This is bad. The bill does not define "hate speech"; that's left for later administrative determination. All we have so far is “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Combining "detestation" ("I don't like you") with vilification ("You're evil") is a concern. The first is legitimate opinion. The second is defamation. For which truth is a defense under US law.
The committee report that fed into this bill [1] is scary. "Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech."[2] This is at least in part about suppressing political speech on certain issues.
YMCA of Canada proposed a definition: "integrate an intersectional gender equity lens and consider the gendered impacts of anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Xenophobia in any definition of “hate” and “online hate”". Think of trying to defend against a claim of that in court.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs proposed the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the one that includes some kinds of criticism of the Israeli government.[3]
This isn't classic hate speech, intended to incite people to violence. Such as "Hang Mike Pence". This is far, far broader.
I suspect anti-white speech would not be considered hate speech according to the YMCA of Canada. An "intersectional equity lens" often implies the redefinition as racism as racism-plus-power, viewing all whites as empowered and all non-whites as oppressed.
We know anti-white speech can and does incite violence, as it did last week in Daytona Beach:
Agreed. There is a 1000% chance this legislation will be used to muzzle valid criticism of the rich and powerful, both in and out of government. The uncritical crowd here tends to assume anyone critical of hate speech laws just wants to toss slurs at people online, but the reality is that this represents a very real threat to free society on a basic level. Governments are ALWAYS trying to get more power than they need, so that they can abuse that power, and it's the ongoing sisyphean task of the population to push back if they don't want to end up in a dystopia.
Power to muzzle people for saying something mean is power the government SHOULD NOT HAVE. And if they get it, it WILL be abused.
I moved to this country in the hope of escaping speech controls. To this day, I am not comfortable participating in (easily identifiable) social media, simply because I am worried about when someone will black bag me for (hopefully only) a few days.
I'm sure that won't happen here, but I'll be darned if this doesn't make my PTSD seem like the master plan.
Incidentally even talking about the nations/religions that I moved here to escape from, could be construed as a "phobic" response now.
I certainly hope everyone involved understands how precarious this path they are taking is. It should be well known by now from history that this sort of thing can be very dangerous, but it seems like there is a large part of the population that is more than willing to relinquish liberties for a perceived sense of safety without understanding the potential consequences involved.
Given the current political climate, I don't have much faith in things turning out well.
Really it's left to the courts and they will do as they please - subject to the kinds of cases that are brought to the, usually by people with agendas.
Since the new Constitution, we're living in a kind of Judicial Supremacy (in other places as well) where the best legislators and lawyers in the world basically don't even know if something is legal when they make it.
It's a giant gaping hole in how our Liberal institutions were founded that's only obvious now in hindsight I suppose. There really needs to be some kind of way for the Legislative and Judiciary to work something out - maybe by presenting test cases for new proposals, advisory etc.. Because as it stands, all of the 'most important things' are decided by an un-elected and 'Council of Elders' behind closed doors, with not nearly the same level of oversight, public or media scrutiny as in Parliament.
In Canada there is a 'notwithstanding' loophole, literally meaning Provinces can just 'opt out' of something being Constitutional, which is another, weird, separate problem.
We should really err on the side of freedom of expression in the law.
YouTube is still free to have their own thresholds, which is also fair.
> integrate an intersectional gender equity lens and consider the gendered impacts of anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Xenophobia in any definition of “hate”
... so that saying "all cops are bastards" stays perfectly legal. Unless you're talking about Israeli police, in which case you're stepping onto the shaky ground.
> Combining "detestation" ("I don't like you") with vilification ("You're evil") is a concern. The first is legitimate opinion. The second is defamation. For which truth is a defense under US law.
US law about defamation is even narrower than that. "Animats is evil" is almost certainly too vague to be taken as a provable, or disprovable statement of fact by a court. Even "Animats would steal if he thought he could get away with it" is probably too speculative.
What about the second half of that sentence? "...on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination", specifically.
"I don't like you because you're Black/gay/Jewish" is an entirely different thing from "I don't like you because you're rich". Specifically, one of these is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
> The bill defines “hate speech” as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
> These grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
> In addition, the hate speech would need to be communicated in a context where it is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on any of these prohibited grounds.
> Speech that expresses dislike or disdain, or that discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends would not fall within the definition of hate speech. This distinction is intended to reflect the extreme nature of hate speech captured by the proposed amendments.
