34 ms·

We already know how to solve that problem. Freedom of speech doesn't cover violent threats. There is no need for hate speech regulations. Jihadism is not cover

We already know how to solve that problem. Freedom of speech doesn't cover violent threats. There is no need for hate speech regulations. Jihadism is not covered by free speech, nazism is not covered by free speech but racism is covered by free speech. You also seem to conflate jihadists with muslims - that's not the case. Jihadists are terrorists and they want war, other muslims integrate with other societies. There is definitely a point to be made that Islam may employ a long term strategy of integration followed by politically controlling an entire country once they reach a majority (which could start happening in Europe in 50 years or so). That could be seen as a non-violent jihad (pardon the oxymoron), but that's a scenario that would be perfectly legal and not violent. Written or unwritten constitutions in western countries should be able to protect religious freedom even in such an event - or maybe countries will decide to change and become stricter in the religions they allow (whether by becoming islamic or anti-islamic).

UncleMeat 6y ago
What is a violent threat? Why is it taken as an axiom that this is where the line is drawn for free speech? I am personally less concerned with individual violence than with political violence enacted by hate groups who gain legislative power. For a long time, gay people could be thrown in prison for having gay sex. This was mass violence against gay people. It was absolutely within free speech rights to advocate for these laws and to vote for legislators who supported these laws. This, IMO, was far more violent to the gay community than an individual saying "let's go kill that f*g". So I question whether "violent threats unacceptable, hate speech acceptable" is the right boundary.
matt-attack 6y ago
> naziism is not covered by free speech Are you not familiar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_... Nazism was specifically defended by the ACLU and won. Speech is speech. And it was a Jewish lawyer who fought the case.
andrepd 6y ago
We already know how to solve that problem. Freedom of speech doesn't cover violent threats. This is a very childish way to look at the world. Unfortunately there's more "violence" than physically bonking people over the head. State oppression is violence, societal oppression is violence, widespread racism is violence; Hitler didn't have to openly call for violence against the Jews for quite some time. All he had to do was say that they're rats, traitors, subhuman, they're why Germany lost the war, etc. Every day the state and capitalism wield their violence on the people: if you don't comply they will kick you off your home. Point being there is more violence than simply saying "I will now proceed to punch this person".

UncleMeat 6y ago

What is a violent threat? Why is it taken as an axiom that this is where the line is drawn for free speech? I am personally less concerned with individual violence than with political violence enacted by hate groups who gain legislative power. For a long time, gay people could be thrown in prison for having gay sex. This was mass violence against gay people. It was absolutely within free speech rights to advocate for these laws and to vote for legislators who supported these laws. This, IMO, was far more violent to the gay community than an individual saying "let's go kill that f*g". So I question whether "violent threats unacceptable, hate speech acceptable" is the right boundary.

matt-attack 6y ago

> naziism is not covered by free speech Are you not familiar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_... Nazism was specifically defended by the ACLU and won. Speech is speech. And it was a Jewish lawyer who fought the case.

andrepd 6y ago

We already know how to solve that problem. Freedom of speech doesn't cover violent threats. This is a very childish way to look at the world. Unfortunately there's more "violence" than physically bonking people over the head. State oppression is violence, societal oppression is violence, widespread racism is violence; Hitler didn't have to openly call for violence against the Jews for quite some time. All he had to do was say that they're rats, traitors, subhuman, they're why Germany lost the war, etc. Every day the state and capitalism wield their violence on the people: if you don't comply they will kick you off your home. Point being there is more violence than simply saying "I will now proceed to punch this person".