3 ms·

That is the question of course: who gets to decide what constitutes 'abuse'? Do you trust anyone in your government to decide which of the words, writings, blog

That is the question of course: who gets to decide what constitutes 'abuse'? Do you trust anyone in your government to decide which of the words, writings, blog posts, comments or tweets you make constitute 'abuse' of another person? Given that the go-to rhetoric of so many political and religious groups is to be "offended" as a substitute for being right, laws that restrict 'hate' speech or 'abuse' speech create more legal cover for the people who are least willing to cope with criticism than the people who are most vulnerable to abuse. And, usually, you will find that the people who are least willing to cope with criticism are the people who should be most criticized, because no one's ideas are sacrosanct. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to listen, or not to listen. Abuse and hate can be countered with more robust freedom of speech, more social shunning, more economic boycotting--it does not require government intervention to curb all the 'isms'.

learnstats2 11y ago
What are you talking about? How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? The government should decide because that's what the government is for. If the government doesn't get it right, then the people should hold the government accountable. In my opinion, Western governments lack sufficient accountability, but I still trust them to decide more than I trust an all-or-nothing anti-philosophical principle.
- undersuit 11y ago
  >How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.
- bmmayer1 11y ago
  The government isn't an intelligent entity; it's made up of people. And people have prejudices, hatreds, fears, and worst of all, a pack mentality. Governments have the worst track record when it comes to oppressing minorities--why would we expect giving governments the power to censor speech help minorities?

learnstats2 11y ago

What are you talking about? How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? The government should decide because that's what the government is for. If the government doesn't get it right, then the people should hold the government accountable. In my opinion, Western governments lack sufficient accountability, but I still trust them to decide more than I trust an all-or-nothing anti-philosophical principle.

undersuit 11y ago
>How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott? You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.
bmmayer1 11y ago
The government isn't an intelligent entity; it's made up of people. And people have prejudices, hatreds, fears, and worst of all, a pack mentality. Governments have the worst track record when it comes to oppressing minorities--why would we expect giving governments the power to censor speech help minorities?