3 ms·
This is already a political position - you might consider something is harmful to a particular group, but I might view this as the opposite. I think it's very e
by zb3 2y ago
This is already a political position - you might consider something is harmful to a particular group, but I might view this as the opposite. I think it's very easy to see a practical example of this..
- thrance 2y agoThat's why we have a text of law and jurists that came up with more rigorous definitions. I basically gave you the shortest tldr of a tldr of the subject. I can only recommend you read up on it more, because this really isn't the censorship tool you make it up to be.
- zb3 2y agoI see how this is used in practice. I don't know about France, but in Poland both sides use that label when convenient, and of course they refer to completely different things, yet always done by their political opponents.
- thrance 2y agoCan you point to any specific cases? You are being very vague and seem to rely on anecdotal evidence.
- zb3 2y agoI won't go this route. If you're planning to label views shared by 30% of voters as "hate speech" then I alredy disagree. Like I said, this is a political position.
- thrance 2y agoYou can advocate for conservative policies without calling black people the n-word or telling trans people to hang themeselves. And you're certainly not going to get in trouble for anything less than that, so I really don't see what you're whining about. Hate speech is what it says on the label, if you feel like it is an essential part of your particular ideology, then I find it repugnant and so does our laws. It's a political position just as making it illegal to murder political opponents is a political position.
- dathinab 2y agoyou argument is basically "everything is a political position" which defeats your original argument because if everything is a political position practically it's no different to nothing being a political position and as such and sure application of law in practice is never perfect but that doesn't mean we should allow people to systematically harass others on the internet, or systematically spread misinformation which is intended to cause deformation of whole groups of people, or calls for violence against people or propaganda with the intend to create more violent racism, etc.
- zb3 2y agoIf you have the half of the country strongly disagreeing with you, then.. it is. There's no other criteria... Of course I can only guess we also disagree on what "misinformation", "propaganda" and even "racism" are. So in practice, I can't agree with any of your conclusion.
- dathinab 2y agoidk. but in the country I live the majority more or less agrees with my stance, and things are quite similar in a lot of EU countries and this was about EU regulations...