3 ms·

You say that as if a meaningful, non-political distinction can ever be made between "hate speech" and "free speech".

• zapita 7y ago
  Do you consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be political? If so: you are equipped with the necessary building blocks to define hate speech in a non-political way. If not: your definition of “political” is so broad as to be meaningless.
  • voldacar 7y ago
    >Do you consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be political? Well yes tbh. The fact that a certain group of people in power at a certain point in history made a "universal declaration" about something says very little about whether I or anyone else should care about it or agree with it. In other words it is the epitome of political. I am happy to make up my own mind on the nature of "human rights".
  • rndgermandude 7y ago
    It is clearly political, and not so universal either by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rig...
  • fennecfoxen 7y ago
    If the Cairo Declaration in and of itself gives us all the building blocks that allow us to define hate-speech in a non-political way, then what was the purpose of the Rabat Plan of Action, with all its rapporteurs and its workshops on four continents? Do you believe that process was not a political process?