Even as someone who often sees a lot of bad faith arguments surrounding the ideas of free speech (often as a way to justify awful things), the last thing the world needs is more incarceration, and...
Even as someone who often sees a lot of bad faith arguments surrounding the ideas of free speech (often as a way to justify awful things), the last thing the world needs is more incarceration, and ESPECIALLY for things like speech. As much as I do have a lot of problems with things like hate speech, I have to be measured and careful in how I approach how that type of activity should be dealt with, and I think we should work towards building a society that has social consequences for certain kinds of speech, but not putting the power in the hands of the government to incarcerate or punish, or even be the arbiters of what is and isn't okay.
I think we should move away from carceral attitudes in general and, in a lot of countries, but especially the US too, move away from mass incarceration, and towards more rehabilitative systems (when necessary), but even before that, it starts with narrowing laws, and massively reducing the things for which people have any consequences or jail time (drug offenses, for instance). There is zero way I'm going to argue, if I don't think people should be in jail for drugs, that I think they should be for speech. That is carceral madness.
Advocating for imprisonment for speech is advocating for having "political prisoners". Full stop. The people being "glad he was imprisoned for this" have to consider the other side of the coin. It might feel good to them in this short-sighted moment as revenge can feel good, but the long-term implications of such naive revenge are wide. As others have said, if you don't have some foundational level of speech freedom, then the winds of politics can easily change what is and isn't okay to say- and all of a sudden every anti-war person is in jail, or as is now happening in the US, you can be turned away from visiting if you have a political meme on your phone, or you can be detailed for months and deported for even the mildest of speech.
This isn't philsophical rambling, we see the dire effects of government punishment for speech TODAY. It's real and it's here.
If it crosses into something not just speech, like making specific threats or specifically publicly telling an audience to physically attack someone or some group, that have a real material danger, then it does need dealt with in some way, sure, but then it's a bit different.
Ideally I lean towards complete overhauls of society into a massively different paradigm, so don't take the above as contradictory with my overall political stances, but if we're doing the best we can in a framework that will take a long time to root out and change, reducing incarceration for all sorts of things, and releasing all political prisoners (and not creating them through carceral structures for speech), is a necessary step in the right direction
Lins has a piece where he says he got on a plane going to the Northeast, and that while “obviously there are human beings who aren’t 100% human,” “not one Northeasterner there on the airplane was...
Lins has a piece where he says he got on a plane going to the Northeast, and that while “obviously there are human beings who aren’t 100% human,” “not one Northeasterner there on the airplane was more than 72% human.”
This is the kind of absolutely disgusting speech that people do say, and it’s illegal, and it’s extremely fucking racist, and I say this as gently as humanly possible, if you don’t understand why it’s been tried in a criminal court, then maybe you should reserve your judgment on the matter until you understand a little better how fucked up this is within the context of Brazil and our relationship with the northeast, and especially in the relationship between Rio de Janeiro (where Lins is from) and the Northeast. The things that have happened to Northeasterners by whites like Lins, by cariocas like Lins in our history isn’t something anyone should just pooh-pooh away under the passive umbrella of “free speech.” This is an incitement to violence and an apologism for the crimes committed against the poor in our highly hard-coded class stratified society. It is egregious, it is evil, and it is wrong, and it absolutely should be punished in a criminal court. Which is what it has been. Thank god.
What if he said this about Black people in the US? If he said this about people who are Jewish? About any other minority in the states? Would that not be criminal? Would it not be seen as an incitement to violence by groups who barely need any prompting to go after people they already see as sub-human? “Hey, [insert favored minority here] are subhuman LOL”
This is some of the most vile and disgusting speech I’ve ever heard. He should absolutely be jailed.
In the US it would not be criminal regardless of the target. The way court cases have gone here you basically have to explicitly instruct people to go kill someone and not say "kidding!"...
In the US it would not be criminal regardless of the target. The way court cases have gone here you basically have to explicitly instruct people to go kill someone and not say "kidding!" afterwards.
That evolution over time certainly informs a lot of people's opinions on free speech today. Meanwhile we're arresting and deporting immigrants for perfectly legal speech.
A comedian called Puerto Rico (part of the US) a floating island of garbage at a rally for our current president like six months ago. No, it would absolutely not be illegal whatsoever in the US. I...
A comedian called Puerto Rico (part of the US) a floating island of garbage at a rally for our current president like six months ago. No, it would absolutely not be illegal whatsoever in the US.
I think that part is fine, even though I thought the joke was disgusting and painfully unfunny.
The major issue is that a sizable portion of the US think a joke like that is funny, they elected someone who put that comedian on that stage, and that president, along with the judges he gets to appoint, are now the people who get to decide what is and is not hate speech, and thus, (apparently) a valid target for punishment.
According to them, Tony Hinchcliffes set where he says Puerto Rico is a garbage island is protected free speech, but people protesting the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel is hate speech that the government gets to punish people for.
Luckily, we have the first amendment to provide us some semblance from protection against that, but if things has gone slightly differently in Brazil a few years ago, and Trump's favorite Brazilian was running the country again, which type of speech do you think he would be punishing right now?
As you are wording it, it would almost certainly not be criminal if you swapped in any group, even your examples. There might be some context i'm missing, or something lost in translation, but...
What if he said this about Black people in the US? If he said this about people who are Jewish? About any other minority in the states? Would that not be criminal?
As you are wording it, it would almost certainly not be criminal if you swapped in any group, even your examples.
There might be some context i'm missing, or something lost in translation, but "incitement to violence" is not just "well you get what they mean", and apologism is just objectively not illegal, even if abhorrent.
The core founding principle of the 1st amendment is that without extreme exception, you can say whatever you want from the point of view of the government. Private entities do not have to hire you, people do not have to be around you, but the government itself cannot arrest or limit you in any way shape or form for your speech.
One of the extreme exceptions is a call to violence. These often must be very explicit. There are absolutely people who still routinely call various groups subhuman. If they were to say "and so we should kill them" that that's instantly across the line and very much could lead to criminal prosecution. However up to that line, you're in the clear.
So if someone could prove that the quote you gave, with proper context, is an incitement to violence (perhaps it's a infamous quote I'm not aware of that was used to incite violence before) then there might be grounds, but these are traditionally the hardest court cases BY FAR to win. Civil (so non criminal) defamation cases are extremely hard to win, and criminal incitement to violence cases are basically never brought unless they're air tight and, sadly, often after someone is hurt.
Personally speaking, I find it darkly ironic that the people most in favor of changing this in the US are:
The current US administration and its extreme supporters, both from ignorance and as a means to likely consolidate power and possibly end democracy in the country.
I didn't anticipate this post was gonna draw any attention, to be honest. I haven't watched the act in full because even at twice the speed, this is a waste of my time. But I watched most of it....
I didn't anticipate this post was gonna draw any attention, to be honest.
I haven't watched the act in full because even at twice the speed, this is a waste of my time. But I watched most of it.
Besides all the racism and prejudice, he also jokes about rape and about national tragedies where a bunch of people died. Think about Gilbert Gottfried's joke about 9/11, but worse, because Brazil doesn't have a long tradition of standup.
There is one very unfortunate joke about slavery.
There was no Brazilian Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, or David Chappelle. I don't remember who said this, but to those unfamiliar with that genre, stand-up comedy can feel like someone saying mean things just to be mean. I don't say that to defend Léo Lins. I am merely providing some context on why Brazilian authorities and politicians might be particularly prone to act here.
I am not a lawyer, but we have a few laws prohibiting specific cases of hate speech. They are not used all the time, but if you piss enough people, and specially if you make the news, you may end up in criminal court.
There is also the fact that he is a white-presenting carioca (meaning from Rio) based in São Paulo, and much of the act is him spewing racial and regional prejudice against less afluent parts of the country.
An important piece of context is that Léo Lins was employed by Danilo Gentili's talk show, a comedian who was the target of many lawsuits himself, paying large sums. So it is entirely possible that Léo Lins wrote his show counting on the attention of authorities as a way to boost his profile. He posted his special on YouTube in 2022. The show feels like an exercise to hit on every note possible in order to get in trouble in Brazil. Perhaps he went too far, and this backfired for him. Regardless of notoriety, no one wants to be in a Brazilian prison.
EDIT: Lins himself was the subject of many lawsuits before, as I would have known if I had watched the entire special. Sorry about that. I tried to minimize my exposure to that individual while still providing a useful answer.
This is a good observation and worth highlighting. If Lins intentionally wrote his act to run afoul of the law, then it's not as if there's some good-faith explanation for his behavior, e.g....
An important piece of context is that Léo Lins was employed by Danilo Gentili's talk show, a comedian who was the target of many lawsuits himself, paying large sums. So it is entirely possible that Léo Lins wrote his show counting on the attention of authorities as a way to boost his profile. He posted his special on YouTube in 2022. The show feels like an exercise to hit on every note possible in order to get in trouble in Brazil.
This is a good observation and worth highlighting. If Lins intentionally wrote his act to run afoul of the law, then it's not as if there's some good-faith explanation for his behavior, e.g. wanting to make pointed criticisms of Brazil and accidentally overstepping some invisible line. No, he poked the bear and the bear ripped his damn arm off. If you insist on reattaching the arm, then you're just teaching people that it's okay to poke bears.
Right-wing politics rise and fall on the ability to construct straw men from imaginary enemies. Speech, like anything else, is just a tool in a democracy -- a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. If we allow someone to spew baseless, defamatory speech without recourse, then we will ultimately undermine democracy in a misguided effort to protect democracy.
I mean.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0 and him getting arrested for this routine (not this clip, earlier): The arrest Edit- To be very clear, I know fuck all about Lins, and it...
If Lins intentionally wrote his act to run afoul of the law, then it's not as if there's some good-faith explanation for his behavior, e.g. wanting to make pointed criticisms of Brazil and accidentally overstepping some invisible line. No, he poked the bear and the bear ripped his damn arm off. If you insist on reattaching the arm, then you're just teaching people that it's okay to poke bears.
and him getting arrested for this routine (not this clip, earlier): The arrest
Edit-
To be very clear, I know fuck all about Lins, and it sure doesn't sound like this was some insightful pushback against puritanism, and is instead just racist rhetoric, but yeah...this is 100% how it was handled in the US, in both directions.
I feel like this metaphor about bears falls in the other direction, really. If there’s a bear (bad law) ripping people’s arms off (imprisoning them), shouldn’t we be shooting this bear (getting...
No, he poked the bear
I feel like this metaphor about bears falls in the other direction, really. If there’s a bear (bad law) ripping people’s arms off (imprisoning them), shouldn’t we be shooting this bear (getting rid of state censorship)?
Speech, like anything else, is just a tool in a democracy -- a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Hard disagree there. I would even go so far as to say that democracy is the tool, which is best wielded to achieve freedom (of action and speech) as an end.
I wonder if the bear metaphor is used differently in different places. Poking the bear usually just means you annoyed someone with the ability to act on you. In this case the bear (don't be racist...
I feel like this metaphor about bears falls in the other direction, really. If there’s a bear (bad law) ripping people’s arms off (imprisoning them), shouldn’t we be shooting this bear (getting rid of state censorship)?
I wonder if the bear metaphor is used differently in different places.
Poking the bear usually just means you annoyed someone with the ability to act on you.
In this case the bear (don't be racist where the government can see you) ripping off arms (imprisoning you) and it's usually seen as "Yeah, that's a bear. What'd you expect when you poked it?"
Oh, I understand the metaphor. The thing is, I don't think the government should be treated as an inherently hostile and omnipotent entity that we should fear and obey. Bad laws should be fought...
Oh, I understand the metaphor. The thing is, I don't think the government should be treated as an inherently hostile and omnipotent entity that we should fear and obey. Bad laws should be fought against.
