2 ms·
How exactly do you quantify this harm? Most of these re-definitions of "harmful" speech always seem unclear and difficult to define. Under the current legal fra
by ameminator 5y ago
How exactly do you quantify this harm? Most of these re-definitions of "harmful" speech always seem unclear and difficult to define. Under the current legal framework (which you said you disagreed with) we already have standards and methods of quantifying that harm when speech directly incites violence. These same measures also explicitly define anything else as not harmful.
The way I see it, the government has more of a duty to protect free speech than it does to prevent nebulous, poorly-defined and indirect harm. Outside of these moral implications (that no speech is fundamentally harmful, that we must have the freedom to have incorrect ideas), efforts to "prevent harmful speech" always seem to hurt society and individuals when put into practice. There is always the problem of who defines what harm is (usually it's the government) and such measures exist now explicitly to prevent the government from infringing on these rights.
- YZF 5y agoWhere I live this what we got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Also see the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... "Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]" There's plenty of laws where there is some ambiguity and the courts and juries need to interpret them. There are lots (most?) countries that do not have the same level of protection of free speech like the US has and it doesn't generally seem to "hurt society and individuals". If you compare the US to other modern democracies in the west it's not apparent that "free speech" with no limits is a win and there's no problem in those other countries in speaking out in general on any/many topics. You'll be stretched to find an example of hate laws abused as a way of restricting general freedoms.
- ameminator 5y agoHere is a recent example, from Canada - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lawyer-for-canadian-pastor-jailed-for-breaking-covid-rules-says-they-will-appeal-a-judges-shocking-final-ruling-limiting-his-free-speech/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lawyer-for-canadian-pastor... Or, more directly - the Mike Ward case, where a comedian was fined for telling a joke [0]. There are other examples from the Commonwealth countries. I am grateful that our current laws prevent things like ASBOs from the UK [1] from existing here. Further, by my reading, that "hate speech" law sounds very expansive. Just because the Canadian government isn't abusing that law the same way other countries are, doesn't mean it wouldn't be permitted under the letter of the law. The failure in "free speech" in the US isn't actually a failure in the law, but a failure in the marketplace, where unregulated tech / social monopolies have formed and there is no proper distributed platform that people use to interact. Otherwise, I actually think the free speech laws in the US would work - you don't counter misinformation with censorship, but with better information. This applies to "hateful" speech as well. [0] https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/comedian-mike-ward-seeks-permission-to-take-freedom-of-speech-case-to-the-supreme-court-1.4778825 https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/comedian-mike-ward-seeks-... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order