Common First Amendment arguments refuted: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/ #firstamendment #freespeech
Interesting read. And it seems like American law has some holes in it.
Speech that incites racial hatred and/or violence is protected speech (why?) as long as it doesn't incite it *now*, the moment it's uttered. That seems like a pretty big hole.
@stark We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to speech that we (claim) incites violence. Otherwise, we give the state very broad authority to stamp down things like dissent.
That is true.
It should not be that difficult to clearly classify racial hatred speech and speech that suggests inflicting violence on minorities or ethnic groups.
Wherein gets tricky is dogwhistling, where it's very subtle what is said and how it's suggested. And that's not the target either. The target is the overt bits.
@stark Dog whistling and also musing aloud about certain groups (e.g. punching Nazis). Remember that all of this well-intentioned stuff that is supposed to protect minorities can (and will!) get weaponized against them, too.
Indeed. Some medicine don't taste good going down. If "punching Nazis" becomes illegal to say at the same time as a lot of the speech used to incite violence and hatred against POC, LGBT people, Jews etc - it's a fair trade-off considering how many people stand to benefit.
@stark That etc is the hard part: who counts? Again, this *will* get weaponized. It is better to have freedom that is very broad but gets abused than it is to have freedom that is curtailed and consequently *is* abused.
I respectfully disagree.
Neither of us will change our minds and I can understand your point.
When the choice stands between protecting minorities and vulnerable groups of people *now* versus the hypothetical potential for abuse later, which steps can be taken to mitigate or even prevent outright, I don't understand the reluctance. There's many things I don't understand though, and I don't always agree with everyone. So we can park this. :)
@stark Yeah, I have no problem with you or your perspective as such: it is certainly well-intentioned. I am grateful as someone who has never engaged in hate speech terrorism that I have a very broad freedom of speech and the value in maintaining it comes at the cost of some who will use it nefariously (just like a right to privacy or a public park or a library).