I'm not inherently against your thought but "Government" itself isn't inherently hostile, it's a reflection of how it's constituents want to be governed. If the people had a problem with this,...
I'm not inherently against your thought but "Government" itself isn't inherently hostile, it's a reflection of how it's constituents want to be governed. If the people had a problem with this, they could petition for redress. Free speech is a vital part of this, obviously. Besides, banning racial slurs is a game of whack-a-mole. They'll be a new slur by the time the ink is dry.
But how is this a "bad" law? Go shout fire in a crowded theatre and see how much good the law might do.
Evaluate based on the ability to oppress, of course, but a limit does not exactly equal a moral bad.
I agree that everything should not be in service of democracy, but I would disagree that democracy exists to optimize freedom of action and speech. Such a political philosophy describes literal...
I agree that everything should not be in service of democracy, but I would disagree that democracy exists to optimize freedom of action and speech. Such a political philosophy describes literal anarchy.
Rather, democracy exists to balance individual freedoms without intruding on the freedoms of others (as the saying goes, "your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins"). Speech is not inherently valuable because it is speech; otherwise spam filters would be an assault on principled discourse. Indeed, many types of speech are considered inherently harmful (slander, piracy, CSAM, etc), so I don't find it useful to throw all types of speech into the same bucket. Clearly one can and should distinguish between, e.g., academic inquiry and hateful misinformation.
However this isn't even just "your right to speak ends where the other man's ear begins", it's "your right to speak ends wherever I think it should". I don't think the government should really be...
your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins
However this isn't even just "your right to speak ends where the other man's ear begins", it's "your right to speak ends wherever I think it should".
Clearly one can and should distinguish between, e.g., academic inquiry and hateful misinformation.
I don't think the government should really be in the business of determining what is "hateful misinformation". Case in point: right now we can see the Trump administration deciding what is antisemitism, and if Americans didn't have the first amendment then their citizens would be in as much trouble as their recent immigrants are.
From reading this and a couple other sources: good. Sounds like he deserves it, and I hope his appeal is unsuccessful. Perhaps people in the US find this shocking, but in most places we don’t...
From reading this and a couple other sources: good. Sounds like he deserves it, and I hope his appeal is unsuccessful.
Perhaps people in the US find this shocking, but in most places we don’t actually tolerate racism/homophobia etc. Crucially, it seems that his intent was discriminatory. This was not satire, which might make it justifiable.
I'm coming at this from an American point of view, but to me, that idea is ridiculous. Even if I agreed with the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to say things that I personally consider...
I'm coming at this from an American point of view, but to me, that idea is ridiculous.
Even if I agreed with the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to say things that I personally consider racist/homophobic/discriminatory, not everyone agrees with my definition of those things.
If we didn't have freedom of speech enshrined in the US constitution, I have no doubt whatsoever that our president would be currently jailing everyone he doesn't like under the guise of "promoting antisemitism" by opposing the Israeli destruction of Gaza. He's already attempted to deport legal residents who he views as not being protected by the first amendment.
Racists have never made me stop believing that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society.
Same with the UK investigating/charging people for pro-Palestine speech under terrorism laws. All it takes is for the govt in charge not to like your particular speech to absolutely turn the idea...
Same with the UK investigating/charging people for pro-Palestine speech under terrorism laws. All it takes is for the govt in charge not to like your particular speech to absolutely turn the idea of prosecution for speech on its head.
It might feel good "yeah we got that racist off the stage" in the moment, but the long-term result is that eventually good views will be deemed unacceptable and the tables will turn, and in that moment it is clearly regretful that a governing body was ever given that power, not to mention you're increasing prison populations for... speech? That's where we're at now? Madness
Referring to multiple incidents, like this one which mentions additional actions taken not just against Haim but against journalists reporting on Palestine like Winstanley and I am also talking...
Referring to multiple incidents, like this one which mentions additional actions taken not just against Haim but against journalists reporting on Palestine like Winstanley and I am also talking about incidents with musicians like Kneecap
(And to preempt discussion about the details: no I don't agree that the mention of Hamas constitutes a material support for said organization, nor do I completely agree with how these organizations are characterized (despite having my own problems with them). I get why the overreach is happening and what they're basing it on legally I just don't agree with the law as written or this extensive application of it)
This very literal interpretation of freedom of speech is a very American thing imo, most European countries have a very specific thing that is not covered by free speech: the inciting of hatred...
This very literal interpretation of freedom of speech is a very American thing imo, most European countries have a very specific thing that is not covered by free speech: the inciting of hatred and discrimination. It is something that needs to be readily proven by the court just like any other crime. These kinds of cases are also exceedingly rare, at least in the Netherlands. I can remember one time in recent history and the defendant (Geert Wilders) was not even convicted on that count. I think this kind of law is important to keep people groups safe: in essence it boils down to the tolerance paradox: if you tolerate intolerance too much, your society will become intolerant.
Edit: Wilders was found guilty, but was pardoned. See below.
Fwiw, even the Americans have legal limits on freedom of speech — it’s not entirely a free for all wasteland. The average person probably considers freedom of speech a core aspect of their...
Fwiw, even the Americans have legal limits on freedom of speech — it’s not entirely a free for all wasteland. The average person probably considers freedom of speech a core aspect of their culture, however, which means it comes up disproportionately often in conversations.
I found this Dutch website that elaborates on the legal concept. The full legal term is apperantly "incitement of hatred, discrimination and violence". Geert Wilders was tried for it and was found...
I found this Dutch website that elaborates on the legal concept. The full legal term is apperantly "incitement of hatred, discrimination and violence". Geert Wilders was tried for it and was found guilty, but got pardoned because he is an elected official. The reason he was found guilty was because he: "In public, orally, intentionally made insulting remarks about a group of people, namely Moroccans, because of their race and also incited those present to discriminate against people, namely Moroccans, also because of their race". Geert Wilders said "Do we want more or less Maroccans", to which the crowd replied "Less! Less! Less! " and he replied "Then we're going to make that happen". Maroccans here refers to people of Dutch-Maroccan decent. See this wikipedia page for more info.
