5 ms·

> Also, I hate to use my skin color and "immigrant" status to make this crucial point which a lot of my other immigrant friends agree on - some government run b

> Also, I hate to use my skin color and "immigrant" status to make this crucial point which a lot of my other immigrant friends agree on - some government run by a bunch of elite politicians who are immune to everything trying to save me against any criticism/jokes/offense from someone else makes it very patronizing and condescending. This is what we call "soft bigotry of low expectations" which the ones pushing for this lack self awareness to realize. First of all, please don't paint everyone who supports a certain policy with a broad brush. I apparently have a relevant skin color and immigrant status (probably to a different country) in common with you, and yet I seem to disagree with you on the general approach. Obviously, I don't support politicians being immune to their own misdeeds, but that shouldn't have a bearing on this legislation. > You don't think both of these will also fall under this and get censored? Sure, I understand that this danger exists, but the social ostracizing in the second case seems out of the context of this law, as I understand it, and also (more importantly) out of the context of what I would consider hate speech. I think this can be handled on a case-by-case basis, especially as I see clear potential benefits of this policy. It's straightforward to find hypothetical issues with every policy including ones we support, but that doesn't in and of itself make a strong case against them. > Everybody who was okay with AJ's censored 5 years ago is responsible for what happened to Tulsi Gabbard. Are you referring to the Google/Tulsi Gabbard censorship incident? What does this have to do with a hate speech law?

busymom0 5y ago
I did not "paint everyone who supports a certain policy with a broad brush". I specifically stated: > a lot of my other immigrant friends agree on A lot is not the same as all. And based on my anecdotal experience, majority of them disagree with this. > out of the context of what I would consider hate speech. I think this can be handled on a case-by-case basis "consider" and "think" being the important words in your comment. So you are agreeing that this is subjective. That's the problem with "subjective" laws. They get twisted to suit whatever political party or affiliations of the judges making decisions want. Christians not wanting to see Jesus represented as gay in a comedy show will use this power to censor it: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/netflix-ordered-to-take-down-gay-jesus-comedy-show-in-brazil-115413464.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/netflix-ordered-to-take-... Muslims not wanting to see Allah in drawings will use this power to censor it. If you are pro-life, you can make the case that abortion is racist based on the origins of Planned Parenthood and number of black babies which are aborted. If you are pro-choice, you can make the case that abortion is part of women's rights and therefore any criticism is sexist. Similar to the other examples I already stated about women being hurt and called transphobia for speaking out against biological men in women sports or Palestine / Israel censorship. Criticism of China's slave labour Uyghur camps, or lab leak theory or wet markets will (and has been already) get labelled xenophobic. When asked about whether CCP could be trusted and whether he would commit to ending research collaboration with China, Trudeau responded with "diversity" and about "xenophobia, racism" and attacks on Chinese people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqo16fveYD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqo16fveYD0 So can such government be trusted with "subjective" laws? As someone else perfectly stated: > "The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the X administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Y defining it either." And I haven't even addressed the sheer impossibility of enforcement of such legislation on the internet without operating a full spying of citizens. How exactly will one track down online comments on anonymous message boards or alias accounts on social media? It's impossible to achieve without giving the government more spying power resources. The "porn ban" in India already was a complete failure. Doing the same with speech will end up with the same fate eventually. Censoring "offensive" things is simply hiding it under the rug. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. More speech to counter the "incorrect" speech is the solution. Let people say offensive things so everyone knows who they are and can counter it with "correct" speech or at least know whom to avoid. Trying to "fine" it will just let them move over to anonymous message boards and even deeper echo chambers. This legislation will create more anonymous echo chambers.

busymom0 5y ago

I did not "paint everyone who supports a certain policy with a broad brush". I specifically stated: > a lot of my other immigrant friends agree on A lot is not the same as all. And based on my anecdotal experience, majority of them disagree with this. > out of the context of what I would consider hate speech. I think this can be handled on a case-by-case basis "consider" and "think" being the important words in your comment. So you are agreeing that this is subjective. That's the problem with "subjective" laws. They get twisted to suit whatever political party or affiliations of the judges making decisions want. Christians not wanting to see Jesus represented as gay in a comedy show will use this power to censor it: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/netflix-ordered-to-take-down-gay-jesus-comedy-show-in-brazil-115413464.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/netflix-ordered-to-take-... Muslims not wanting to see Allah in drawings will use this power to censor it. If you are pro-life, you can make the case that abortion is racist based on the origins of Planned Parenthood and number of black babies which are aborted. If you are pro-choice, you can make the case that abortion is part of women's rights and therefore any criticism is sexist. Similar to the other examples I already stated about women being hurt and called transphobia for speaking out against biological men in women sports or Palestine / Israel censorship. Criticism of China's slave labour Uyghur camps, or lab leak theory or wet markets will (and has been already) get labelled xenophobic. When asked about whether CCP could be trusted and whether he would commit to ending research collaboration with China, Trudeau responded with "diversity" and about "xenophobia, racism" and attacks on Chinese people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqo16fveYD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqo16fveYD0 So can such government be trusted with "subjective" laws? As someone else perfectly stated: > "The true test of any bill of this nature is to hand it over to your enemies to run. If you wouldn't be comfortable with the X administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Y defining it either." And I haven't even addressed the sheer impossibility of enforcement of such legislation on the internet without operating a full spying of citizens. How exactly will one track down online comments on anonymous message boards or alias accounts on social media? It's impossible to achieve without giving the government more spying power resources. The "porn ban" in India already was a complete failure. Doing the same with speech will end up with the same fate eventually. Censoring "offensive" things is simply hiding it under the rug. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. More speech to counter the "incorrect" speech is the solution. Let people say offensive things so everyone knows who they are and can counter it with "correct" speech or at least know whom to avoid. Trying to "fine" it will just let them move over to anonymous message boards and even deeper echo chambers. This legislation will create more anonymous echo chambers.