3 ms·

I read this hoping for a good discourse on the topic... instead the author barely dove into the topic. There is nothing novel or of value here. Free speech is

I read this hoping for a good discourse on the topic... instead the author barely dove into the topic. There is nothing novel or of value here. Free speech is good, hate speech is bad. Great. But what is hate speech? What is the line that you draw? The author vaguely alludes lack of evidence, but 99% of discussions are opinion based. Are all lies hate speech? Honestly I wish I hadn't wasted 5 minutes of my life on this.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
Even worse is that the author doesn't even get the definition of "freedom of speech" right; at best he can be said to have defined the US First Amendment. A few moments with Wikipedia provides a variety of historical definitions of what freedom of speech was intended to be. This article is simply devoid of any understanding of the topic or even the most basic attempt to do so.
freddyym 6y ago
I'm sorry that you disliked the article so much and thought that reading it was a waste of your life. In regards to the points you've made: > But what is hate speech? Hate speech, to me, is expressing hated towards others, be it online or in person, with no reason or justification. > What is the line that you draw? I dislike many things in this world. I dislike Nazis. I dislike people who discriminate against others for no reason. I dislike big companies like Google who sell users data and have unethical practices. I don't hate them though. I think the line should be drawn when it goes beyond disliking someone/thing. When you actively seek arm against whatever it may be. > The author vaguely alludes lack of evidence The Holocaust happened. There have been countless history books that have been both written and fact checked. Saying that it didn't happen because you sympathise with Nazis isn't ok. If there is evidence and proof that something happened an ideology shouldn't get in the way of it. An ideology also shouldn't allow you to slander a group of people because of it. > Are all lies hate speech? Absolutely not, however, if there is historical evidence (in this case wether or not the holocaust happened) it seems so wrong to just deny it. Such atrocities should not be ignored for the sake of free speech. If we say that certain events never happened we might as well say that Americans never fought for free speech.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

Even worse is that the author doesn't even get the definition of "freedom of speech" right; at best he can be said to have defined the US First Amendment. A few moments with Wikipedia provides a variety of historical definitions of what freedom of speech was intended to be. This article is simply devoid of any understanding of the topic or even the most basic attempt to do so.

freddyym 6y ago

I'm sorry that you disliked the article so much and thought that reading it was a waste of your life. In regards to the points you've made: > But what is hate speech? Hate speech, to me, is expressing hated towards others, be it online or in person, with no reason or justification. > What is the line that you draw? I dislike many things in this world. I dislike Nazis. I dislike people who discriminate against others for no reason. I dislike big companies like Google who sell users data and have unethical practices. I don't hate them though. I think the line should be drawn when it goes beyond disliking someone/thing. When you actively seek arm against whatever it may be. > The author vaguely alludes lack of evidence The Holocaust happened. There have been countless history books that have been both written and fact checked. Saying that it didn't happen because you sympathise with Nazis isn't ok. If there is evidence and proof that something happened an ideology shouldn't get in the way of it. An ideology also shouldn't allow you to slander a group of people because of it. > Are all lies hate speech? Absolutely not, however, if there is historical evidence (in this case wether or not the holocaust happened) it seems so wrong to just deny it. Such atrocities should not be ignored for the sake of free speech. If we say that certain events never happened we might as well say that Americans never fought for free speech.