12 ms·

Both are free speech, right? Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?

• hef19898 6y ago
  Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
  • throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    "stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed. Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
    • hef19898 6y ago
      Free speech is tricky, and every nation has to find its own balance, its own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. Being German, I am pretty sensitive with regards to the Holocaust, anti-semitism, Nazi propaganda and, as a logical extension, anti-muslim and anti-lgbtq propaganda. Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.
    • webmaven 6y ago
      > Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him. I think that "disagree" isn't exactly the correct description of someone's stance vis-a-vis hate speech, particularly that which is targeted at them. It has been noted that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". For what it's worth, tolerance isn't a suicide pact either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance