4 ms·
'hate speech' has a very high bar and from the court details there is zero evidence that the defendant engaged in anything remotely approaching harrassment, nev
by lingben 11y ago
'hate speech' has a very high bar and from the court details there is zero evidence that the defendant engaged in anything remotely approaching harrassment, never mind hate speech.
by their own admission and by the evidence, the plaintiffs however did engage in a pattern of behavior and organized others into the same pattern which resulted in a person not only being harassed but also losing their job.
it is not enough to say, 'I feel harrassed' or 'I feel hurt' - that does not meet the legal test. You have no right not to be offended.
by the token of 'feelings', I could say that your response is 'hate speech' towards me and that I 'felt' harrassed and I 'felt' that my personal safety was in jeopardy.
If I were to claim that, I should rightfully be pointed in the direction of a mental health professional, not a court of law.
- keedot 11y agoRight, which is why we have courts to determine the validity of the claims.
- lingben 11y agoSure, but some things are self evident and it makes no sense to waste public funds on them. If you hurt my feelings, that's neither a criminal nor civil offense. "Sticks and stones..." silly me, I thought we all learned this in elementary school
- keedot 11y agoAnd yet teenagers still commit suicide because of online harassment. So words do hurt, and can even kill.
- lingben 11y agoI didn't say they don't. I said that 'hurt feelings' are not grounds for a criminal nor civil legal case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs
- oldmanjay 11y agoWords may hurt. No one denied this. Saying words killed because of the actions a person took after being hurt is incredibly disingenuous. Only the person who took the action is responsible.
- keedot 11y agoThat's a fairly ignorant view on mental state and peer group pressures on developing adolescent minds.