3 ms·
> the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular Not true. Legislators write the laws, courts interpret them. B
by arp242 1y ago
> the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular
Not true. Legislators write the laws, courts interpret them. Basic civics. Laws are not written as "we can police any speech", and courts don't interpret them as such.
- notepad0x90 1y agoI understand all that, I was making the slippery-slope argument, it isn't a fallacy in this case. What groups are considered equal and worthy of protected dignity has gone from "just straight white property owning men" to the myriad of groups we have today. This is a constantly evolving definition. Whoever is in power gets to define that. In times of peace, it is easy to assume things will remain as they are. Look at us here in America, the majority were deceived (or just didn't show up to vote) and now those in power who can change such definitions are horrible evil people. The same can happen in Europe if you don't learn from us. It wasn't that long ago fascists almost took over all of europe and caused the greatest war in the history of our species! Free speech is the only real defense against that. It's either that or violence and war.
- arp242 1y agoYou said what you said. And your clarification here is just fear-mongering: "complete free speech absolutism or fascism, war, and holocaust". Okay, fine, whatever. I'm in favour of the Jews being gassed then, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- notepad0x90 1y agoFair enough. Don't know what to tell you other than those things happened and are in the process of happening here in the US. No mongering, just observations based on reality.