I couldn't find the legal definition of incitement specifically. It is the Dutch word "aanzetten tot" which means to encourage someone to do something.
This is the case here in Czechia, but getting 8 damn years in a brazilian prison is insane. I think even Germans who imo go way over the line with restricting speech may not go this far.
This very literal interpretation of freedom of speech is a very American thing imo, most European countries have a very specific thing that is not covered by free speech: the inciting of hatred and discrimination.
This is the case here in Czechia, but getting 8 damn years in a brazilian prison is insane. I think even Germans who imo go way over the line with restricting speech may not go this far.
I'm not a lawyer but Brazil is like many countries where a sentence does not necessarily mean that they'll be imprisoned for exactly that amount. Usually less, specially if you have a lawyer I...
I'm not a lawyer but Brazil is like many countries where a sentence does not necessarily mean that they'll be imprisoned for exactly that amount. Usually less, specially if you have a lawyer I believe.
You mean like serving a half of it (or rarely a third) for good behavior? That is the case here, so I subconsciously accounted for that, whether correctly or not.
You mean like serving a half of it (or rarely a third) for good behavior? That is the case here, so I subconsciously accounted for that, whether correctly or not.
Yeah, it's like that here too. I do believe some will do the whole time if they don't have a lawyer. There's also legitimate bad behavior in many cases. Sometimes they do even more than their time...
Yeah, it's like that here too. I do believe some will do the whole time if they don't have a lawyer. There's also legitimate bad behavior in many cases.
Sometimes they do even more than their time simply because the system "forgot" to release them and they don't have someone to help them.
I agree with a number of your points, but I think it’s wrong to insist we can only have a completely relative notion of what counts as discrimination. It is normal to have an agreed upon...
I agree with a number of your points, but I think it’s wrong to insist we can only have a completely relative notion of what counts as discrimination.
It is normal to have an agreed upon definition of these things in your society. That agreement comes through a democratic process, where elected representatives write laws, and the final decision on whether the laws apply or have been violated is given by a judge and a jury of peers.
That way we can define discrimination in a way that is more than just one person’s individual opinion, and which reflects society at large.
I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that personal and societal freedoms must be balanced. Hateful and violent speech cannot be protected above the lives of those who are hurt by it.
I don't think I'd agree with you a year ago, but based on the current political environment in my country, I definitely don't agree with you now. Even if we could rely on judges being impartial at...
I don't think I'd agree with you a year ago, but based on the current political environment in my country, I definitely don't agree with you now.
Even if we could rely on judges being impartial at all times, a mere charge can ruin someones life. The trump administration is aggressively trying to curtail free speech, free press, and free assembly, and they're doing it under the guise of exactly what you're proposing we should make illegal.
Criticism of Israel, or his administration is classified by them as hate speech, antisemitism, and incitement to terrorism. It doesn't matter that a reasonable person sees that as obvious nonsense. His administration is deporting legal residents under that pretext. If the first amendment didn't exist, it would go a lot further than that. All it takes is a single judge sympathetic to the administration to ruin someones life, and even if someone is charged and exonerated, the lengthy court case and public spectical destroys lives as well.
All of that is bad, but the worst part is the chilling effect that has on speech. There's no way a legal resident is as willing to speak up about injustice today as they were six months ago. Why would you risk your entire future and your life for standing up for what you believe in? Some people are still going to be willing to make that sacrifice, and that's honorable, but most people would not.
I hate to make a slippery slope argument when it comes to free speech, but thanks to Trump, I no longer have to. We're seeing the direct results of what happens when a tyrant gets elected to an otherwise free society. Without safeguards our constitution has put in place in place that limit his power to control the kinds of speech he doesn't like, "hateful" or "violent" speech would just become a matter of opinion.
8 years in prison for saying bad things? Even if I thought prison for speech was in any way acceptable (I don’t) the scale seems insanely inappropriate. People routinely get sentenced to less for...
8 years in prison for saying bad things? Even if I thought prison for speech was in any way acceptable (I don’t) the scale seems insanely inappropriate. People routinely get sentenced to less for actually killing people.
Did this hate speech kill anybody? Who? If someone is going to prison for 8 years, I would want to see some specific examples of real, observable dead bodies with a clear connection to the speech...
Did this hate speech kill anybody? Who?
If someone is going to prison for 8 years, I would want to see some specific examples of real, observable dead bodies with a clear connection to the speech that is being punished.
I don't know enough of the specifics to say whether or not I agree with this specific case. But I disagree with the blanket sentiment. Widely-broadcasted hate speech can hurt society a lot more...
I don't know enough of the specifics to say whether or not I agree with this specific case. But I disagree with the blanket sentiment. Widely-broadcasted hate speech can hurt society a lot more than a single case of murder
Selling soft drinks to school children can harm society more than a single murder, but I don’t think we should be imprisoning people for making unhealthy food, much less spreading ideas that I...
Selling soft drinks to school children can harm society more than a single murder, but I don’t think we should be imprisoning people for making unhealthy food, much less spreading ideas that I don’t like.
Also, most political speeches definitely kills people. Corporations definitely kills people. I'm not saying that hate speech should be allowed, but for me it's ridiculous that comedian jailed for...
Also, most political speeches definitely kills people. Corporations definitely kills people.
I'm not saying that hate speech should be allowed, but for me it's ridiculous that comedian jailed for a jokes.
I don't know the jokes or the cultural context in detail, but if he is performing stochastic terrorism, inciting violence against minorities, this seems reasonable to me. It's important to make it...
I don't know the jokes or the cultural context in detail, but if he is performing stochastic terrorism, inciting violence against minorities, this seems reasonable to me. It's important to make it clear that hate is not ok.
Maybe someone who speaks Portuguese can watch it and translate some examples?
