3 ms·
> There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radica
by luckylion 6y ago
> There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized.
No, but you can't deport citizens, and you can deport foreigners. There's no point in dealing with trouble makers if you can just avoid them.
> Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful?
Those are good points, and I don't have the answers. I'm not suggesting actual policy, I'm saying that you can't ignore them or "agree to disagree" with them and keep a free and open society. You have to choose, and I value society more than being nice to every person on earth.
- mulmen 6y agoThe dog whistle is that "troublemakers" are somehow correlated with immigrants in any meaningful way. The laws on speech should apply equally to citizens and immigrants because if they are based on preventing harm to society then it doesn't matter who commits them. If the laws on speech are designed to target immigrants disproportionately then they aren't really based on preventing harm, they are simply xenophobic.