4 ms·

Consider that every limitation to the first amendment ever allowed by SCOTUS was the government limiting the speech of a minority, and never the speech of a pop

Consider that every limitation to the first amendment ever allowed by SCOTUS was the government limiting the speech of a minority, and never the speech of a popular majority to protect a vulnerable minority, and then what you advocate for becomes empowering powerful people to silence the powerless. I don’t consider being against that a flaw. Reference: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gun-store-billboard-targeting-the-squad-be-unconstitutional/ https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/should-the-north-carolina-gu...

SiempreViernes 7y ago
I don't understand your argument: are you saying that allowing hate speech (speech denying the humanity of, and inciting violence towards, certain groups) is good because SCOUTS has historically only limited the speech of minorities?
- afthonos 7y ago
  I am saying that the majority will brand minority speech “hate speech” and use it as a bludgeon.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    That is historically plain wrong, the oppressive majority typically invokes public safety to suppress the speech of the oppressed, not "hate speech". Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".
    - Ajedi32 7y ago
      You don't think "hate speech", as currently defined in popular culture, is being presented as a public safety issue? Just look at this very article: > we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        No, it is clearly about the safety of specific, persecuted, groups.
        Ajedi32 7y ago
        I'm confused. Are you saying the safety of specific, persecuted groups doesn't fall under the category of "public safety"?
    - afthonos 7y ago
      That's because "public safety" was the tool they had at their disposal. Unless you think their claims that public safety was threatened were credible, what makes you think that when they can use "hate speech" AND "public safety", they'll just use "public safety"? Wait, let's not think about hypotheticals. Let's think about actual restrictions of rights and how they've played out. Who gets arrested for racist speech in the UK? Nigel Farage? UKIP members? Nah. Some college student who, as admin of an organization, said white people shouldn't come to her minority events.[1] Well, that's a bummer. But surely Germany knows how to handle hate speech right? Well, unless you offend a friendly head of state; then my dear, it's a legal process for you! [2] Man, you know what's awesome? Ensuring that the state doesn't take religious sides. For that, we shall ban all religious symbols in schools, as France did. Surely this will not affect members of a minority religion, right? Certainly Muslim schoolgirls won't be suspended over headscarves. [3] If you give the state the power to deny rights, they will deny them to the people it's easiest to deny them from. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahar_Mustafa_race_row https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahar_Mustafa_race_row [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_F...
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        You seriously argue that Nazi Germany was forced to invoke "public safety" because of legislative impediments to using "hate speech" as a basis? They were free to choose any basis, and the one chosen clearly contradicts your original argument. I guess I should not be surprised by the cherry picking that follows, where you appear to find one discontinued investigation among the 66000 recorded that year[1] a compelling story on how hate crime legislation is only used to persecute minorities. It is depressing how you use examples of prejudice by state representatives as a basis for arguing against the protection of those being persecuted. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748598/hate-crime-1718-hosb2018.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
        afthonos 7y ago

SiempreViernes 7y ago

I don't understand your argument: are you saying that allowing hate speech (speech denying the humanity of, and inciting violence towards, certain groups) is good because SCOUTS has historically only limited the speech of minorities?

afthonos 7y ago
I am saying that the majority will brand minority speech “hate speech” and use it as a bludgeon.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  That is historically plain wrong, the oppressive majority typically invokes public safety to suppress the speech of the oppressed, not "hate speech". Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    You don't think "hate speech", as currently defined in popular culture, is being presented as a public safety issue? Just look at this very article: > we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      No, it is clearly about the safety of specific, persecuted, groups.
      - Ajedi32 7y ago
        I'm confused. Are you saying the safety of specific, persecuted groups doesn't fall under the category of "public safety"?
  - afthonos 7y ago
    That's because "public safety" was the tool they had at their disposal. Unless you think their claims that public safety was threatened were credible, what makes you think that when they can use "hate speech" AND "public safety", they'll just use "public safety"? Wait, let's not think about hypotheticals. Let's think about actual restrictions of rights and how they've played out. Who gets arrested for racist speech in the UK? Nigel Farage? UKIP members? Nah. Some college student who, as admin of an organization, said white people shouldn't come to her minority events.[1] Well, that's a bummer. But surely Germany knows how to handle hate speech right? Well, unless you offend a friendly head of state; then my dear, it's a legal process for you! [2] Man, you know what's awesome? Ensuring that the state doesn't take religious sides. For that, we shall ban all religious symbols in schools, as France did. Surely this will not affect members of a minority religion, right? Certainly Muslim schoolgirls won't be suspended over headscarves. [3] If you give the state the power to deny rights, they will deny them to the people it's easiest to deny them from. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahar_Mustafa_race_row https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahar_Mustafa_race_row [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_F...
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      You seriously argue that Nazi Germany was forced to invoke "public safety" because of legislative impediments to using "hate speech" as a basis? They were free to choose any basis, and the one chosen clearly contradicts your original argument. I guess I should not be surprised by the cherry picking that follows, where you appear to find one discontinued investigation among the 66000 recorded that year[1] a compelling story on how hate crime legislation is only used to persecute minorities. It is depressing how you use examples of prejudice by state representatives as a basis for arguing against the protection of those being persecuted. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748598/hate-crime-1718-hosb2018.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
      - afthonos 7y ago