EDIT: I'm trying to watch it. It is profoundly unfunny. It is basically "Regional and racial prejudices and stereotypes: the show". There's very little elaboration beyond that. I wish I was...
EDIT: I'm trying to watch it. It is profoundly unfunny. It is basically "Regional and racial prejudices and stereotypes: the show". There's very little elaboration beyond that. I wish I was offended, as at least that would be an emotion. But it feels like a 10 year old trying to be offensive. It's puerile. This shows just makes me very very bored.
I most certainly could but I'm not watching a 1 hour show. I saw the highlights back when it made the news. They are highly offensive, in very poor taste and not funny at all. "Terrorism" seems a...
I most certainly could but I'm not watching a 1 hour show. I saw the highlights back when it made the news. They are highly offensive, in very poor taste and not funny at all. "Terrorism" seems a bit much.
To me that's the important line, but of course that's a very American point of view. It is illegal to incite violence. I cannot say you should kill everyone who does X. I can say I hate everyone...
To me that's the important line, but of course that's a very American point of view.
It is illegal to incite violence. I cannot say you should kill everyone who does X. I can say I hate everyone who does X. It's a thin line, but I think this topic already has discussion on why such a line exists.
Hard to tell from the article if this person would've crossed it by American standards as well.
A big issue I have with jailing people for hate speech is second-order effects*. In summary, you can't hurt your enemies without your friends getting hurt by retaliation or crossfire. Perhaps a...
A big issue I have with jailing people for hate speech is second-order effects*. In summary, you can't hurt your enemies without your friends getting hurt by retaliation or crossfire.
Perhaps a ideal world, nobody would be allowed to make these "jokes". However, we don't live in an ideal world, and when someone gets jailed for hate speech, it creates factors that make it more likely for someone else to be jailed for something mundane or even good. Violence must be punished because it can't be ignored, but nobody was forced to watch the YouTube video this man was convicted for.
A good counter-argument is that hate speech encourages targeted harassment and violence, and this is true. However, I still believe that prosecuting it leads to more harassment and violence overall. I can't prove this, and maybe I'm wrong, but the rise of far-right in the past decade strengthened this belief (are there other, historical examples of such a resurgence?). Also, my experience and looking at world history and events, most people are passive unless they feel threatened (or that their friends or family are threatened); taking away freedom from someone for saying horrible things would threaten others who think and say the same things, but are otherwise too comfortable to act them out.
Remember that war puts everyone at risk within a large vicinity, and usually both sides end up worse overall. That doesn't mean always choose pacifism, sometimes you must war, but only for self-defense. Similarly, I believe we should lock up some people, but only to prevent them and others from committing similar crimes in the future. The problem with this conviction is that I fear it straight-up won't work, and in practice cause more harm than good.
* I also don't believe he or anyone deserves jail time for speech (with exceptions like hiring a hitman or revealing secrets to an enemy at war). I believe "live and let live", and speech generally doesn't prevent others from living. But the idea that this man's conviction and related ones could hurt others in particular is what makes me feel the need to post something.
Here's the full show if you want to judge the content of the show for yourself, though I'd have preferred the article include some of the discriminatory content. I have no tolerance for the sort...
Here's the full show if you want to judge the content of the show for yourself, though I'd have preferred the article include some of the discriminatory content. I have no tolerance for the sort of rot they describe, but I can't really process this without knowing what he actually said that got him sentenced.
Even as someone who often sees a lot of bad faith arguments surrounding the ideas of free speech (often as a way to justify awful things), the last thing the world needs is more incarceration, and ESPECIALLY for things like speech. As much as I do have a lot of problems with things like hate speech, I have to be measured and careful in how I approach how that type of activity should be dealt with, and I think we should work towards building a society that has social consequences for certain kinds of speech, but not putting the power in the hands of the government to incarcerate or punish, or even be the arbiters of what is and isn't okay.
I think we should move away from carceral attitudes in general and, in a lot of countries, but especially the US too, move away from mass incarceration, and towards more rehabilitative systems (when necessary), but even before that, it starts with narrowing laws, and massively reducing the things for which people have any consequences or jail time (drug offenses, for instance). There is zero way I'm going to argue, if I don't think people should be in jail for drugs, that I think they should be for speech. That is carceral madness.
Advocating for imprisonment for speech is advocating for having "political prisoners". Full stop. The people being "glad he was imprisoned for this" have to consider the other side of the coin. It might feel good to them in this short-sighted moment as revenge can feel good, but the long-term implications of such naive revenge are wide. As others have said, if you don't have some foundational level of speech freedom, then the winds of politics can easily change what is and isn't okay to say- and all of a sudden every anti-war person is in jail, or as is now happening in the US, you can be turned away from visiting if you have a political meme on your phone, or you can be detailed for months and deported for even the mildest of speech.
This isn't philsophical rambling, we see the dire effects of government punishment for speech TODAY. It's real and it's here.
If it crosses into something not just speech, like making specific threats or specifically publicly telling an audience to physically attack someone or some group, that have a real material danger, then it does need dealt with in some way, sure, but then it's a bit different.
Ideally I lean towards complete overhauls of society into a massively different paradigm, so don't take the above as contradictory with my overall political stances, but if we're doing the best we can in a framework that will take a long time to root out and change, reducing incarceration for all sorts of things, and releasing all political prisoners (and not creating them through carceral structures for speech), is a necessary step in the right direction
I agree. Regardless of anyone's opinions regarding freedom of speech, this should be a matter for civil courts, not criminal.
Lins has a piece where he says he got on a plane going to the Northeast, and that while “obviously there are human beings who aren’t 100% human,” “not one Northeasterner there on the airplane was more than 72% human.”
