Hate speech -- against animals

[rogue06]

Reality keeps making satire increasingly difficult.

Source: Sheffield university doctors propose new laws to protect animals – from hate speech

Two Sheffield university doctors have explored the possibilities of proposing new laws aimed at protecting animals - from hate speech


Dr Josh Milburn and Dr Alasdair Cochrane, both from the University of Sheffield suggest anti-animal language should be banned as this may help inculcate "more benign human–animal relations within society."

The proposals, published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, state that animals too can experience the impact of hate crimes in a way that undermines their 'social confidence'.

This means, "speciesist" hate speech is as bad as racist hate speech.

It could also be hate speech to say the lives of a non-native species matter less than a native one.

The abstract of the journal read: "Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups.

"However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech.

"We explore two sets of possible defences of this legal discrepancy drawn from the philosophical literature on hate speech - non-consequentialist and harm-based - and find both wanting.

"We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech."

The journal said some animals "do seem to have their social confidence eroded because of their awareness of the risk of violence.

"'Game' animals who learn to avoid humans or companion animals who have suffered abuse could be described as individuals whose social confidence has been eroded because of fear of attack.

"If correct, this would mean that (at least some) animals are part of a vulnerable group, warranting relevant protective laws as such."

Although the academicians acknowledged in their conclusion that even if the harmfulness of hate speech (racist or speciesist) provides a prima facie reason to support the criminalisation of said speech, criminalisation is not justified.

“Perhaps, for example, the harms of criminalisation would be significant enough to counterbalance the harms criminalisation seeks to avert. Or perhaps the harms of hate speech could be counterbalanced without the need for the drastic step of criminalisation, such as through counter-speech.”


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

So when I call my foxhound stupid that is hate speech? Did she even really know what I said?

[seanD]

Reality keeps making satire increasingly difficult.

Source: Sheffield university doctors propose new laws to protect animals – from hate speech

Two Sheffield university doctors have explored the possibilities of proposing new laws aimed at protecting animals - from hate speech


Dr Josh Milburn and Dr Alasdair Cochrane, both from the University of Sheffield suggest anti-animal language should be banned as this may help inculcate "more benign human–animal relations within society."

The proposals, published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, state that animals too can experience the impact of hate crimes in a way that undermines their 'social confidence'.

This means, "speciesist" hate speech is as bad as racist hate speech.

It could also be hate speech to say the lives of a non-native species matter less than a native one.

The abstract of the journal read: "Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups.

"However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech.

"We explore two sets of possible defences of this legal discrepancy drawn from the philosophical literature on hate speech - non-consequentialist and harm-based - and find both wanting.

"We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech."

The journal said some animals "do seem to have their social confidence eroded because of their awareness of the risk of violence.

"'Game' animals who learn to avoid humans or companion animals who have suffered abuse could be described as individuals whose social confidence has been eroded because of fear of attack.

"If correct, this would mean that (at least some) animals are part of a vulnerable group, warranting relevant protective laws as such."

Although the academicians acknowledged in their conclusion that even if the harmfulness of hate speech (racist or speciesist) provides a prima facie reason to support the criminalisation of said speech, criminalisation is not justified.

“Perhaps, for example, the harms of criminalisation would be significant enough to counterbalance the harms criminalisation seeks to avert. Or perhaps the harms of hate speech could be counterbalanced without the need for the drastic step of criminalisation, such as through counter-speech.”


Source

© Copyright Original Source

You're pretty brave.

I would have actually been extremely reluctant to post this having no confidence in the fact I wasn't being duped by a satire piece.

[rogue06]

So when I call my foxhound stupid that is hate speech? Did she even really know what I said?

What about if you call a couple of female dogs the term for female dogs?^[1] Will it depend on tone?^[2]

And how soon will it include using stereotypical language? Like how you can't use expressions like "Dutch treat" or "Indian giver" today, will things like "sly as a fox" or "bird-brained" become verboten in the near future?

smiley dunno.gif



1. I've actually got an amusing story about that, which I may have mentioned previously.

2. And that goes back to when I was accused of "brow-beating" a dog, which was amusing in it's own right

[Sparko]

Well I guess that means we can't tease Teal and her cats anymore.

Rats!

Er, sorry, no offense to rodents of unusual size.

