8 ms·

Singapore and Malaysia have a history of quite significant race riots during the 1960s - some of my family members (who weren't rioters) ended up on the wrong e

Singapore and Malaysia have a history of quite significant race riots during the 1960s - some of my family members (who weren't rioters) ended up on the wrong end of a tear gas cannon in Kuala Lumpur during that time. It's not entirely surprising, given Singapore's rather paternalistic political philosophy, that the government feels that strong racial/ethnic vilification laws are an appropriate way of responding to the threat of public disorder. I'm not convinced the Singaporean approach is consistent with the freedom of speech and in particular freedom of political communication rights that I value so much, but I can certainly understand how they got to where they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
While I agree with your assessment, one could argue that the restriction of hateful or disparaging speech creates incorrect and harmful stereotypes that can lead to harm, whether it be in the form of street violence or democratic demagoguery. And one could then extrapolate that such permissiveness in speech, even if it directly or indirectly leads to harm, could spill over into damage and instability to society as a whole, particularly to those who were neither a part of the class of those using hateful speech, nor those who were on the receiving end. To me, it appears to be a reasonable tradeoff. Such like how in America the second amendment permits private firearm ownership, but federal law justifiably bans private ownership of automatic weapons, military grade explosives, and so on.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

While I agree with your assessment, one could argue that the restriction of hateful or disparaging speech creates incorrect and harmful stereotypes that can lead to harm, whether it be in the form of street violence or democratic demagoguery. And one could then extrapolate that such permissiveness in speech, even if it directly or indirectly leads to harm, could spill over into damage and instability to society as a whole, particularly to those who were neither a part of the class of those using hateful speech, nor those who were on the receiving end. To me, it appears to be a reasonable tradeoff. Such like how in America the second amendment permits private firearm ownership, but federal law justifiably bans private ownership of automatic weapons, military grade explosives, and so on.