3 ms·
The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition. If you said 'Kill all X' where X is any protected group you would al
by legostormtroopr 5y ago
The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition.
If you said 'Kill all X' where X is any protected group you would almost certainly fall afoul of hate speech regulation. By all metrics "Kill all X" is online vilification against a group of people because of superficial characteristics. Yet for some reason "Kill all Men" is totally acceptable in online discourse.
Because of the lack of punishment, anyone against whom "Kill all X" is acceptable finds themselves opposing hate speech regulation - as for them it is useless and does nothing to protect them.
Secondly, because of the lack of consistent (and biased) enforcement of hate speech rules, everyone should be concerned about if and when hate speech against them goes from being protected to normalised.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoI would honestly like to see that challenged in court. If the Canadians truly are vying for egalitarianism, anybody saying that should be fined. If they arent, then we know its just a bootlicking law.
- ryanmentor 5y agoWhich groups in Canada are known for challenging laws this way?
- travoc 5y agoWe’ll know it when we see it.
- jimmygrapes 5y agokill all meat eaters kill all rapists kill all terrorists kill all pedophiles kill all polluters kill all racist kill all.... hm. at which point does this go from rhetoric hyperbole to common sense to punished by law
- inglor_cz 5y ago"The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition." That is probably a bug, not a feature. Once something as nebulous as an emotion is being punished, people will stay away from controversial topics just in case.