Posts

@Violet Rose in The Rain
Wait… Shirani actually said that?

… Proof?

@Background Pony #9C68
Who knows, a hundred years from now, your viewpoints could be consided bigoted. What a society deems right and righteous is relative and is capable of changing over time. During the middle ages, I doubt anyone could have imagined that hapf a millenia later, the western world would be built upon secular governance as they considered Christianity and the Church to be the arbiter of the true north of humanity’s moral compass. If you think your views will always be considered fair, just and tolerant by society from here until the end of time, you’re fooling yourself.

@Violet Rose in The Rain
As a black person, I wouldn’t want the government telling someone they couldn’t say that word. Now, would I be offended were someone to call me that out of malice, sure, but that person and myself can come to a resolution without the government’s help. Stopping that person from saying that wouldn’t stop them from believing in the meaning behind it nor would it allow for a direct response towards that person’s animus as said person would most likely be barred from expressing their viewpoints on race in the public square for fear of legal reprisal. Laws like that only serve to paint a picture of europe covering its ears, saying LALALA at the top of it s lungs in the misguided belief that doing so will eventually make those who disagree with their viewpoints go away. Avoidance doesn’t work for alcoholics and, judging by recent election results in Germany and the subsequent politcal mess that has followed, it isn’t working for Europe either.

You should probably tell him that the reason European countries crack down on hate speech isn’t because it wants to ‘ignore a problem’. It does it in the belief that it is protecting its citizens. Even America cracks down on speech when it believes its citizens are in imminent danger. You can’t peddle snake oil and say it’s a legitimate medical cure. I can’t tell you confidential or classified information. I can’t spread lies about you with the intent of damaging your reputation. And of course, I can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (speaking literally, not metaphorically). Would you say this is Nazi methodry and thus all these protections should be removed?

The state doesn’t trust the general population to make informed decisions between hucksters selling snake oil and medical professionals, because it knows that enough people will be duped that it will cause widespread harm and death. Thus, they draw a line in the sand. European countries do the same thing in that belief that speech that could be considered offensive, provocative, or threatening is dangerous and could cause harm to a portion of its citizenry.

Free speech is a virtue, and the current restrictions we have on it are ultimately in place to uphold it. If I falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater and threaten the lives of others, I’m endangering their right to life and their right to free speech. So too with libel, which could threaten your livelihood. If you lose your job and your friends and family shun you because I circulated false rumors about you being a pedophile, have I not effectively deprived you of your rights? How could you expect to reintegrate yourself in a democratic society when your very name has become tarnished and strangers threaten violence against you?

In essence, your reputation, your sense of self and self-worth and the way you’re perceived by others, is inherently a part of you. In America I can’t call a doctor a quack in America if it demeans his reputation and restricts his liberty. How is it not the same if I were to say that that doctor, based on his race, is inferior and should be exterminated? Am I not demeaning his reputation? Am I not effectively threatening him through my hate speech and restricting his freedom to be respected and hold credibility among his peers?