I think the very concept of “hate speech” is problematic. Who gets to define what is hateful? The concept that only certain groups can be victims seems to be enshrined in law. Or, offending a buffoonish politician (I am American) This was a sad story.
It's hard to imagine how any hate speech law could pass constitutional scrutiny here in the United States, barring some major divergence from caselaw in the Supreme Court. Even so, we shouldn't be complacent. Freedom of expression requires constant defense both legally and culturally.
I am not saying there shouldn’t be …consequences…for hateful speech. Humor seems to work. laugh at the Nazi buffoons. Razz the “i am a Therian and I demand you use the meow pronoun” loons
Great article! Thank you Persuasion for publishing this. Everyone knows that Christianity can be attacked and criticized even in extreme and hateful terms. It often is. However Islam is off limits for any criticism. Increasingly "anti-semitism" is also invoked over any criticism of Israel's wars and influence in US politics.
Another paradox is this: Hateful violence of all kinds is tolerated in thousands of films and video games freely available to everyone on the internet. But much milder comments on twitter against immigrants, or transgender activists, are claimined by EU censors to be so dangerous and hurtful that people are being arrested for these comments.
Religious blasphemy laws have their political equivalent: hate speech. Both are based on the same premise: words are violence. Whether it is violence against the deity, a politician, or some minority group is immaterial. The important thing is that the gap between opinion and action is closed, so "wrong-thinking" becomes equivalent to wrong-doing. Radical Islam could never impose its medieval theology on European societies if it were not for the help of "liberal" politicians who have accepted this inherently flawed and dangerous premise.
What a bunch of racist pricks. I'd expect a storm of well-deserved criticism. What I wouldn't expect is violence, because that is the wrong response, even if there are those who would want to use it. If anyone used violence against such a magazine, I'd condemn it and expect the criminals who did so to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I think the very concept of “hate speech” is problematic. Who gets to define what is hateful? The concept that only certain groups can be victims seems to be enshrined in law. Or, offending a buffoonish politician (I am American) This was a sad story.
It's hard to imagine how any hate speech law could pass constitutional scrutiny here in the United States, barring some major divergence from caselaw in the Supreme Court. Even so, we shouldn't be complacent. Freedom of expression requires constant defense both legally and culturally.
I am not saying there shouldn’t be …consequences…for hateful speech. Humor seems to work. laugh at the Nazi buffoons. Razz the “i am a Therian and I demand you use the meow pronoun” loons
Great article! Thank you Persuasion for publishing this. Everyone knows that Christianity can be attacked and criticized even in extreme and hateful terms. It often is. However Islam is off limits for any criticism. Increasingly "anti-semitism" is also invoked over any criticism of Israel's wars and influence in US politics.
Another paradox is this: Hateful violence of all kinds is tolerated in thousands of films and video games freely available to everyone on the internet. But much milder comments on twitter against immigrants, or transgender activists, are claimined by EU censors to be so dangerous and hurtful that people are being arrested for these comments.
Well said, and a sorry state of affairs in Europe.
Religious blasphemy laws have their political equivalent: hate speech. Both are based on the same premise: words are violence. Whether it is violence against the deity, a politician, or some minority group is immaterial. The important thing is that the gap between opinion and action is closed, so "wrong-thinking" becomes equivalent to wrong-doing. Radical Islam could never impose its medieval theology on European societies if it were not for the help of "liberal" politicians who have accepted this inherently flawed and dangerous premise.
And what would the reaction be if a US magazine published cartoons showing a black person hanging from a tree?
What a bunch of racist pricks. I'd expect a storm of well-deserved criticism. What I wouldn't expect is violence, because that is the wrong response, even if there are those who would want to use it. If anyone used violence against such a magazine, I'd condemn it and expect the criminals who did so to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.