3 ms·

But once you ban antisemitism (or racism, sexism, etc.) it becomes possible to censor ideas simply by labeling as such, even when such a label is inappropriate.

But once you ban antisemitism (or racism, sexism, etc.) it becomes possible to censor ideas simply by labeling as such, even when such a label is inappropriate. > We can, and indeed are ethically obliged to, recognize it as deleterious to civil society, and use the levers of power that we the people have to quietly, powerfully, and unapologetically say: this is not something that we tolerate. I suspect that among "we the people" the position you advocate for is in the minority, even among the populations you feel you are protecting.

sagichmal 8y ago
> But once you ban antisemitism (or racism, sexism, etc.) it becomes possible to censor ideas simply by labeling as such, even when such a label is inappropriate. This is transparently specious reasoning, because it can be used without modification to delegitimize any law or restriction. It's OK to say action X is appropriate in context A but not in context B. It's OK to legislate on those differences, even if the difference between A and B is not always perfectly discernable. We can deal with that ambiguity as a species. Not always perfectly, but that's OK. As long as we're always reducing suffering, or trying to, we're making forward progress.