This is the kind of absolutely disgusting speech that people do say, and it’s illegal, and it’s extremely fucking racist, and I say this as gently as humanly possible, if you don’t understand why it’s been tried in a criminal court, then maybe you should reserve your judgment on the matter until you understand a little better how fucked up this is within the context of Brazil and our relationship with the northeast, and especially in the relationship between Rio de Janeiro (where Lins is from) and the Northeast. The things that have happened to Northeasterners by whites like Lins, by cariocas like Lins in our history isn’t something anyone should just pooh-pooh away under the passive umbrella of “free speech.” This is an incitement to violence and an apologism for the crimes committed against the poor in our highly hard-coded class stratified society. It is egregious, it is evil, and it is wrong, and it absolutely should be punished in a criminal court. Which is what it has been. Thank god.
What if he said this about Black people in the US? If he said this about people who are Jewish? About any other minority in the states? Would that not be criminal? Would it not be seen as an incitement to violence by groups who barely need any prompting to go after people they already see as sub-human? “Hey, [insert favored minority here] are subhuman LOL”
This is some of the most vile and disgusting speech I’ve ever heard. He should absolutely be jailed.
I am speaking from the Northeast, where I am from. I am also Black. I understand the sentiment, and those are valid arguments.
In the US it would not be criminal regardless of the target. The way court cases have gone here you basically have to explicitly instruct people to go kill someone and not say "kidding!" afterwards.
That evolution over time certainly informs a lot of people's opinions on free speech today. Meanwhile we're arresting and deporting immigrants for perfectly legal speech.
A comedian called Puerto Rico (part of the US) a floating island of garbage at a rally for our current president like six months ago. No, it would absolutely not be illegal whatsoever in the US.
I think that part is fine, even though I thought the joke was disgusting and painfully unfunny.
The major issue is that a sizable portion of the US think a joke like that is funny, they elected someone who put that comedian on that stage, and that president, along with the judges he gets to appoint, are now the people who get to decide what is and is not hate speech, and thus, (apparently) a valid target for punishment.
According to them, Tony Hinchcliffes set where he says Puerto Rico is a garbage island is protected free speech, but people protesting the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel is hate speech that the government gets to punish people for.
Luckily, we have the first amendment to provide us some semblance from protection against that, but if things has gone slightly differently in Brazil a few years ago, and Trump's favorite Brazilian was running the country again, which type of speech do you think he would be punishing right now?
As you are wording it, it would almost certainly not be criminal if you swapped in any group, even your examples.
There might be some context i'm missing, or something lost in translation, but "incitement to violence" is not just "well you get what they mean", and apologism is just objectively not illegal, even if abhorrent.
The core founding principle of the 1st amendment is that without extreme exception, you can say whatever you want from the point of view of the government. Private entities do not have to hire you, people do not have to be around you, but the government itself cannot arrest or limit you in any way shape or form for your speech.
One of the extreme exceptions is a call to violence. These often must be very explicit. There are absolutely people who still routinely call various groups subhuman. If they were to say "and so we should kill them" that that's instantly across the line and very much could lead to criminal prosecution. However up to that line, you're in the clear.
So if someone could prove that the quote you gave, with proper context, is an incitement to violence (perhaps it's a infamous quote I'm not aware of that was used to incite violence before) then there might be grounds, but these are traditionally the hardest court cases BY FAR to win. Civil (so non criminal) defamation cases are extremely hard to win, and criminal incitement to violence cases are basically never brought unless they're air tight and, sadly, often after someone is hurt.
Personally speaking, I find it darkly ironic that the people most in favor of changing this in the US are:
I didn't anticipate this post was gonna draw any attention, to be honest.
I haven't watched the act in full because even at twice the speed, this is a waste of my time. But I watched most of it.
Besides all the racism and prejudice, he also jokes about rape and about national tragedies where a bunch of people died. Think about Gilbert Gottfried's joke about 9/11, but worse, because Brazil doesn't have a long tradition of standup.
There is one very unfortunate joke about slavery.
There was no Brazilian Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, or David Chappelle. I don't remember who said this, but to those unfamiliar with that genre, stand-up comedy can feel like someone saying mean things just to be mean. I don't say that to defend Léo Lins. I am merely providing some context on why Brazilian authorities and politicians might be particularly prone to act here.
I am not a lawyer, but we have a few laws prohibiting specific cases of hate speech. They are not used all the time, but if you piss enough people, and specially if you make the news, you may end up in criminal court.
There is also the fact that he is a white-presenting carioca (meaning from Rio) based in São Paulo, and much of the act is him spewing racial and regional prejudice against less afluent parts of the country.
An important piece of context is that Léo Lins was employed by Danilo Gentili's talk show, a comedian who was the target of many lawsuits himself, paying large sums. So it is entirely possible that Léo Lins wrote his show counting on the attention of authorities as a way to boost his profile. He posted his special on YouTube in 2022. The show feels like an exercise to hit on every note possible in order to get in trouble in Brazil. Perhaps he went too far, and this backfired for him. Regardless of notoriety, no one wants to be in a Brazilian prison.
EDIT: Lins himself was the subject of many lawsuits before, as I would have known if I had watched the entire special. Sorry about that. I tried to minimize my exposure to that individual while still providing a useful answer.
This is a good observation and worth highlighting. If Lins intentionally wrote his act to run afoul of the law, then it's not as if there's some good-faith explanation for his behavior, e.g. wanting to make pointed criticisms of Brazil and accidentally overstepping some invisible line. No, he poked the bear and the bear ripped his damn arm off. If you insist on reattaching the arm, then you're just teaching people that it's okay to poke bears.
Right-wing politics rise and fall on the ability to construct straw men from imaginary enemies. Speech, like anything else, is just a tool in a democracy -- a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. If we allow someone to spew baseless, defamatory speech without recourse, then we will ultimately undermine democracy in a misguided effort to protect democracy.
I mean....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0
and him getting arrested for this routine (not this clip, earlier):
The arrest
Edit-
To be very clear, I know fuck all about Lins, and it sure doesn't sound like this was some insightful pushback against puritanism, and is instead just racist rhetoric, but yeah...this is 100% how it was handled in the US, in both directions.
I feel like this metaphor about bears falls in the other direction, really. If there’s a bear (bad law) ripping people’s arms off (imprisoning them), shouldn’t we be shooting this bear (getting rid of state censorship)?
