The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King’s anti-racism speech was, as charged, “hate speech”.
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn’t define what ‘hate speech’ was and so decided that it shouldn’t be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That’s why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with ‘hate speech’ and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest. Never heard of those.
But Blasphemy is extremely different from Hate. Canada, for example, goes into explicit legal detail on what counts as Hate and constitutes a Hate Crime.
And Blasphemy has nothing to do with that discussion, nor have I ever heard of this concept, so either you are talking about something else entirely, or perhaps you have to link to what you are talking about?
When I look the term “Blasphemy Laws” up, it brings up something that has nothing to do with Hate Crimes. Did you perhaps use the wrong term?
Throwaway’s thing seems to be making shallow bad rightwing takes and backing them up with nothing of substance. I don’t think they are engaging genuinely.
Pakistan has a one of the more remarkably bad histories with blasphemy laws, if you’re looking for examples. I think they’re not uncommon in Muslim majority countries. Western nations had similar laws as well, but I think you have to go back a couple centuries to find them.
But the thing is the person I responded to seemed to be talking about some other one, because we are talking about Anti-Hate speech laws, which is definitely not what you just linked to lol
No… one is a law against speech against a large entity of power that holds control of the nation.
The other is a law against speech against fellow specific individuals.
If you are seriously trying to equate “I don’t like (religion)” with “I think (group of people) deserve to die”, then you are on the wrong side of history mate.
That would be a very bad take and I hope to hell and back again you are smart enough to see the difference between those two.
You realize such laws have existed in most countries for a very long time, right?
Hate speech is illegal in most of the modern world, and has been for quite some time.
The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King’s anti-racism speech was, as charged, “hate speech”.
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn’t define what ‘hate speech’ was and so decided that it shouldn’t be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That’s why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with ‘hate speech’ and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
Removed by mod
Yeah, they used to be called Blasphemy laws. Still doesn’t make it excusable.
I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest. Never heard of those.
But Blasphemy is extremely different from Hate. Canada, for example, goes into explicit legal detail on what counts as Hate and constitutes a Hate Crime.
And Blasphemy has nothing to do with that discussion, nor have I ever heard of this concept, so either you are talking about something else entirely, or perhaps you have to link to what you are talking about?
When I look the term “Blasphemy Laws” up, it brings up something that has nothing to do with Hate Crimes. Did you perhaps use the wrong term?
Throwaway’s thing seems to be making shallow bad rightwing takes and backing them up with nothing of substance. I don’t think they are engaging genuinely.
So most conservatives when pressed on any of their beliefs.
Removed by mod
Pakistan has a one of the more remarkably bad histories with blasphemy laws, if you’re looking for examples. I think they’re not uncommon in Muslim majority countries. Western nations had similar laws as well, but I think you have to go back a couple centuries to find them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
Apples and fuckin oranges my guy.
Yes I know what that Blasphemy Law is.
But the thing is the person I responded to seemed to be talking about some other one, because we are talking about Anti-Hate speech laws, which is definitely not what you just linked to lol
Boiled down, theyre laws against arbritary speech. Sure they might define it, but those definitions always leave enough wiggle room to abuse.
by that logic, all laws should be abolished because all laws can be used for abuse.
If its either an easily abusable law or no law, Id rather no law.
you know drug laws are easily and constantly abused in America? so you would rather we have dealers selling cocaine to gradeschoolers.
seems legit.
there is nothing like a law that can’t be abused, but you huffed too much libertarian glue in the US.
No… one is a law against speech against a large entity of power that holds control of the nation.
The other is a law against speech against fellow specific individuals.
If you are seriously trying to equate “I don’t like (religion)” with “I think (group of people) deserve to die”, then you are on the wrong side of history mate.
That would be a very bad take and I hope to hell and back again you are smart enough to see the difference between those two.