Hate speech is a good start. Go about the place saying “Muslims rape children” or “F-slurs make us lose wars” and you are actively making life more dangerous for people.
Problem is that well-intentioned rules with discretionary boundaries end up with unethical enforcement. See: the bill a few months ago that federally defines “anti-semitism” as including “criticism of the state of Israel”. Actually that’s not even a discretionary boundary, that’s statutory. The reasoning behind the First Amendment in the first place was to avoid authoritarian censorship, including these kinds of games where “reasonable regulation” of speech is used to shoehorn in authoritarian censorship.
with a country that decides modern online privacy laws based off of 1980s video rentals, any sort of restriction on free speech WILL be manipulated into whatever the people in power agrees with.
We had a decades long problem with Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and this kind of attitude was what prevented the authorities from intervening for so long. In some cases actively covering up the existence of the gangs or casting aspersions on the victims. Estimates of the number of victims are in the hundreds, possibly thousands.
Every day we get another horrifying new detail about historical abuse and in some places these gangs are still active.
“Muslims rape kids” is wrong, bigoted, and a gross generalisation. However if there is a pattern of certain abuser profiles then the general public needs to be informed.
“Muslims rape kids” is wrong, bigoted, and a gross generalisation.
Yes. That’s why it’s an example being used. It’s not how you inform the general public of real atrocities, and the important kernels of truth behind that wrong, bigoted and gross generalisation don’t justify making it. So I don’t understand why you felt compelled to detail them.
Ok, so I’m going to do one that’s actually likely to be downvoted by the Americans here.
Sometimes censorship is necessary for a safer society.
Censorship of what exactly? Certain things I’d understand, but there are alot of things that could be censored that wouldn’t be so great
Hate speech is a good start. Go about the place saying “Muslims rape children” or “F-slurs make us lose wars” and you are actively making life more dangerous for people.
Problem is that well-intentioned rules with discretionary boundaries end up with unethical enforcement. See: the bill a few months ago that federally defines “anti-semitism” as including “criticism of the state of Israel”. Actually that’s not even a discretionary boundary, that’s statutory. The reasoning behind the First Amendment in the first place was to avoid authoritarian censorship, including these kinds of games where “reasonable regulation” of speech is used to shoehorn in authoritarian censorship.
with a country that decides modern online privacy laws based off of 1980s video rentals, any sort of restriction on free speech WILL be manipulated into whatever the people in power agrees with.
We had a decades long problem with Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and this kind of attitude was what prevented the authorities from intervening for so long. In some cases actively covering up the existence of the gangs or casting aspersions on the victims. Estimates of the number of victims are in the hundreds, possibly thousands.
Every day we get another horrifying new detail about historical abuse and in some places these gangs are still active.
“Muslims rape kids” is wrong, bigoted, and a gross generalisation. However if there is a pattern of certain abuser profiles then the general public needs to be informed.
Yes. That’s why it’s an example being used. It’s not how you inform the general public of real atrocities, and the important kernels of truth behind that wrong, bigoted and gross generalisation don’t justify making it. So I don’t understand why you felt compelled to detail them.
You should delete your comment if you truly believe in it.
Huh?