Hard disagree there. I would even go so far as to say that democracy is the tool, which is best wielded to achieve freedom (of action and speech) as an end.
I wonder if the bear metaphor is used differently in different places.
Poking the bear usually just means you annoyed someone with the ability to act on you.
In this case the bear (don't be racist where the government can see you) ripping off arms (imprisoning you) and it's usually seen as "Yeah, that's a bear. What'd you expect when you poked it?"
Oh, I understand the metaphor. The thing is, I don't think the government should be treated as an inherently hostile and omnipotent entity that we should fear and obey. Bad laws should be fought against.
I'm not inherently against your thought but "Government" itself isn't inherently hostile, it's a reflection of how it's constituents want to be governed. If the people had a problem with this, they could petition for redress. Free speech is a vital part of this, obviously. Besides, banning racial slurs is a game of whack-a-mole. They'll be a new slur by the time the ink is dry.
But how is this a "bad" law? Go shout fire in a crowded theatre and see how much good the law might do.
Evaluate based on the ability to oppress, of course, but a limit does not exactly equal a moral bad.
I agree that everything should not be in service of democracy, but I would disagree that democracy exists to optimize freedom of action and speech. Such a political philosophy describes literal anarchy.
Rather, democracy exists to balance individual freedoms without intruding on the freedoms of others (as the saying goes, "your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins"). Speech is not inherently valuable because it is speech; otherwise spam filters would be an assault on principled discourse. Indeed, many types of speech are considered inherently harmful (slander, piracy, CSAM, etc), so I don't find it useful to throw all types of speech into the same bucket. Clearly one can and should distinguish between, e.g., academic inquiry and hateful misinformation.
However this isn't even just "your right to speak ends where the other man's ear begins", it's "your right to speak ends wherever I think it should".
I don't think the government should really be in the business of determining what is "hateful misinformation". Case in point: right now we can see the Trump administration deciding what is antisemitism, and if Americans didn't have the first amendment then their citizens would be in as much trouble as their recent immigrants are.
From reading this and a couple other sources: good. Sounds like he deserves it, and I hope his appeal is unsuccessful.
Perhaps people in the US find this shocking, but in most places we don’t actually tolerate racism/homophobia etc. Crucially, it seems that his intent was discriminatory. This was not satire, which might make it justifiable.
I'm coming at this from an American point of view, but to me, that idea is ridiculous.
Even if I agreed with the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to say things that I personally consider racist/homophobic/discriminatory, not everyone agrees with my definition of those things.
If we didn't have freedom of speech enshrined in the US constitution, I have no doubt whatsoever that our president would be currently jailing everyone he doesn't like under the guise of "promoting antisemitism" by opposing the Israeli destruction of Gaza. He's already attempted to deport legal residents who he views as not being protected by the first amendment.
Racists have never made me stop believing that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society.
Same with the UK investigating/charging people for pro-Palestine speech under terrorism laws. All it takes is for the govt in charge not to like your particular speech to absolutely turn the idea of prosecution for speech on its head.
It might feel good "yeah we got that racist off the stage" in the moment, but the long-term result is that eventually good views will be deemed unacceptable and the tables will turn, and in that moment it is clearly regretful that a governing body was ever given that power, not to mention you're increasing prison populations for... speech? That's where we're at now? Madness
Are you referring to Palestine Action? That has nothing to do with free speech, although I agree that it a government overreach.
Referring to multiple incidents, like this one which mentions additional actions taken not just against Haim but against journalists reporting on Palestine like Winstanley and I am also talking about incidents with musicians like Kneecap
edit: and even more if you're not convinced - these clear exercises of free speech are being criminally investigated by UK police
(And to preempt discussion about the details: no I don't agree that the mention of Hamas constitutes a material support for said organization, nor do I completely agree with how these organizations are characterized (despite having my own problems with them). I get why the overreach is happening and what they're basing it on legally I just don't agree with the law as written or this extensive application of it)
This very literal interpretation of freedom of speech is a very American thing imo, most European countries have a very specific thing that is not covered by free speech: the inciting of hatred and discrimination. It is something that needs to be readily proven by the court just like any other crime. These kinds of cases are also exceedingly rare, at least in the Netherlands. I can remember one time in recent history and the defendant (Geert Wilders) was not even convicted on that count. I think this kind of law is important to keep people groups safe: in essence it boils down to the tolerance paradox: if you tolerate intolerance too much, your society will become intolerant.
Edit: Wilders was found guilty, but was pardoned. See below.
Fwiw, even the Americans have legal limits on freedom of speech — it’s not entirely a free for all wasteland. The average person probably considers freedom of speech a core aspect of their culture, however, which means it comes up disproportionately often in conversations.
What’s the legal definition of incitement in a Dutch context?
I found this Dutch website that elaborates on the legal concept. The full legal term is apperantly "incitement of hatred, discrimination and violence". Geert Wilders was tried for it and was found guilty, but got pardoned because he is an elected official. The reason he was found guilty was because he: "In public, orally, intentionally made insulting remarks about a group of people, namely Moroccans, because of their race and also incited those present to discriminate against people, namely Moroccans, also because of their race". Geert Wilders said "Do we want more or less Maroccans", to which the crowd replied "Less! Less! Less! " and he replied "Then we're going to make that happen". Maroccans here refers to people of Dutch-Maroccan decent. See this wikipedia page for more info.
I couldn't find the legal definition of incitement specifically. It is the Dutch word "aanzetten tot" which means to encourage someone to do something.
This is the case here in Czechia, but getting 8 damn years in a brazilian prison is insane. I think even Germans who imo go way over the line with restricting speech may not go this far.
I'm not a lawyer but Brazil is like many countries where a sentence does not necessarily mean that they'll be imprisoned for exactly that amount. Usually less, specially if you have a lawyer I believe.
You mean like serving a half of it (or rarely a third) for good behavior? That is the case here, so I subconsciously accounted for that, whether correctly or not.
