3 ms·
This isn't even true now. There are all sorts of limits including but not limited to gag orders, no contact orders, defamation, harassment, malicious use of a t
by michaelmrose 4y ago
This isn't even true now. There are all sorts of limits including but not limited to gag orders, no contact orders, defamation, harassment, malicious use of a telephone device, obscene phone calls and so forth.
You imply that it is utterly impossible to draft a law forbidding some speech without handing the tools of oppression to the next fellow to hold office but we already deal with plenty of nuanced situations now many odious examples of speech that aren't nuanced at all.
Calls for stochastic violence or terrorism are just as worrying as specific threats even when the target is not specifically called out. Someone should murder all the jews is no more acceptable than lets get together at the bar next Tuesday and kill Bob the Jew with the candlestick.
Hand in glove with the above is false information designed to spread hate. Ex The jews are setting our forests ablaze with jewish space lasers! Do you know who snuck in and stole my breakfast? Jews! Why am I going bald? Jewish space lasers pointed at my head! If you constantly spew hateful nonsense while others directly call for violence its pretty clearly part of the same shtick and you ought to be treated similarly.
This is trivially defined as clearly false information about a group of people defined by cultural, ethnic, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation yada yada yada designed to promote hatred towards a group of people.
You may trivially point out that grey areas exist. This is hardly a barrier to dealing with the numerous black and white scenarios so evident around us.
Lastly I don't want to employ or work with a "non violent nazi" just because he promotes mass murder only on his own time because such a person is an odious human being and regarding minorities as subhuman is inherently going to color his decision making even if he presents as objective. I really don't think I or any manager ought to be obliged to overlook the fact that applicant has already publicly announced that he is an odious human being.
Even were he to fully separate his odious being from the job he does his coworkers will inevitably come to understand who he is if he keeps putting it out there online under his own name and you'll find yourself at a disadvantage in terms of retaining good help and clients if everyone knows you employ nazis.
Free speech absolutism is an indefensible position. It is so far as I'm aware practiced nowhere in the world.
- wonderwonder 4y agoI'm not a free speech absolutist and think current laws do a pretty good job of dealing with things like fraud, threats, etc. I don't think that openly disliking a group of people should be illegal though. I don't think we should hate others but of more importance to me is that I don't want to give the government more power to police speech and thought. In my mind that's far more dangerous. If someone thinks Jewish space lasers are to blame for the weather, or whatever it's pretty dumb, but shouldn't be illegal. Only when it rises to the point of "we should do something about the Jewish problem" and plans are taking place should it be illegal. The police / FBI are pretty good at determining which is which and acting on it. Exceptions apply. Giving the government more power is a slippery slope. Is Christianity arguing against homosexuality hate speech? Should we round up all of the pastors and priests? Should we demand people provide the government with a list of their personal beliefs and send those that are on the fringe to reeducation camps? Should there be a government mandated listening device in every home? Bad people and those we disagree with will always exist I'm totally good with that. I'm not good with thought police.
- ginngeo 4y agoStochastic terrorism isn't really a thing though. It's just a vague accusation anyone can make, without proof of cause and effect. Purely rhetorical in nature.
- wonderwonder 4y agoSounds like something a stochastic terrorist may or may not say. Likely resulting in bad things happening but not definitely. /S
- michaelmrose 4y agoHow about when you emit a constant stream of lies about gay people claiming that they are pedophiles looking to "groom" your children as if "morally upright" straight white kids could somehow catch the gay and then in the same state an extremist shoots up a nightclub. Not specific enough? How about developing a nationwide network of conspiracy theorists to promote insane and often highly specific conspiracies that lead crazy people to invade a pizza joint to free imaginary children supposedly trafficked from an imaginary basement? Specific lies leading to predictable dangers to individuals by a probabilistic vector like continually throwing rocks over an overpass knowing you are likely to hit SOMEONE without knowing who or when the damage will be done. How is that "not a thing"?
- wonderwonder 4y agoPeople are responsible for their own actions. If I take what you just posted to heart and went and killed one of the "nationwide network of conspiracy theorists" to save the gays, are you responsible? If we start working on the basis that no one is smart enough to hear anything at all that may be controversial then who gets to decide what that is? Who do we give the power to be the decider of absolute truth too? What about when a new administration takes over that you don't like? Or are we no longer having elections either? We either assume that people have their own agency or we assume that humanity must grant the government control over all of our decisions. I'll go the free speech route every time. Physical actions like throwing stones are very different than words.