The prohibited ground of discrimination are inline with existing definitions (this isn't them caving into the YMCA of Canada or IHRA or something...)
People seem to forget or not know that Canada is already in a grey middle ground where free-speech is limited, and hate speech is considered a crime. And so far, the fact that Canada doesn't take a free-speech-absolutist position on the matter doesn't seem to have led to the unavoidable-slippery-slope that free-speech-absolutists profess it should lead to.
I'm of the opinion that free speech is important but I think absolutism is a red flag, and here is a case where a pragmatic middle ground has proven to work out just fine.
"The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs proposed the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the one that includes some kinds of criticism of the Israeli government.[3]" - the definition is against equating zionism with fascism and/or apartheid, and against questioning legal status of existence of Israel. The definition is obviously meant to outlaw BDS, and to push diaspora Jews towards taking sides. Other than that no one objects to criticism of Israel, its government, its defense forces, and zionism.
"Hate Speech" is a super political term, and I would argue probably should have special protection at this point. It's not much of a leap to see this used to enforce current political orthodoxy.
We already have laws about inciting to violence as I understand it, which is justifiable. This makes it an offence to "expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination".
Worth noting that Canada already considers hate speech a crime.
For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be:
> Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15]
> Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]
What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.
You don't seem to understand the basic concept of division of power. The law is enforced by the judicial branch based on the written law + legal precedents on an impartial manner, not by the "current political orthodoxy".
If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.
I hate mudflinging as much as the next guy, but how would someone even engage in politics at all without statements that could be described as detestation or vilification? Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them?
Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.
The rationale behind this regulation is insincere, and in my view, it is an expression of weakness and fear by an out of touch governing class who know they have overstepped their remit, however, the effects could be interesting.
The interesting effects will be toward one of two poles: either the regulation will relieve conservative forums (if they even exist anymore) of the burden of dealing with people who abuse their tolerance with extreme behavior, which will improve their conversations and make the discourse of those forums clearer - or - the regulations will be used by a provisional group of party affiliated trolls who will flood opposition sites with "hate speech," to get them "investigated" and knocked offline using this as a pretext at key moments under the regulation.
I suspect the latter will be the case. The actual path for Canada is something much more cynical. If this sounds extreme, it's worth remembering that Canada is not the US. It is not a republic, and it's only nominally a democracy, and its charter of rights has a "notwithstanding clause," which means a government can do whatever it wants. This regulation is part of a set of enabling acts for the Davos movement to form its own country using Canada as its first host.
If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, we used to call it opposition criticism, but apparently that's not a thing anymore either. Discourse about policy in Canada is dead, and we are all but officially no longer a nation state, and so we are left to commenting on the realpolitik of our various administrators.
>“Hate speech directly contradicts the values underlying freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights,” Lametti said. “It threatens the safety and well-being of its targets. It silences and intimidates, especially when the target is a vulnerable person or community. When hate speech spreads, its victims lose their freedom to participate in civil society online.”
Just want to note the extraordinary audacity of this statement: reversing the adversely affected parties, while posturing as an affirmation of the very values it is attempting to undermine.
It is an audaciously wrongheaded statement. It puts a veneer of concern for the oppressed and their rights over a violation of the rights of those this law intends to oppress.
Some societies used to have caste system and did human sacrifices, yet it took thousands of years for them to collapse. When they did collapse, it was due to outside invasion rather than their ideologies.
Good news: your society isn't collapsing. Bad news: it looks like it is going to shit.
This comment confuses me. There’s plenty of reasons to wring hands over a new law, and the existence of an old law doesn’t change this. It’s well known that the old hate speech laws have existed for 20 years, and also that they have been unevenly applied (not investigating extreme hate from Imams for instance), and harassing journalists for engaging in basic acts of exposition (publishing the Mohammed cartoons).
The concern is obviously that the new provisions don’t do anything to address these issues, and seem likely to exacerbate these concerns by expanding the scope and the range of punishments in a way that could chill speech, especially since the law doesn’t adequately define its terms leaving that up to unelected bureaucrats.
This law also follows on the heels of bill C-10 which similarly leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how popular youtube channels will be regulated. So Canadians hackles are already up.
The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition.
If you said 'Kill all X' where X is any protected group you would almost certainly fall afoul of hate speech regulation. By all metrics "Kill all X" is online vilification against a group of people because of superficial characteristics. Yet for some reason "Kill all Men" is totally acceptable in online discourse.
Because of the lack of punishment, anyone against whom "Kill all X" is acceptable finds themselves opposing hate speech regulation - as for them it is useless and does nothing to protect them.
Secondly, because of the lack of consistent (and biased) enforcement of hate speech rules, everyone should be concerned about if and when hate speech against them goes from being protected to normalised.
Freedom of speech is absolute. One cannot outlaw what one does not want to hear. If you want your freedom to speak you are required to let other people speak. It's really that simple.
Hate does not go away by outlawing. It only makes martyrs of those impacted by the law.
The only way to fight bigotry is with information and enlightenment. It is a fight that will never stop and there are no short cuts.
One would have thought we, as a species, would have learned that by now.
"[Hate speech] threatens the safety and well-being of its targets."
The UK is in the throes of trying to define what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society. The problem seems to stem from the parameters of 'harm' being defined almost entirely by the victim. There are claims that arguments against certain idiologies "deny the existence" of groups, and further that expressing these idea seems to lead directly to self harm and suicides. So, "speech that causes harm" and makes people feel hated. Bingo: 'hate speech'. But what happens when there isn't any hate or targeted 'detesting' going on? (Or good data on suicides for that matter.) It's open for abuse by a mob. Not a good path to head down in a pluralist, liberal society IMHO.
It's strange to me that at least within nations, the previously war-starting disagreements about the finer details of the Abrahamic religions seem to have chosen different orbits within society, politely nod to each other and know no good will come from trying to lock horns. The kids on Twitter now have apparently equally strongly held beliefs about other stuff but are utterly gob-smacked that other people won't agree with them even though they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.
I got banned from Reddit for stating that “all murderers should be executed,” which is literally a policy position. I think online free speech is not long for this world which will leave the voting booth the only remaining anonymous forum. I expect many more “how the %%*$& did THEY win?!” elections.
Canadian-American here. From what I've observed of Canada I'd expect the law will be narrowly defined and the penalties weak and rarely applied. Plus, the courts are slow as can be so I wouldn't expect an unleashing of prosecutions (though I realize this isn't a defense of a bad law). The US, in my experience, is far more severe in its criminal penalties for all kinds of things. In Canada, you wait years for trial (not in jail, you're out free) and then get a slap on the wrist.
This "hate speech" is the modern heresy. The trick is tired, but still works surprisingly well: invent a gibberish buzzword, e.g. "truth denialism", pass a law to ban the buzzword without specifying what the buzzword means, generously extend the meaning of the buzzword and label anyone you disagree with a "truth denialist". It's a form of hijacking democratic societies.
Be interesting to see what they would say in this new law about someone wearing black face like our prime minister has more times than he can remember.
That means it's going to be very important for Canada to know who is writing what on the internet. Attempting anonymity on the internet may eventually become a crime akin to structuring.
I used to believe in the absoluteness of freedom of speech, especially with living in the United States, and that any attempts to regulate free speech were the slippery slope to regulating speech itself. However after witnessing firsthand, hate speech played out to its apex I am not so sure. The denial of other freedoms and the death and destruction it can leave in its wake leave me questioning this ideal.
Would it be considered “hate speech” if I point out that the current cabinet is 100% incompetent largely due to Trudeau putting diversity goals above good governance?
[+] [-] Animats|4 years ago|reply
Combining "detestation" ("I don't like you") with vilification ("You're evil") is a concern. The first is legitimate opinion. The second is defamation. For which truth is a defense under US law.
The committee report that fed into this bill [1] is scary. "Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech."[2] This is at least in part about suppressing political speech on certain issues.
YMCA of Canada proposed a definition: "integrate an intersectional gender equity lens and consider the gendered impacts of anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Xenophobia in any definition of “hate” and “online hate”". Think of trying to defend against a claim of that in court.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs proposed the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the one that includes some kinds of criticism of the Israeli government.[3]
This isn't classic hate speech, intended to incite people to violence. Such as "Hang Mike Pence". This is far, far broader.
[1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report...
[2] https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/inde...
[3] https://www.jta.org/2021/01/15/global/the-ihra-definition-of...
