Home » Norway bans hate speech at home

Comments

Norway bans hate speech at home — 23 Comments

  1. “Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or show contempt towards someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.”

    Is that latter category going to apply to a generally conservative/patriotic/Judaeo-Christian “philosophy of life”? Not holding my breath . . .

  2. Isn’t the greatest example of hate in the 20th century the slaughter of 100,000,000 helpless human beings in the name of equality, social justice and the working class by socialism? Not holding my breath on this one either.

  3. Someday someone will define anti-government speech or anti-political candidate speech as hate speech and the Norwegians will discover they have been playing with fire. Then it may be too late to keep themselves from being consumed by the very thing they thought would just keep them warm.

  4. The very idea of “hate speech” (as opposed to speech which is hateful, unfortunately an ineluctable fact of the human condition) is entirely unconstitutional, and its inevitably totalitarian use in law depends entirely upon which groups have the power to determine its parameters and its so-called victims. In the old Leninist terminology, it is always a matter of Who Whom?.

  5. The BIG problem with outlawing “hate” speech is WHO decides what constitutes hate speech.
    Hitler and Justice Scalia would each have a different concept of what is hate speech.

    Those who wish to restrict “hate” speech – communists, socialists, liberal progressives, Marxists (but I repeat myself) – will wish they never supported this idea when the “wrong” folks attain power.
    And who are the “wrong” folks; anybody that does not agree with the leftist, socialist, progressive Marxist dogma.
    Those promoting this agenda, I sincerely hope, pay for it with their lives.

  6. “…or philosophy of life….”

    That is interesting. I’ll have to look up the text of the law, if I can find it. I don’t trust the National Review to adequately cover the law or its implications, except insofar as it serves to generate outrage and thus revenue.

    For example, the article references the law as prohibiting speech that, ” threaten[s] or show[s] contempt towards someone …”. Is this term “someone”, meant to stand in for the class of any human being claiming that status, or holding that protected view, whether directly referenced or not? Or does “someone” mean “particularly named” individuals?

    And what does “contempt” mean in the context of Norwegian law? Would “contempt” include expressions of disdain, mere disapprobation, or announced indifference?

    What was recounted seems just as bad in impulse and motivation as we might possibly imagine it to be. And we can envision quite accurately how bad it might go there, as we have seen in embryo here on this very blog, those who would not only police language for violence and bigoty, but also monitor descriptions made of bigots for a sufficient level of condemnatory zeal and emotional ardor.

    But, just out of curiousity, I’d like to know more.

  7. John Tyler “Those who wish to restrict “hate” speech – communists, socialists, liberal progressives, Marxists (but I repeat myself) – will wish they never supported this idea when the “wrong” folks attain power.
    And who are the “wrong” folks; anybody that does not agree with the leftist, socialist, progressive Marxist dogma.” They have no intention of ever allowing the “wrong” people to attain power again.

  8. Now I know more. Not particularly about the most recent iteration, but about what a collection of clowns dominate Norwegian life.

    https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/norway-supreme-court-rules-on-boundaries-of-hate-speech/

    On April 12, 2018, the Norwegian Supreme Court issued a judgment under which a person was sentenced to prison for hate speech. (Norges Høyesterett [Norwegian Supreme Court] Dom [Case No.] HR-2018-674-A, Lovdata website; HR-2018-674-A, Supreme Court website.) The Court found that the man, who on August 15, 2015, had repeatedly called another man of Somali descent “*expletive* darky [jaevla svarting]” and “*expletive* negro” (jaevla neger)” had violated the Norwegian provision on hate speech. (NORWEGIAN PENAL CODE, 135a Straffeloven LOV-1902-05-22-10.)

    The Penal Code criminalizes hate speech, specifically stating in section 135a that

    [a] person who willfully or through gross negligence publicly utters a discriminatory or hateful expression is punishable by fines or imprisonment of up to three years. The use of symbols also counts as an expression. Aiding and abetting is punishable in the same way.

    [“]Discriminatory or hateful expression[”] means to threaten or insult anybody, or to promote hate, persecution, or contempt for anyone because of their

    skin color, or national or ethnic origin,
    religion or faith,
    homosexuality, lifestyle, or sexual orientation, or
    disability
    (§ 135a Straffeloven (translation by author).)

    The Penal Code was revised in 2005, and the hate provision in section 135a of the old Code was incorporated into section 185 of the 2005 Penal Code. (NORWEGIAN PENAL CODE, as revised in 2005, § 185, Lovdata website.) Thus, although the crime was committed while the old Code was in force, the precedent of the old Code applies in interpreting the provision in the current Code.

    Background

    The hate speech occurred after a fight broke out between the two men around 2:30 a.m. in the town of Halden, during which the defendant pushed the Somali man, who retaliated by throwing a baked potato that struck the defendant in the back of his head. (HR-2018-674-A, ¶ 9.) The defendant claimed that his comment was not related to the victim’s skin color or race but should be seen as any other kind of curse word unrelated to the man’s ethnicity. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. (Id. ¶ 13.) The Court also determined that the speech qualified as hate speech according to the provision in the Code because it had clearly been made in public (Id. ¶ 11.)

