the point at issue.

There's no connection. It's an observation at best, based on what you define as a minority. For example, billionaires are also a minority group and frequent recipients of hate speech. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree that they are a minority group. I haven't seen examples of hate speech directed at billionaires per se. In this context, people are usually thinking of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities - but of course you know that, right?

To pick a concrete (if inflammatory) example of the subjectivity of "minority", perhaps it is worth considering the example of "Trump voters". Within the context of the US, they are less than 50% of the population, so would it be hate speech to insult his supporters?

To pick a smaller minority, what about "Baby Boomers". Should the "OK, boomer" meme be banned as hate speech? At 22% of the US population, they constitute a smaller minority than the proportion of non-white Americans (28%, excluding White Hispanics).

No-one thinks that anything insulting said to any minority automatically qualifies as hate speech. This is a straw man. The point is that e.g. ethnic, religious and sexual minorities have historically been some of the primary victims of hate speech.

Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe the problem then is the misleading nature of the phrase "hate speech". The speech that is being banned isn't distinguished by being "hateful", but because it is targeted at certain subjectively chosen minorities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't give extra protections to groups of people who have historically faced disproportionate amounts of violence (and other harms), just that we should maybe call it "selected minority endangering speech" instead of "hate speech", and be clear about the specific cost-benefit trade-off we are making by how we choose and delineate those categories of people and how much speech is covered.

It's pretty easy to find out what people mean by hate speech. What you're doing seems a bit like people who derail discussions about homophobia by pointing out that homophobes aren't literally afraid of homosexuals. In both cases, the terminology is well established. Fussing over it just serves as an excuse to avoid addressing the problem.

I'm not trying to derail the discussion by pointless complaints about etymology, I'm saying that part of the problem with the concept of hate speech is that the name given to it obscures (accidentally) the nuances of how it is applied in practice.

A better analogy would be if the critics of homophobes genuinely thought that homophobia was literally a fear of homosexuals, causing the homophobes to complain that this framing of their position made it hard for them to explain their objection to homosexuality.

By hiding the subjectivity of "hate speech", people then get surprised or angry when it does or doesn't get applied to terms like "communist bandits" or "OK, boomer", or "eat the rich". The real debate isn't about whether the terms are hateful (as the name suggests), but whether the specific groups that are targeted need the specific protections being implemented.

So you were genuinely and not merely rhetorically confused when you asked whether insulting Trump supporters would qualify as hate speech?

Sorry, it just seems like you are deliberately trying to introduce confusion about what hate speech is into this discussion.

There's nothing particularly 'subjective' about the definition of hate speech. At least, it's no more subjective than the definition of 'free speech' or 'censorship' or any of the other relevant concepts in this domain. There's a perfectly objective history of persecution targeting certain minority groups.

I was genuinely looking for a logically consistent framework for excluding "insulting Trump supporters" from being an example of hate speech. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was labouring the point too much by asking where the lines around hate speech should be drawn.

I accept that there are objective historical examples of majority groups persecuting minority groups, and I'll ignore the difficulties of constructing well-defined subsets of a population (e.g. "working class") or whether a given group is numerically a minority (e.g. "females" in many countries). What I still think is subjective, though, is how much (and what sort of) persecution is necessary before a group becomes entitled to claim that hateful language used against them is "hate speech".

Imagine a hypothetical African country that had, say, France as its colonial occupier, under an apartheid system, but then allowed free elections, leading to the native population gaining political power. If the native population had talked about "getting rid of" their French occupiers, while the apartheid system was in place, presumably your definition of "hate speech" wouldn't have applied to that speech. But would your definition also not apply to similar speech (targeted at the same French people) after the occupying minority population lost their power? Would some amount of time (and violence) have to pass before the minority was entitled to point out that the hateful speech directed towards them was this special kind of "hate speech"?

Again, I apologise if this seems like a contrived example (and it's very hard to come up with an example that people don't have instinctive pre-conceptions and biases around), but I'm trying to explore if your definition really is as neutral as you think it is. You're right, though, that terms like "free speech" can be very nebulous, while still being useful concepts.

Yes, the history matters.

If your point is that you can contrive edge cases then, well, duh. There are also edge cases involving free speech and just about every other legal/moral/political concept.

My point isn't that edge cases exist, but that the edge cases force us to examine the process by which we decide whether something is or isn't hate speech.

I think that for a lot of people, they are exposed to a few clear examples of hate speech, and unconsciously build a heuristic that says "Anything that makes me feel the same sense of disgust towards the speaker or sympathy towards the target, is hate speech". Fortunately that heuristic works quite well most of the time for people, but I think it can work so well that the people using it don't question it, and don't realise that their definition has some blind spots in some areas, or scope-creep in others.

So, regarding my contrived edge case, when you say "the history matters", do you mean that the majority can continue to talk about "getting rid" of the minority without it being classed as hate speech, because the minority were historically privileged?

Alternatively, perhaps you mean "speech can change from being allowed to being hate speech (and vice versa) over the course of history". I don't disagree that the meaning of (and people's sensitivities to) words can change over time, but in my example, the change in circumstances happens in a single day. If that is significant, then it means the definition of hate speech depends not solely on the words themselves, or the size of the target group relative to that of the speaker's group, but rather on some sort of determination of whether the target "deserves" to be a subject of hate because of their membership of a group that you (the arbiter of hate speech) deems to be currently or historically over-represented politically.

I really am trying not to put words into your mouth, and I appreciate you taking the time to understand my concerns. Hopefully we'll both be more clear about what we mean when we use the term "hate speech" in future.

Obvious and inaccurate.

Minorities are likely to use persecution because their position is vulnerable.

The US has a pretty well defined notion of "protected class" since at least 1964. Like all of law, there are ambiguities and edge cases that have not been fully enumerated or explored in case law. You're acting like this is a huge nebulous concept, and displaying confusion about minorities.

People often say "minorities" when they mean "protected class." Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class. Billionaires are a minority, but they are not a protected class. Who decides what constitutes a protected class? Case law. When a suitable number of cases demonstrate harm on the basis of membership in a class, then that class may be considered for inclusion in the definition.

The definition of hate speech in Canada is quite narrow, and hinges on the definition of protected class. Progress is slow and methodical, and not the slippery slope thay you drscribe.

> Women are not a minority, but they're a protected class.

No, in the US, women are not legally a protected class. Gender is a protected class, which prohibits discrimination against women, or men.