[+] [-] neartheplain|4 years ago|reply
We know anti-white speech can and does incite violence, as it did last week in Daytona Beach:
https://twitter.com/gwupoe/status/1409137548899893251
It can also incite white identity politics, which to me is the much bigger problem caused by this sort of law.
[+] [-] ergot_vacation|4 years ago|reply
Power to muzzle people for saying something mean is power the government SHOULD NOT HAVE. And if they get it, it WILL be abused.
[+] [-] AwaAwa|4 years ago|reply
I'm sure that won't happen here, but I'll be darned if this doesn't make my PTSD seem like the master plan.
Incidentally even talking about the nations/religions that I moved here to escape from, could be construed as a "phobic" response now.
[+] [-] ayngg|4 years ago|reply
Given the current political climate, I don't have much faith in things turning out well.
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
True, and it will unfortunately be weaponized.
Really it's left to the courts and they will do as they please - subject to the kinds of cases that are brought to the, usually by people with agendas.
Since the new Constitution, we're living in a kind of Judicial Supremacy (in other places as well) where the best legislators and lawyers in the world basically don't even know if something is legal when they make it.
It's a giant gaping hole in how our Liberal institutions were founded that's only obvious now in hindsight I suppose. There really needs to be some kind of way for the Legislative and Judiciary to work something out - maybe by presenting test cases for new proposals, advisory etc.. Because as it stands, all of the 'most important things' are decided by an un-elected and 'Council of Elders' behind closed doors, with not nearly the same level of oversight, public or media scrutiny as in Parliament.
In Canada there is a 'notwithstanding' loophole, literally meaning Provinces can just 'opt out' of something being Constitutional, which is another, weird, separate problem.
We should really err on the side of freedom of expression in the law.
YouTube is still free to have their own thresholds, which is also fair.
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|4 years ago|reply
... so that saying "all cops are bastards" stays perfectly legal. Unless you're talking about Israeli police, in which case you're stepping onto the shaky ground.
[+] [-] Zak|4 years ago|reply
US law about defamation is even narrower than that. "Animats is evil" is almost certainly too vague to be taken as a provable, or disprovable statement of fact by a court. Even "Animats would steal if he thought he could get away with it" is probably too speculative.
[+] [-] DanHulton|4 years ago|reply
"I don't like you because you're Black/gay/Jewish" is an entirely different thing from "I don't like you because you're rich". Specifically, one of these is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
[+] [-] icegreentea2|4 years ago|reply
Quoting:
> The bill defines “hate speech” as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
> These grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
> In addition, the hate speech would need to be communicated in a context where it is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on any of these prohibited grounds.
> Speech that expresses dislike or disdain, or that discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends would not fall within the definition of hate speech. This distinction is intended to reflect the extreme nature of hate speech captured by the proposed amendments.
The prohibited ground of discrimination are inline with existing definitions (this isn't them caving into the YMCA of Canada or IHRA or something...)
[+] [-] AYBABTME|4 years ago|reply
I'm of the opinion that free speech is important but I think absolutism is a red flag, and here is a case where a pragmatic middle ground has proven to work out just fine.
[+] [-] ramblerman|4 years ago|reply
> There are only 2 genders
> Religion is stupid
> Prophet xyz was a pedophile
> Some religions are more prone to violence than others.
> Men and women are not the same.
> Covid 19 was leaked from a Chinese lab.
-----
Twitter considers some of those hate speech already.
[+] [-] AzzieElbab|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FreeSpeech|4 years ago|reply
If you wouldn't be comfortable with the Trump administration defining "hate speech", you shouldn't be comfortable with Trudeau defining it either.
[+] [-] notanazi|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] version_five|4 years ago|reply
We already have laws about inciting to violence as I understand it, which is justifiable. This makes it an offence to "expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination".
[+] [-] icegreentea2|4 years ago|reply
For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be:
> Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15]
> Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]
What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.
[+] [-] errantmind|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justbored123|4 years ago|reply
If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.
[+] [-] ergot_vacation|4 years ago|reply
Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.
[+] [-] StandardFuture|4 years ago|reply
Which is a nice way of saying that this is the beginnings of a new authoritarian and totalitarian age.
It should be very worrying to everyone to see speech be legally punished in the West.
Slippery slopes do exist and this is one.
[+] [-] Griffinsauce|4 years ago|reply
Laws are political.
We seem to have completely lost the meaning of this word. Did you mean something like "controversial"?