Yeah, it's like that here too. I do believe some will do the whole time if they don't have a lawyer. There's also legitimate bad behavior in many cases.
Sometimes they do even more than their time simply because the system "forgot" to release them and they don't have someone to help them.
That's fair, 8 years is pretty extreme
I agree with a number of your points, but I think it’s wrong to insist we can only have a completely relative notion of what counts as discrimination.
It is normal to have an agreed upon definition of these things in your society. That agreement comes through a democratic process, where elected representatives write laws, and the final decision on whether the laws apply or have been violated is given by a judge and a jury of peers.
That way we can define discrimination in a way that is more than just one person’s individual opinion, and which reflects society at large.
I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that personal and societal freedoms must be balanced. Hateful and violent speech cannot be protected above the lives of those who are hurt by it.
I don't think I'd agree with you a year ago, but based on the current political environment in my country, I definitely don't agree with you now.
Even if we could rely on judges being impartial at all times, a mere charge can ruin someones life. The trump administration is aggressively trying to curtail free speech, free press, and free assembly, and they're doing it under the guise of exactly what you're proposing we should make illegal.
Criticism of Israel, or his administration is classified by them as hate speech, antisemitism, and incitement to terrorism. It doesn't matter that a reasonable person sees that as obvious nonsense. His administration is deporting legal residents under that pretext. If the first amendment didn't exist, it would go a lot further than that. All it takes is a single judge sympathetic to the administration to ruin someones life, and even if someone is charged and exonerated, the lengthy court case and public spectical destroys lives as well.
All of that is bad, but the worst part is the chilling effect that has on speech. There's no way a legal resident is as willing to speak up about injustice today as they were six months ago. Why would you risk your entire future and your life for standing up for what you believe in? Some people are still going to be willing to make that sacrifice, and that's honorable, but most people would not.
I hate to make a slippery slope argument when it comes to free speech, but thanks to Trump, I no longer have to. We're seeing the direct results of what happens when a tyrant gets elected to an otherwise free society. Without safeguards our constitution has put in place in place that limit his power to control the kinds of speech he doesn't like, "hateful" or "violent" speech would just become a matter of opinion.
8 years in prison for saying bad things? Even if I thought prison for speech was in any way acceptable (I don’t) the scale seems insanely inappropriate. People routinely get sentenced to less for actually killing people.
Hate speech against marginalized communities definitely actually kills people
Did this hate speech kill anybody? Who?
If someone is going to prison for 8 years, I would want to see some specific examples of real, observable dead bodies with a clear connection to the speech that is being punished.
I don't know enough of the specifics to say whether or not I agree with this specific case. But I disagree with the blanket sentiment. Widely-broadcasted hate speech can hurt society a lot more than a single case of murder
Selling soft drinks to school children can harm society more than a single murder, but I don’t think we should be imprisoning people for making unhealthy food, much less spreading ideas that I don’t like.
Also, most political speeches definitely kills people. Corporations definitely kills people.
I'm not saying that hate speech should be allowed, but for me it's ridiculous that comedian jailed for a jokes.
I don't know the jokes or the cultural context in detail, but if he is performing stochastic terrorism, inciting violence against minorities, this seems reasonable to me. It's important to make it clear that hate is not ok.
Maybe someone who speaks Portuguese can watch it and translate some examples?
EDIT: I'm trying to watch it. It is profoundly unfunny. It is basically "Regional and racial prejudices and stereotypes: the show". There's very little elaboration beyond that. I wish I was offended, as at least that would be an emotion. But it feels like a 10 year old trying to be offensive. It's puerile. This shows just makes me very very bored.
I most certainly could but I'm not watching a 1 hour show. I saw the highlights back when it made the news. They are highly offensive, in very poor taste and not funny at all. "Terrorism" seems a bit much.
To me that's the important line, but of course that's a very American point of view.
It is illegal to incite violence. I cannot say you should kill everyone who does X. I can say I hate everyone who does X. It's a thin line, but I think this topic already has discussion on why such a line exists.
Hard to tell from the article if this person would've crossed it by American standards as well.
A big issue I have with jailing people for hate speech is second-order effects*. In summary, you can't hurt your enemies without your friends getting hurt by retaliation or crossfire.
Perhaps a ideal world, nobody would be allowed to make these "jokes". However, we don't live in an ideal world, and when someone gets jailed for hate speech, it creates factors that make it more likely for someone else to be jailed for something mundane or even good. Violence must be punished because it can't be ignored, but nobody was forced to watch the YouTube video this man was convicted for.
A good counter-argument is that hate speech encourages targeted harassment and violence, and this is true. However, I still believe that prosecuting it leads to more harassment and violence overall. I can't prove this, and maybe I'm wrong, but the rise of far-right in the past decade strengthened this belief (are there other, historical examples of such a resurgence?). Also, my experience and looking at world history and events, most people are passive unless they feel threatened (or that their friends or family are threatened); taking away freedom from someone for saying horrible things would threaten others who think and say the same things, but are otherwise too comfortable to act them out.
Remember that war puts everyone at risk within a large vicinity, and usually both sides end up worse overall. That doesn't mean always choose pacifism, sometimes you must war, but only for self-defense. Similarly, I believe we should lock up some people, but only to prevent them and others from committing similar crimes in the future. The problem with this conviction is that I fear it straight-up won't work, and in practice cause more harm than good.
* I also don't believe he or anyone deserves jail time for speech (with exceptions like hiring a hitman or revealing secrets to an enemy at war). I believe "live and let live", and speech generally doesn't prevent others from living. But the idea that this man's conviction and related ones could hurt others in particular is what makes me feel the need to post something.
Here's the full show if you want to judge the content of the show for yourself, though I'd have preferred the article include some of the discriminatory content. I have no tolerance for the sort of rot they describe, but I can't really process this without knowing what he actually said that got him sentenced.
YT can generate auto translated captions.
https://youtu.be/FVRhVwOgDCM