Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Hate speech rallies nearly halved 1 year after law's enactment

26 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

There's freedom of speech and then there's hate speech. Good riddance to the racists.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

still see em around everyday. now summers coming they will come out of the woodwork.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

But, nobody has been fined or penalized for their hate speeches.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

it's a very tricky proposition. Incitement should cover some of this. "Kill" so and so is incitement - or could be. However, the people pushing for more should think carefully. Freedom isn't free and free speech and expression means people get to say stuff we don't always like.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I highly doubt it's that number.

35 demonstrations for the whole year that's it?

I can count like 10 times the Black trucks gathered outside the Korean Embassy in Osaka this year, and the things they were saying would be called hate speech.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

And of the 35 rallies during which hate speech was chanted, how many did the police go in and break up? Let's not call them "demonstrations" because the word infers there is a reasonable purpose for what they are doing.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

There's freedom of speech and then there's hate speech.

No, there is only free speech. If you leave it up to the government to decide what you can say than you cannot speak freely.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

No, there is only free speech. If you leave it up to the government to decide what you can say than you cannot speak freely.

So do you think it's ok that people joke about planting bombs while they are in airports?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Back on topic please. Your example is not hate speech.

No, there is only free speech.

Are you including incitement to violence? How about a hate preacher instructing his followers to commit genocide?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No, there is only free speech. If you leave it up to the government to decide what you can say than you cannot speak freely.

I'm all for freedom of speech but where do you draw the line? Holocaust denial? A paedophile propaganda party in The Netherlands? Incitement to violence?

Vexing, to say the least.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Kanashii desu. Shakai wa yasashisa ga nai. Moshi hitobito wa honto shinsetsu. No matter what country, people are the same they do not value life .

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's valid of course to ask where we draw the line. I'd say very carefully. Incitement should be criminal: calling for violence...perhaps even some kinds of dehumanizing language as far as it is aimed at legitimizing violence. But I still think there has to be room for people to say things we don't like or don't agree with. The aim of law should not be to make us comfortable and orderly. It should be to protect against specific, objective (as far as possible) crimes. Holocaust denial is crazy and stupid but it should not be illegal. Protecting children from harm and abuse, on the other hand, is a paramount concern of the state. This is not an easy issue. Yet, we should be clear about what we're trying to achieve. I don't want to achieve a society in which I cannot be offended. I do want to achieve one wherein people are physically safe and where actual demonstrable discrimination is prohibited.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@shallots

So you believe that as long as there is no incitement to actual violence, it should not be against the law to hold rallies and shout racist, misogynist, discriminatory chants? You do know that people in Japan hold such rallies where the people they are against live/work/go to school right? Children cannot be protected from hearing the hate speech espoused by these people and it is surely traumatic and harmful to them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Children cannot be protected from hearing the hate speech espoused by these people and it is surely traumatic and harmful to them.

The biggest weapon the government has against our freedoms is to mumble the word "children" and hope we'll start giving them blank cheques to tie our own hands up.

I say if they actually cause some measurable damage, we charge those responsible for Injury (which actually does cover the psychological). Otherwise, freedom of expression is too valuable to compromise, even if a few lumps have to be taken.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Politics, religion, and race - the taboo topics. Believe in addition to hate or racist speech laws, Japan also has a law that prevents denigration or talking bad about a religion. All that's left is politics. Soon, can't criticize govt. I'm all for social stigma and taboos, but not criminalizing.

Ps - incitement to violence is separate from hate speech laws and nearly every country has.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Local programs like "just say no to racism and hate speech" and community yen for those that take a stand against such and participate in anti-hate speech activities.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

...As opposed to laws.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So do you think it's ok that people joke about planting bombs while they are in airports?

Existing laws cover incitement to violence or to terrorize without putting government in charge of monitoring and enforcing the content of speech. That is what the Left wants and that is what is so undemocratic and down right fascist about these laws.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If there are laws covering incitement to violence then why were the rallies where signs/chants expressed "kill" the particular group they were attacking not stopped or broken up? Often if the existing laws are comprehensively enforced there is no need for further restrictive legislation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

["So do you think it's ok that people joke about planting bombs while they are in airports?"]

No that should not be allowed. Neither should simply screaming "BOMB!" or "FIRE!" either in a crowded place, since that could alarm people near by and possibly cause a dangerous stampede towards the exists with injuries or even trampling deaths. The person trying to be funny should be held accountable.

Hate speech is detestable, but should it be illegal? The problem is, because most of us are not far right in tactics, we do not go to the same extremes. So the right wingers are few and far between and have to shout to be heard. But if we had a rally of all normal people vs the nuts, (or just showing up to their rallies) it would easily be 100-1 and they would turn tale and run. We would not even have to say or do anything. They are not convincing anyone, but themselves. For every recruiter on the street handing out hateful speech and pamphlets, have five normal people handing out flowers and "truth" pamphlets.

The question shouldn't be should we allow hate speech, but how to diminish people growing up feeling the need to hate to begin with. That is what any society should be trying to answer and correct.

But halving is pretty good for any country in such a short amount of time. But if you make it illegal to say certain things and they change they wording, but clearly mean the same things and you allow them to continue, that is not good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still hanging out at Ochanomizu station every week... right in front of the koban. Real good job enforcing :-/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is progress in the right direction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If there are laws covering incitement to violence then why were the rallies where signs/chants expressed "kill" the particular group they were attacking not stopped or broken up?

Well obviously because the police do not consistently enforce existing law as it is. Therefore what is the point of more laws restricting free speech? Police are never able to consistently and reliably enforce the extreme number of laws, rules, and regulations. So the more you have the more arbitrary and unfair the enforcement becomes.

Either you have free speech for everyone or free speech becomes government approved speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Existing laws cover incitement to violence or to terrorize without putting government in charge of monitoring and enforcing the content of speech.

In this comment you don't seem to be condemning the existing laws on inciting violence or using speech to terrorize. So it would appear that you do think that some limitation of speech is appropriate, is that correct?

That would go against your original comment though:

If you leave it up to the government to decide what you can say than you cannot speak freely.

The government has decided you cannot use speech to incite violence or to terrorize, and you are ok with that, but you are not ok with using speech as hate. So where does the line lie for you? Which parts of speech is it appropriate for the government to regulate, and which aren't, and what is the difference that you see that specifically justifies one of these and not the other?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites