3 ms·
>reducing the harms to marginalised people from being exposed to threats to their person, identity, and way of life This only makes sense if you use a recent d
by logicchains 2y ago
>reducing the harms to marginalised people from being exposed to threats to their person, identity, and way of life
This only makes sense if you use a recent definition of "harm" created by censorship advocates that's divorced from the traditional meaning. In criminal law, harm traditionally (and still does in America) mean actually physically harming someone's body or making threats to do so. Censorship advocates are the ones making the claim that mere words should also constitute harm, so the onus is on them to justify why they want to change the meaning of the word like that.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> In criminal law, harm traditionally (and still does in America) mean actually physically harming someone's body or making threats to do so. Fraud can be criminal, without bodily harm or threats. Verbal child abuse can be criminal, without bodily harm or threats. There are lots of criminal harms not covered by your claimed definition in the American legal system.
- n4r9 2y agoYes, here I am using "harm" in the common sense of physical or mental/psychological suffering.