  9. This is interesting.

    The verdict clarifies the boundaries of free speech versus hate speech in Norway and makes it clear that terms such as “negro” or “darky” are criminalized no matter in what circumstances they are uttered. The fact that a person of color starts the altercation or escalates a conflict cannot be used as a defense. (Id. ¶ 21.) Thus, under Norwegian law, a person is always protected from derogatory and discriminatory comments based on skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, or disability, even when such comments arise during an argument or fight.

  10. When I was in high school, almost 30 years ago, I did a presentation on hate groups for an English class. Much of my source material was from the SPLC (when it still had some redeeming qualities; although it was very much a cash cow even then).

    As part of the presentation, I asked all of my classmates to complete anonymous surveys on hate groups and hate speech. One of my survey questions (deliberately provocative) was whether openly racist speech should be outlawed in the United States. An overwhelming majority of my classmates responded “No”. Of the few who responded “Yes”, virtually all added the caveat that “but it can’t be, because of the First Amendment”.

    To be clear: my high school was in a very liberal college town, and it’s a safe bet most of my classmates were liberals or leftists (or at least their parents were); as was I, at the time. I would assume most of them still are.

    I wonder how many of them would answer the same way today? How many would feverishly deny they ever answered the way they did, lest they be “cancelled”?

  11. Ackler:

    Interesting story. That used to be the point of view on both left and right, with just a few exceptions. Now that the left has completed its Gramscian march, it can dispense with such niceties, and many of the lemmings have changed their tune in response.

  12. Oh I’m sure the SPLC would be happy to Brisk (er, Retcon) the First Amendment into something else given half a chance 😛

    These hate speech laws are pernicious enough outside the home. Add in snitching relatives and ‘friends’ *and* pervasive snooping by all our smart devices and things become decidedly scary.

    There is a similar proposal afoot in the UK at present. There’s a recent YouTube video of James Dellingpole interviewing Anne Widdicombe on just this issue.

    The Woke won’t stop, let alone begin to retreat until they feel acute visceral Fear. Their time will come, but I imagine not for a while yet. The Saxon is Slow…

  13. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    What beautifully crafted words, steel of pure purpose. Congress shall make no law….

  14. Norway may shortly be behind Scotland.
    “Scottish Bill Would Criminalize ‘Hate Speech’ in Private Homes”
    “A controversial bill making its way through Scotland’s Parliament would criminalize hate speech even if the offending words were uttered in someone’s private home.”
    https://news.yahoo.com/scottish-bill-criminalize-hate-speech-184012893.html?guccounter=1

    It’s for the sake of the children…

    “Unlike Europe, the US has a more robust tradition of protection for free speech and for individual liberty in general. For example, we have not yet criminalized “hate speech.” neo

    Give it a bit more time. A preview offered by “hate speech” having been banned on the major Social Media platforms. Hate speech being defined as any speech that the WOKE object to…

  15. Neo, absolutely. When the hard left still was on the fringes and in the shadows, it exploited America’s commitment to free speech and free association to the fullest extent, paying lip service to these cherished values. Now that the left has a great deal of institutional power, and feels emboldened, even cockey at times, such pleasantries are no longer necessary.

  16. That brings up the question of “professional” speech, since most of the physicians/psychiatrists I have known took the high trannssexual suicide rate as an indication of an underlying mental illness. Gays are gay and don’t wear a “uniform” or demand that everyone agree with their obsession. Most are civil (polite) and don’t compete for the redheads that I like. I guess Norwegian and Scotts physicians will not be discussing that issue.

    Will it be legal to shout, “Look out!” when a Muslim pulls his/her sword? That is just their way……

  17. “…hate speech…”

    ” ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ ”

    The next step: To fundamentally transform institutions of “higher learning”.

    It’s coming, all right. Actually, no, it’s already here.
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/smith-college-alums-demand-whistleblower-jodi-shaw-undergo-more-white-privilege-training-to-safely-interact-with-students/

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/cancel-mob-attacks-u-chicago-geophysicist-dorian-abbot-for-questioning-diversity-hiring-dogma/

    Norway has already transitioned itself into irrelevance (except for those of us you enjoy fish and seafood).

    “The question is…” will the US, already on that trajectory be able to find the spine to resist the thuggish onslaught of the intellectual-social perversion.

  18. Gay men and lesbians have been protected from hate speech under Norway’s laws since 1981

    Transgender spectrum. The words “gay” and “lesbian” were appropriated some time in the early to mid twentieth century to facilitate normalization of these two peculiar classes in the spectrum. Gender was introduced to replace sex, and orientation was used as a hack to deny equal treatment and justify exclusion of individuals in the spectrum. The trans/homosexual classes are notoriously purists and prideful.

  19. Diversity (i.e. color judgment) and exclusion (e.g. racism), political congruence (“=”), and sexism (e.g. feminism). A philosophy of life that, perhaps ironically, embraces a philosophy of death: the wicked solution, that carried other labels under progressive regimes. Witch hunts, warlock trials, and protests, too. A Twilight faith., a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (e.g. “ethics”) quasi-religious philosophy [of life], a liberal ideology.

  20. Totalitarianism is trying to take over the world.

    Americans, step forward, because what happens with the US elections will change the world. One way or another.

  21. Tell me again why I want to PAY Amazon or Google or whomever and willingly place a bug in my house?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>