[+] [-] motohagiography|4 years ago|reply
The interesting effects will be toward one of two poles: either the regulation will relieve conservative forums (if they even exist anymore) of the burden of dealing with people who abuse their tolerance with extreme behavior, which will improve their conversations and make the discourse of those forums clearer - or - the regulations will be used by a provisional group of party affiliated trolls who will flood opposition sites with "hate speech," to get them "investigated" and knocked offline using this as a pretext at key moments under the regulation.
I suspect the latter will be the case. The actual path for Canada is something much more cynical. If this sounds extreme, it's worth remembering that Canada is not the US. It is not a republic, and it's only nominally a democracy, and its charter of rights has a "notwithstanding clause," which means a government can do whatever it wants. This regulation is part of a set of enabling acts for the Davos movement to form its own country using Canada as its first host.
If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, we used to call it opposition criticism, but apparently that's not a thing anymore either. Discourse about policy in Canada is dead, and we are all but officially no longer a nation state, and so we are left to commenting on the realpolitik of our various administrators.
[+] [-] prvc|4 years ago|reply
Just want to note the extraordinary audacity of this statement: reversing the adversely affected parties, while posturing as an affirmation of the very values it is attempting to undermine.
[+] [-] JasonFruit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] S_A_P|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freeslave|4 years ago|reply
https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-rest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
[+] [-] altfredd|4 years ago|reply
Good news: your society isn't collapsing. Bad news: it looks like it is going to shit.
[+] [-] int_19h|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Canadian_Hum...
[+] [-] mastazi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krrrh|4 years ago|reply
The concern is obviously that the new provisions don’t do anything to address these issues, and seem likely to exacerbate these concerns by expanding the scope and the range of punishments in a way that could chill speech, especially since the law doesn’t adequately define its terms leaving that up to unelected bureaucrats.
This law also follows on the heels of bill C-10 which similarly leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how popular youtube channels will be regulated. So Canadians hackles are already up.
[+] [-] deepnotderp|4 years ago|reply
Despite all the hand-wringing.
[+] [-] undfg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] headsoup|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6f8986c3|4 years ago|reply
"Yet"
[+] [-] legostormtroopr|4 years ago|reply
If you said 'Kill all X' where X is any protected group you would almost certainly fall afoul of hate speech regulation. By all metrics "Kill all X" is online vilification against a group of people because of superficial characteristics. Yet for some reason "Kill all Men" is totally acceptable in online discourse.
Because of the lack of punishment, anyone against whom "Kill all X" is acceptable finds themselves opposing hate speech regulation - as for them it is useless and does nothing to protect them.
Secondly, because of the lack of consistent (and biased) enforcement of hate speech rules, everyone should be concerned about if and when hate speech against them goes from being protected to normalised.
[+] [-] fghfghfghfghfgh|4 years ago|reply
Hate does not go away by outlawing. It only makes martyrs of those impacted by the law.
The only way to fight bigotry is with information and enlightenment. It is a fight that will never stop and there are no short cuts.
One would have thought we, as a species, would have learned that by now.
[+] [-] verytrivial|4 years ago|reply
The UK is in the throes of trying to define what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society. The problem seems to stem from the parameters of 'harm' being defined almost entirely by the victim. There are claims that arguments against certain idiologies "deny the existence" of groups, and further that expressing these idea seems to lead directly to self harm and suicides. So, "speech that causes harm" and makes people feel hated. Bingo: 'hate speech'. But what happens when there isn't any hate or targeted 'detesting' going on? (Or good data on suicides for that matter.) It's open for abuse by a mob. Not a good path to head down in a pluralist, liberal society IMHO.
It's strange to me that at least within nations, the previously war-starting disagreements about the finer details of the Abrahamic religions seem to have chosen different orbits within society, politely nod to each other and know no good will come from trying to lock horns. The kids on Twitter now have apparently equally strongly held beliefs about other stuff but are utterly gob-smacked that other people won't agree with them even though they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.
[+] [-] spoonjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrgaston|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SongOfSeikilos|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akomtu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heret...
[+] [-] swader999|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkobia|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lalaland1125|4 years ago|reply
For example, would it now be illegal to say that anti-LGBT churches are bad because they are homophobic?
[+] [-] swayvil|4 years ago|reply
Do you really want a consortium of oligarchs telling you what you can say?
[+] [-] AzzieElbab|4 years ago|reply