[wowaname]

Well-said? He approached a sensitive topic by prefacing it with horse shit about how all "free[-]speech absolutists" in cyberspace are not victims of hate speech, therefore they go out of their way "to defend hate speech". This is false, and anyone who does this and claims to be such an absolutist, is lying to themselves and to everyone else around them, because they do not understand what free speech even entails.

I'm targeted (either personally or blanketed) by all manners of what most people would call bigotry and hate speech, and I still defend the position that such speech should be considered protected under free-speech doctrine, because for one, it gives me a clear indicator of what those people really think about me, rather than anyone having to beat around the bush and hope that I understand that they're a transphobe or whatever. And for another, it empowers me with the exact same language I can use to defend myself. On top of that, this kind of shit enters dangerous territory when it comes to the rights of parody authors or, say, black comedy. Fuck that.

Calls to action (the "shouting fire" or, more relevant here, calls for genocide or other hate crimes) are not protected under free speech. Devault is kidding himself by misinterpreting or simply not bothering to understand a definition that has been solidified by many a historical philosopher. They all came back with the same conclusion, and somehow that's lost on the masses today.

I admit to not having read the full article because I already have an idea of what the rest of it is about (after hearing what Devault dealt with early this year, from his own talk with me) and I don't feel comfortable endorsing this post at all when the entire first page is blasphemous.