Do you think this has happened while libel and defamation laws? If not, why are those laws different?
I simply don't understand why I could be sued for saying "[individual X] is a pedophile" but it is fine to say "all [race/religion/gender/sexuality Y] individuals are pedophiles" even if that individual X is included in that group Y. Aren't you defaming individual X either way? Why does including other people in your defamation make it acceptable?
It is best to look at this from a procedural standpoint. If you make a specific claim against an individual, that individual has the ability to prove that they are harmed/affected by what you have done. Which means they have standing and the case is much less likely to be immediately dismissed. Additionally, that individual is able to defend themselves against the claims that you have made and would actually be able to present evidence in any proceedings.
Whereas accusing a group means no individual has a clear case that they have been harmed. And, there is generally no individual or organization from said group that is able to speak for it. Although there are indeed some organizations that exist for this purpose, like the ADL.
It is not so much that being non-specific makes defamation acceptable, but rather, being non specific makes it so much more difficult to go after the person.
What if there is a clear case of being harmed? For example, what if a mass shooter cites someone who spouts hate speech as a motivation for their actions?
How is that different from Charles Manson claiming that The Beatles were sending him coded messages telling him to start a race war, or David Berkowitz claiming that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people?
Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?
It is ironic that you use Manson as an example. He was convicted of murder despite not directly committing the murders or ordering the murders to be done. He is in jail for the how his speech inspired others to act.
These are trials we are talking about. We don’t have to believe everything that is said. We can let a jury look at the situation and make a decision. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider any Beatles lyrics to be instructions to murder. A reasonable person could interpret some hate speech as instructions for murder.
Here is the first paragraph of Manson's Wikipedia page:
>Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and musician who led the Manson Family, a cult based in California, in the late 1960s. Some of the members committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
Not a lawyer, but I think with libel/defamation, you need to show that you lost something of value because of the statement. Odds are this won't be as widely applicable as something like 'hate speech' (eg. how will you show some internet racist's words caused you monetary damages?).
>> Finally, there was no pre-existing relationship between Westboro's speech and Snyder that might suggest that the speech on public matters was intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Therefore, the Court held that the Phelps and his followers were "speaking" on matters of public concern on public property and thus, were entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
Perhaps because people intuitively understand that "all X are Y" really means "most X are Y" or possibly even "a lot of X are Y". In other words, that the phrase "all X are Y" does not imply "A is an X, and therefore it's also a Y". Generalized statements are known to be generally more inaccurate than statements about specific objects.
U.S. defamation law does make a distinction between individuals and groups in this area.
It's not defamation to say "All surgeons are butchers" but is defamation to say "Doctor (insert doctor's name) is a butcher." (that is, assuming that the doctor isn't actually a butcher... truth is a defense against defamation).
I simply don't understand why I could be sued for saying "[individual X] is a pedophile" but it is fine to say "all [race/religion/gender/sexuality Y] individuals are pedophiles" even if that individual X is included in that group Y. Aren't you defaming individual X either way? Why does including other people in your defamation make it acceptable?