[DanaC]

Originally Posted by BigV

And we absolutely *DO* make judgments about the ... importance of all kinds of remarks including hateful ones. As a student of language you know well the value of tone and context in all kinds of communication.

Generally speaking there is a fairly fundamental difference in approach between America and Europe when it comes to laws on hate speech. Under American legal codes it is defined in terms of its offensiveness and capacity to cause distress to victims. This places internet communication in particular in less danger of regulation than other media (radio and television). The 'victim' must first go through several steps to access the material, therefore they have effectively sought it out and been offended by it. It hasnt intruded unsought into their life as something floating actross the radio might.

In Europe the baseline for hate speech laws is the impact they have on society more generally that underlies what is considered unacceptable.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines hate speech
as “speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of
hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in
circumstances where the communication is likely to provoke
violence.” Other sources characterize hate speech as “a form of
expression offensive to women, ethnic and religious groups, and
other discrete minorities.” In many circumstances, hate speech
communicates the message “that distinctions of race [or origin] are
ones of merit, dignity, status, and personhood.” It also injures
career prospects, social mobility, and may even cause mental illness
and psychosomatic disease.

These definitions and descriptions, developed by United States authors, have their focus on victims’ sufferings and reactions and are only partly applicable to Internet speech. First, “communications over the Internet do not appear on computer screens without the user taking a series of affirmative steps,” and in most cases, it is possible to avoid undesirable messages; second, as a rule, neither the speaker nor the addressee is accessible for violence, and in many cases is anonymous or unknown.

According to the Additional Protocol to the [European] Convention on Cybercrime, “‘racist and xenophobic material’ means any representation of thought or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin.” Obviously, the focus of this definition is not on a particular victim but on the dissemination of racist attitudes in the society.

From http://law-wss-01.law.fsu.edu/journa.../timofeeva.pdf

Now, in this case I have two immediate and instinctive responses to JBKlyde: a) that's unacceptable, you've hurt a friend, and b) that's unacceptable, that breaches my understanding of what is and is not appropriate / legal in messageboard communication and represents a wider social danger by the dissemination of hate speech.