3 ms·

A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'

A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there. It would be intimidating and rage-inducing, but its worth keeping in mind that the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc. Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response. They fall under the category of speech. The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself. Which is a form of intolerance.

hackuser 11y ago
> the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc. It's factually true but I don't think it's realistic. First, much of what people can do won't expose them to law enforcement. They can get you fired, prevent you from getting hired, cost you that contract, keep your kids off the football team or out of the good school, pass laws that make your life difficult, have city inspectors and police go over everything you do with a fine tooth comb (e.g., driving while black), etc. Second, law enforcement and the legal system in general have a long history of not protecting marginalized groups but persecuting them. When the sheriff, mayor, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all white and all know each other, and you know the history of blacks in the legal system, you may not want to trust your fate to their protection. > Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response. Again, this may be true in theory but I strongly disagree it's true in reality. They are serious threats because they have a long, very well-established history of being backed up with action. I don't think you mean it this way, but it amounts to saying (as I understand it) that blacks don't face actual discrimination, therefore the threats are empty.
- icanhackit 11y ago
  They can get you fired, prevent you from getting hired, cost you that contract, keep your kids off the football team or out of the good school, pass laws that make your life difficult Right, which censorship can't do anything about either. When the sheriff, mayor, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all white and all know each other [...] you may not want to trust your fate to their protection. No, but rights issues and law-enforcement abuse can be escalated beyond Sheriff Chuck's fiefdom. It's not perfect - I understand that marginalized people are usually poor and lack agency, however a system exists. It needs improving, but that's what we should be focusing on. Not on words spoken but the tools and processes that exist to help bolster individual rights. Those tools protect you as well. that blacks don't face actual discrimination, therefore the threats are empty. It would be more along the lines of if they didn't face actual violence due to effective law-enforcement, the threats ARE merely words. So focus on effective law-enforcement, the sticks and stones, not on what people can and cannot say. Otherwise you're just sweeping a cancerous sentiment under the rug where it'll grow and fester.

hackuser 11y ago

> the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc. It's factually true but I don't think it's realistic. First, much of what people can do won't expose them to law enforcement. They can get you fired, prevent you from getting hired, cost you that contract, keep your kids off the football team or out of the good school, pass laws that make your life difficult, have city inspectors and police go over everything you do with a fine tooth comb (e.g., driving while black), etc. Second, law enforcement and the legal system in general have a long history of not protecting marginalized groups but persecuting them. When the sheriff, mayor, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all white and all know each other, and you know the history of blacks in the legal system, you may not want to trust your fate to their protection. > Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response. Again, this may be true in theory but I strongly disagree it's true in reality. They are serious threats because they have a long, very well-established history of being backed up with action. I don't think you mean it this way, but it amounts to saying (as I understand it) that blacks don't face actual discrimination, therefore the threats are empty.

icanhackit 11y ago
They can get you fired, prevent you from getting hired, cost you that contract, keep your kids off the football team or out of the good school, pass laws that make your life difficult Right, which censorship can't do anything about either. When the sheriff, mayor, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all white and all know each other [...] you may not want to trust your fate to their protection. No, but rights issues and law-enforcement abuse can be escalated beyond Sheriff Chuck's fiefdom. It's not perfect - I understand that marginalized people are usually poor and lack agency, however a system exists. It needs improving, but that's what we should be focusing on. Not on words spoken but the tools and processes that exist to help bolster individual rights. Those tools protect you as well. that blacks don't face actual discrimination, therefore the threats are empty. It would be more along the lines of if they didn't face actual violence due to effective law-enforcement, the threats ARE merely words. So focus on effective law-enforcement, the sticks and stones, not on what people can and cannot say. Otherwise you're just sweeping a cancerous sentiment under the rug where it'll grow and fester.