The "Hate Speech" button - really?

Criteria/definitions/guidelines are always useful and welcomed.

Hi.

Do you have the guidance notes on that, some kind of definition as to what it actually is?

Thanks. I think that is what the OP really wanted to know.

What happens when someone is deleted, do you inform them? Or the police? Is there a right of reply? Or an appeals process?

Sorry, comment above is mine, I'm shit at name changes.

If you read the other thread where we discussed this, you will see much confusion over what 'hate speech' is, whether 'hate speech' is illegal, and what the protected characteristics are. So its how it impacts on users. Plenty people are delighted to accuse posters of various transgressions (witness post above for a handy working example) and I'm sure will make gleeful use of the 'hate speech' button.

It's up to Mumsnet what buttons they use; if it were me, I doubt I'd be encouraging people to look for, identify and report such a nebulous (and as discussed, inherently sexist) idea as 'hate speech'.

Yes I agree. “Cancel culture” or controlling types or the permanently offended should not be allowed to shut down debate.

I know the moderators can’t be everywhere but shutting down every reported post without checking it first is not moderation so Mumsnet could save few bob by not employing them at all.

Oh, you mean you're flinging accusations with no evidence, Yup? I am unsurprised.

Yeah but the so called Mumsnet feminists do indulge in quite a lot of homophobia and transphobia - ie hate speech. I would show you examples but i can't, as they've been deleted for hate speech.

In what way? I get that you're inferring some kind of quasi-legal connection, but I can't see how MN is implying one with "Hate Speech" any more than with "Personal Attack".

Because it's confusing. It implies a quasi-legal category when there is none.

"Hate speech" isn't a crime but then nor are "Spam / Advertising/ Research", "Not a Genuine Poster", "Personal Attack" or most variants of "Other". I don't see why you feel that (lack of) criminal status is relevant in this one case?

All this means is that enough people are already reporting posts and putting "Hate Speech" in the free text description that it makes sense to give it its own category.

There are several problems with the button, as I think this whole thread has been explaining.

1. Its overkill
2. it's suggesting a legal basis for reports that doesn't actually exist
3. it's vaguely referencing a law that is inherently biased against women, when most users of Mumsnet are women
4. It's confusing and unhelpful
5. It may be used against Mumsnet by those who seek to undermine and impugn the site and claim that there is a lot of 'hate speech'

So, hate speech doesn't have a legal definition, and so it does indeed just mean "someone has written something egregious in this post, take a look", and there's no problem with the button at all? Great.

Personally, I think it is not terribly a good idea to invoke 'hate crime' when the law itself is so skewed against women, and so vague. It gives the impression MN have more power or standing than they actually do and it also reinforces the whole consept of 'hate crime' which as many will argue is a law that has misogyny baked into it by the omission of 'sex' as one of the pcs.

But I am not an expert, by any means.

Hello!

We discussed this a bit on the feminist board, so leaving some points here as asked:

Legally there is no such thing as 'hate speech' - a 'hate crime' is an aggravating element to an existing crime. So if you assault someone but while doing so you use defamatory words referring to their identity that can be taken into account when sentencing.

'Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ There are five centrally monitored strands of hate crime:

race or ethnicity

religion or beliefs

sexual orientation

disability

transgender identity'

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2017-to-2018

It's a pretty vague definition, and that's probably largely why so many people are critical of the law.

'Hate crime' isn't the same as the Equality Act, the PCs are different (sex isn't included).

www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

'The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:

Race

Religion

Disability

Sexual orientation

Transgender identity'
...
'The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.'

I don't mind it, and I've used it. I figure it's a way for MN to prioritise reviewing posts that have been reported for being racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or, yes, transphobic. They must get loads of reports and they'll want to prioritise removing the worst offensive stuff over spam.

Women are not assaulting, forcing parts of their bodies into men, and killing them at a huge rate...if you want to be specific.

Less than 1% of rapes end with any action at all and that's the ones we know about.

Men murder women and say 'Ooh she said she wanted me to strangle her and it just all went wrong' and get let off.

Males are coercing women, including lesbians, into sex, and strangulting them, hitting them and spitting on and in them and it's seen as 'rough sex'.

This is completely normalised behaviour now.

Men hate us and we can do not a damn thing about it. Whilst men have women like you here to keep on with the 'but what about men' all the live long day.

I do believe that reports of ableism, racism, homophobia and misogyny should be prioritised over the majority of things reported, yes.

The reporting categories reflect talk guidelines, and, ultimately, if posters report under the 'hate speech' option for spurious reasons then MN won't take any action on the person reported so it's really not a big deal. If it is considered to be 'hate speech' and reported there'll be a deletion/warning/ban. Nothing else happens.

'Offensive' is much broader than what I'd see as coming under 'hate speech' here, and it doesn't confer the same meaning. I suppose 'hate speech' could be changed to something like 'discriminatory language/sentiment' but it's a bit faffy, especially when people will use the option for the same posts anyway.

A poster who's reported won't even know unless a post is deleted, and they won't be told they've been reported for hate speech.

For me, it's less about the label itself and more about having a way to prioritise particular reports to mods, to save them having to filter through 101 reports of a petition on a main board before seeing a report for horrific racism or ableism.

It is impossible to rape as a woman. So the number will be zero. A man who sleeps with an underage child is guilty of rape a woman doing the same thing will not be so that is hardly a fair comparison. There is a lot of female on male assaults that are not reported because of stigma. I saw a woman battering a man in the street nobody intervened untill the poor chap dared to defend himself and give some back. Then people got involved they were happy to see him get beaten.