Problem is with speech is that speech itself IS action.
You might not see it or feel it if you’ve never really been a marganlized group, but even speech itself can be harmful, especially when it spreads. At some point, there must be a line where it is not ok to say those things.
For example: Some white supremacist walking around with a swatstika flag might seem like a nothing to you and you might just htink the person is an idiot (they are). But to me, that is a symbol that says “I want you, your family, and your heritage murdered violently, and I don’t care how its done”
In addition, your premise assumes good faith on the part of the intolerant, and that they are probably just that way and will change with evidence. This is not true. Many intolerant know that they are intolerant and don’t care. And nothing will change that. Arguing with them is what they want since it gives them a platform to repeat their vile hatred.
Again: There MUST be a line in the sand where society and the social contract say “This is not acceptable and you will not be permitted to participate”, or eventually it creeps and spreads.
Nazism (ack, a godwin myself) didn’t just start as Germany’s preffered viewpoint. Hitler was ostracized for it early on, but many free speach absolutists took the exact same approach with him, until he was able to convince enough people who before would keep quiet, to support him and his causes.
Speech is not action, but I agree it can lead to action. Actions are held accountable by law.
I absolutely agree that speech can be harmful, and harmful language should not be tolerated. It should be met with resistant speech or ignored. Social mores are not legislated, but agreed upon by society as a whole. If it’s a location where you are required to listen, such as employment, there are already laws in place to protect you from harmful language.
I assume no good faith from intolerant people. I do not expect them to change their mind. By meeting their ignorance with truth, you can provide the listeners with a contrasting view.
I suggest you read about historical dictatorships and authoritarian control of speech to understand the potential dangers of empowering your government to determine acceptable speech. It may seem like a good idea at first, but all it takes is someone you adamantly disagree with to take office with that power and everything changes.
Yes it is. And this is why the Free speech absolution argument fall flat on it’s face.
Speech is Action.
Speech encourages Action
Speech is powerful. There’s a reason why there’s the old saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Words are the most influence action we have.
I’ve responded to you enough. the fact you’re going to sit and defend peoples right to hate speech implies to me that you have some of these opinions yourself that have been called out for and you want to defend your right to say them.
So, On that assumption, I don’t think you and I have a further need to talk.
I completely agree that we should not stand for intolerance.
Meet speech with speech. Meet action with charges.
Problem is with speech is that speech itself IS action.
You might not see it or feel it if you’ve never really been a marganlized group, but even speech itself can be harmful, especially when it spreads. At some point, there must be a line where it is not ok to say those things.
For example: Some white supremacist walking around with a swatstika flag might seem like a nothing to you and you might just htink the person is an idiot (they are). But to me, that is a symbol that says “I want you, your family, and your heritage murdered violently, and I don’t care how its done”
In addition, your premise assumes good faith on the part of the intolerant, and that they are probably just that way and will change with evidence. This is not true. Many intolerant know that they are intolerant and don’t care. And nothing will change that. Arguing with them is what they want since it gives them a platform to repeat their vile hatred.
Again: There MUST be a line in the sand where society and the social contract say “This is not acceptable and you will not be permitted to participate”, or eventually it creeps and spreads.
Nazism (ack, a godwin myself) didn’t just start as Germany’s preffered viewpoint. Hitler was ostracized for it early on, but many free speach absolutists took the exact same approach with him, until he was able to convince enough people who before would keep quiet, to support him and his causes.
Speech is not action, but I agree it can lead to action. Actions are held accountable by law.
I absolutely agree that speech can be harmful, and harmful language should not be tolerated. It should be met with resistant speech or ignored. Social mores are not legislated, but agreed upon by society as a whole. If it’s a location where you are required to listen, such as employment, there are already laws in place to protect you from harmful language.
I assume no good faith from intolerant people. I do not expect them to change their mind. By meeting their ignorance with truth, you can provide the listeners with a contrasting view.
I suggest you read about historical dictatorships and authoritarian control of speech to understand the potential dangers of empowering your government to determine acceptable speech. It may seem like a good idea at first, but all it takes is someone you adamantly disagree with to take office with that power and everything changes.
Yes it is. And this is why the Free speech absolution argument fall flat on it’s face.
Speech is Action.
Speech encourages Action
Speech is powerful. There’s a reason why there’s the old saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Words are the most influence action we have.
I’ve responded to you enough. the fact you’re going to sit and defend peoples right to hate speech implies to me that you have some of these opinions yourself that have been called out for and you want to defend your right to say them.
So, On that assumption, I don’t think you and I have a further need to talk.
We’re not having the same discussion.
I don’t like [group] people. Constitutionally protected, but under attack.
We should hurt [group] people. Inciting violence, and a chargeable offense.
And for what it’s worth, I think racism and nationalism are deplorable.