5 ms·
Strongly disagree, there are some blurred lines around hate speech, but this isn’t one of them at all. This is a critique of a political party, that’s clear cut
by yashap 6y ago
Strongly disagree, there are some blurred lines around hate speech, but this isn’t one of them at all. This is a critique of a political party, that’s clear cut not hate speech.
- jshevek 6y agoI am opposed to censorship, and I disagree with your claim. This qualifies as "hate speech". It's derogatory, its directed at a specific group of people, and it can foster animosity. That the group is a political party is not material.
- yashap 6y agoEvery hate speech law I’ve seen has a reasonably rigorous definition of what qualifies, including what kind of groups are protected. I’ve never seen a hate speech law that protects criticism of political parties, if you have please link to it.
- andromeduck 6y agoSo is "Nazi scum", or "Braindead Republican", or "corporate sellout", or "slum lord" or, "liberal elite", or "wellfare queen", hell even "Boomer" or "hippie" or "neoliberal". That's an extremely low bar, so low as to be utterly useless.
- arcturus17 6y agoDozens of millions of people have been murdered in the name of communism by communists, and I can’t call communists “bandits”? Do you think you can be taken seriously when you say you oppose censorship?
- dntbnmpls 6y agoYour comment proves the guy's point. Hate speech is subjective. There is no "blurred lines" around hate speech. All hate speech is protected speech. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... If we don't have hate speech, we necessarily don't have free speech. All speech should be allowed. Hate speech should be criticized but not banned.