3 ms·
Context matters in my opinion. If you say this to a person whose jewish family has survived the Holocaust, then I would say this statement is an indirect verbal
by ls15 4y ago
Context matters in my opinion. If you say this to a person whose jewish family has survived the Holocaust, then I would say this statement is an indirect verbal attack. You could as well say "Your family should have been killed". Verbal attacks are an attempt to hurt people, just like physical attacks are, and therefore in my opinion it is fair to ban them to some extent.
I don't even think this has anything to do with free speech, as in freedom to express your thoughts. The key with free speech is that everyone is entitled to that. Verbal attacks are often an attempt to stop others from expressing their thoughts, so I think they are fundamentally an action against free speech.
That being said, as a German, I don't agree with the German blanket bans of certain expressions. Context and intentions always matter, I think.
- claytongulick 4y agoI think that I don't agree with this, entirely. Most, if not all, meaningful speech risks offending someone. Framing uncomfortable beliefs as attacks grants a form of "victim power" by which anyone can claim to be a victim of your "attack" as a means of shutting down speech. This isn't a hypothetical, I see the technique used frequently.
- ls15 4y agoI agree that this is a possibility and a risk, but I think that a bit of common sense goes a long way. One of my classmates tried to frame everyone who disagreeed with him as nazi, but nobody fell for it, because it was obvious that he just tried to evade criticism. There also needs to be some leeway - for example a German court has ruled that a public service worker could not be fired for calling his boss an "old asshole", because they've known each other for very long. Context matters.