3 ms·

>And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if an

>And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. >Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions. By that measure almost all communication is propaganda, for example, was you comment intended to control the narrative to influence opinions (i.e. censorship is the same as propaganda)? And are you suggesting the censors be censored?

big_chungus 7y ago
> Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. So tyranny of the majority is okay? There are many nations where the majority chooses governments which violate the rights of the minority. The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >So tyranny of the majority is okay? 1) I never said a US-centric system of laws was "okay", I just answered the question of who defines hate speech; 2) it seems to be bad-faith to call such a system as a tyranny of the majority...especially when the laws is question specifically protect minority classes of people. Was the Obama administration a tyranny of the majority? How about Trump? Because Trump actually lost the popular vote, does that make him a tyranny of the minority? >The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. I must have missed where I said you must implicitly trust the government and their laws now and forever in the future...In fact, it seems the obvious caveat to the US system of government is that there are 3 branches all providing checks and balances on the others...and implicit in our government is the idea that if you don't like the government or their laws, you have the freedom to organize to elect new legislators who can repeal the laws. Not to mention the idea of the voters themselves (whether from the majority or minority) serve as jurors that make findings of fact over these matters. >This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad. Do you have evidence of hate speech protecting the majority class, because again traditionally hate speech laws tends to protect the minority classes of people.

big_chungus 7y ago

> Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. So tyranny of the majority is okay? There are many nations where the majority chooses governments which violate the rights of the minority. The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.

throwaway_tech 7y ago
>So tyranny of the majority is okay? 1) I never said a US-centric system of laws was "okay", I just answered the question of who defines hate speech; 2) it seems to be bad-faith to call such a system as a tyranny of the majority...especially when the laws is question specifically protect minority classes of people. Was the Obama administration a tyranny of the majority? How about Trump? Because Trump actually lost the popular vote, does that make him a tyranny of the minority? >The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. I must have missed where I said you must implicitly trust the government and their laws now and forever in the future...In fact, it seems the obvious caveat to the US system of government is that there are 3 branches all providing checks and balances on the others...and implicit in our government is the idea that if you don't like the government or their laws, you have the freedom to organize to elect new legislators who can repeal the laws. Not to mention the idea of the voters themselves (whether from the majority or minority) serve as jurors that make findings of fact over these matters. >This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad. Do you have evidence of hate speech protecting the majority class, because again traditionally hate speech laws tends to protect the minority classes of people.