From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.
From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.
Or, get this, free speech means real free speech, no bitchass compromises.
A lefty with conviction & integrity would defend free, unadulterated speech no matter how distasteful, & especially if it is distasteful. A principle demands no less.
Same goes with justice & the rule of law. We would uphold & defend principles of a legal system to protect the least among us, so we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we can’t reasonably expect those principles to protect us when we need them.
That’s how principles work.
I re-read your comment and now I think I got the meaning better. Distasteful surely must be protected but that wasn’t my point, my point was that hate-speech is often not distasteful is is harmful. It seems that it is not harmful enough, and if a hateful tweet doesn’t make people go on a witch-hunt it’s ok? That seems to be literal reading of the rules, but I find it lacking often.
Still, as others pointed out, whatever the rule is, it is used for oppressing the opposition
Is the harm directly from the speech? Ideas aren’t actions & uncritically harming people is a choice.
We’re all capable of reading stupid shit then taking it upon ourselves to harm people. Yet how many of us do? If I harmed someone, I wouldn’t consider shit I read & uncritically acted on a valid excuse. I’d consider failure to think in the least bit critically before acting a total & culpable lapse in judgement.
Should we not hold every thinking person to that standard? Do you hold yourself to a different standard & think that would be a valid excuse?