It's Time to Upgrade Free Speech to Fair Speech
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You don't understand that people make this decision for themselves.
Hate speech laws wouldn't even be a thing if they didn't have overwhelming support.
By the people.
Hate speech laws wouldn't even be a thing if they didn't have overwhelming support.
By the people.
I'll bet that book burning started that way with panels judging what is acceptable reading and what is not......
Poor Trudope doesn't even realize that his sig says it all
If that were true then we would have been burning books in the 80s.
It's okay to admit you're just a pussy.
It's okay to admit you're just a pussy.
Freedom and democracy are not synonymous. Clearly you believe the latter trumps the former.
Alright... So understanding that people have the capacity to assess, in their own mind, what qualifies as fair speech, then every perspective is fair as long as one person deems it fair.
That said, there would be no such thing as hate speech, right?
PS - DaS is right, your sig, if objected to by anyone, would be a form of hate speech... Kinda hypocritical for you to act as champion of fair speech with that sig
Firstly, it's not a form of hate speech.
Secondly, you've admitted that what is acceptable is determined by the people and Orwell would be proud.
Secondly, you've admitted that what is acceptable is determined by the people and Orwell would be proud.
As long as one person, according to you, believes it to be offensive, then it qualifies
You still shy away from qualifying your position by defining who (group, individual, Committee, etc) decides what is deemed as fair.
Without that detail, you have no force in the comments you make
No, one person being offended definitely doesn't qualify as hate speech.
And I already qualified that citizens determine what is acceptable.
And I already qualified that citizens determine what is acceptable.
Ok.
So, how many people does it take?
X number of signatures on a petition?
X percentage of the local population?
What is the metric that is required?
No you didn't
Conservatives already tried it with their Barbaric Hotline.
Didn't quite work out for them.
I'm sure that clamping down on Nazi rallies would be fairly uncontroversial.
Didn't quite work out for them.
I'm sure that clamping down on Nazi rallies would be fairly uncontroversial.
So, how many people does it take?
X number of signatures on a petition?
X percentage of the local population?
What is the metric that is required?
X number of signatures on a petition?
X percentage of the local population?
What is the metric that is required?
All I am seeking is a definition that represents a quantifiable metric for the above.
Please, do provide what is acceptable
You can easily make policy that's not unconstitutional.
I mean, unless your Harper, but that's besides the point.