3 ms·

First off, your sarcastic premonition is already happening in the UK. r/loicence is a treat. However, to be more serious, your comparison makes no sense. The r

First off, your sarcastic premonition is already happening in the UK. r/loicence is a treat. However, to be more serious, your comparison makes no sense. The redefinition of hate speech by a certain political quadrant led us down this path. As soon as the standard changes from “inciting physical violence” to “saying things I don’t like,” then whoever wields the most power can censor at will. Strict standards of free speech are the only moral course of action, despite what the advocates of redefining language would have you think.

kaba0 6y ago
I mostly agree with you, but then the solution should not be a proper definiton of hate speech instead of letting it go? Also, I don’t see it misrepresented in actual laws, but only in non-law-related contexts. If we trust juries with the proper application of not always clear laws (and we do just that currently), than I don’t see the point of the usual “slippery slope” argument.