[Sparko]

PS Here is the original paper:

https://academic.oup.com/ojls/advanc...9858#256972741

[seanD]

PS Here is the original paper:

https://academic.oup.com/ojls/advanc...9858#256972741

Academia. What's happening to you?

[Sparko]

Academia. What's happening to you?

Well this is what happens when millennials go to liberal colleges and get liberal degrees and can't find real jobs. They end up in academia writing stupid papers based on social justice ideas they learned in college. It's a viscous cycle.

[Backup]

Reality keeps making satire increasingly difficult.

Source: Sheffield university doctors propose new laws to protect animals – from hate speech

Two Sheffield university doctors have explored the possibilities of proposing new laws aimed at protecting animals - from hate speech


Dr Josh Milburn and Dr Alasdair Cochrane, both from the University of Sheffield suggest anti-animal language should be banned as this may help inculcate "more benign human–animal relations within society."

The proposals, published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, state that animals too can experience the impact of hate crimes in a way that undermines their 'social confidence'.

This means, "speciesist" hate speech is as bad as racist hate speech.

It could also be hate speech to say the lives of a non-native species matter less than a native one.

The abstract of the journal read: "Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups.

"However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech.

"We explore two sets of possible defences of this legal discrepancy drawn from the philosophical literature on hate speech - non-consequentialist and harm-based - and find both wanting.

"We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech."

The journal said some animals "do seem to have their social confidence eroded because of their awareness of the risk of violence.

"'Game' animals who learn to avoid humans or companion animals who have suffered abuse could be described as individuals whose social confidence has been eroded because of fear of attack.

"If correct, this would mean that (at least some) animals are part of a vulnerable group, warranting relevant protective laws as such."

Although the academicians acknowledged in their conclusion that even if the harmfulness of hate speech (racist or speciesist) provides a prima facie reason to support the criminalisation of said speech, criminalisation is not justified.

“Perhaps, for example, the harms of criminalisation would be significant enough to counterbalance the harms criminalisation seeks to avert. Or perhaps the harms of hate speech could be counterbalanced without the need for the drastic step of criminalisation, such as through counter-speech.”


Source

© Copyright Original Source

This seems to be kind of an academic exercise. The points they are making are rather subtle.

https://sheffieldanimals.group.shef....-josh-milburn/

I mean, obviously animals can’t understand human speech, and of course, these guys know that

[seanD]

Well this is what happens when millennials go to liberal colleges and get liberal degrees and can't find real jobs. They end up in academia writing stupid papers based on social justice ideas they learned in college. It's a viscous cycle.

And in our legislative seats passing policy.

[seer]

Well this is what happens when millennials go to liberal colleges and get liberal degrees and can't find real jobs. They end up in academia writing stupid papers based on social justice ideas they learned in college. It's a viscous cycle.

Or they end up in your HR department making everyone as insane as them...

[rogue06]

This seems to be kind of an academic exercise. The points they are making are rather subtle.

https://sheffieldanimals.group.shef....-josh-milburn/

I mean, obviously animals can’t understand human speech, and of course, these guys know that

You obviously never owned a pet.

I had a dog that the moment anyone started talking about food he would head out into the kitchen waiting in anticipation. We had to change various terms and words so that he wouldn't understand but he would catch on real quick. I think we went through nearly a dozen different names for pizza.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This seems to be kind of an academic exercise. The points they are making are rather subtle.

https://sheffieldanimals.group.shef....-josh-milburn/

I mean, obviously animals can’t understand human speech, and of course, these guys know that

Thank you for that link - it offers links to further works on these associated topics.

I also wonder if some of the correspondents who have posted so far have actually read the paper. Or are we just getting a knee-jerk reaction in response to an article in a local news outlet?

[KingsGambit]

I was disappointed that I couldn't find it, but it reminds me of a Garfield comic I read as a kid. Garfield's owner was flirting with his veterinarian, and used some animal related term to do so. She responded that she did not approve of the abuse of animal terms, and he said, "Rats."

[Cerebrum123]

I was disappointed that I couldn't find it, but it reminds me of a Garfield comic I read as a kid. Garfield's owner was flirting with his veterinarian, and used some animal related term to do so. She responded that she did not approve of the abuse of animal terms, and he said, "Rats."

I think I remember one like that. I used to read a lot of the Garfield comics when I was younger.