So, 10-20 years of making bigots and sexists watch their mouths will undo sexism and racism?
:dubious:
Is this actually a question or is it a criticism of my position thinly disguised as a question?
What makes you think I actually think it will “undo” racism and sexism?
Or think of it this way. If, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we’d made hate speech illegal, would that have caused us to make better progress than we actually did since then?
Seems to me that banning hate speech is an end rather than a means. It won’t make us less racist, all it really does is make it so that people don’t have to hear racism spoken out loud or published.
How do you determine what facts are?
Denying the holocaust? A lie.
Saying Muslims can’t be good citizens. Hateful, and a lie.
It’s about focusing on whether any vile claim is true or just hateful misrepresentations and lies. The focus is the important part. It mightn’t qualify as a crime, but it’s now been widely exposed as the half truth or just flat out nonsense it is. Win!
Not in my book, no. But if you do it repeatedly, or try to turn yourself into a martyr whenever you’re criticised for it, then you need to be managed into better behaviour (AKA your mother needs to teach you some manners). And a lot depends on the nature and demands of the job: some high-profile media jobs carry more responsibilities than others. Joe Soap in the shop down the road doesn’t, even if he is a bigoted slob.
Well, the “die hard” racists probably never changed. But overwhelming social pressure probably did get a lot of mildly racist people to change, over the space of the years.
Yes, but, my point is, health risks or global warming are pretty much straight up completely factual situations. I doubt, however, if anyone will ever be prosecuted in the USA for telling “lies” about cigarettes or global warming.
But, as bad as it sounds, group ABC are not good citizens… that will allways have an element of opinion to it, will it not?
I think I agree with you pretty closely, 95% or better at least…
The first amendment protects hate speech. Any laws banning hate speech would be struck down by the courts pretty quickly. The only way this could change is if the Supreme Court held some law against hate speech to be constitutional (unlikely), or if there were a constitutional amendment allowing the outlawing of hate speech (extremely unlikely).
I don’t agree with statutory compulsion to “thinks and speak like everyone should,” whether the consequences are a death sentence from Nuremberg or a slap on the wrist from Ottawa.
But that was done by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters – a bunch of station owners, not the government.
The US First Amendment (and, I presume, the Canadian equivalent) says “Congress shall make no law …”. So only the government is limited – individual radio station owners can do what they want. And upset citizens can respond by boycotting their station/its’ advertisers. (Ask Rush Limbaugh about the effects of this.)
And as that article itself indicates, radio stations felt free to ignore the statement from the Broadcasters Association. So, not a government measure, not backed up by any punishment, and ignored. Not much of a ban n
There’s no reason the veracity of a claim can’t be without the threat of criminal prosecution.
You can tap dance around it all you want, but criminalizing hate speech is simply using coercion to silence people you disagree with.
You made a broad, general statement. I rebutted with a broad, general statement. If you want my reaction to your specific details you’ll have to produce some first.
No, your initial comment (to me) was:
The idea that suppressing peoples’ speech today will somehow make amends for historical wrongs seems at best wrongheaded. At best.
I’d be glad to talk specifics. But since it is - your - thread you have to provide specific examples you think are “over the line” (too politically correct or whatever).
Since I’ve never actually heard anyone say “niggardly” (in the last 30 years) perhaps you could pick a real, actual example.
You’re right, there is no reason the very veracity of a claim can’t be the issue without the question of prosecution for violating hate speech laws.
But, as you can clearly see in America, that’s NOT, in fact, how it actually pans out. Instead, any blowhard, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Planned Parenthood opponents step up and say hateful, misleading outright lies. And what happens? They get more publicity, more airtime, their lies take on lives of their own.
The PP thing is a perfect example, the tape was purposely edited to totally misrepresent something, but that part of the story, the truth, was completely eclipsed by blowhard manufactured outrage based on untruths of the highest magnitude. Repeated for simple shock value and ratings.
I don’t usually agree with Christopher Hitchens (or rather didn’t), but this is a brilliant 20 minute speech that knocks down the idea of hate speech laws quite nicely:
And my initial comment was in regards to your statement that:
[QUOTE=Robert163]
, I think, having a 10 or 15 year period of excessive social pressure to make things “politically correct” is acceptable and necessary to counter balance the 350+ years of outright misogyny, sexism, racism, etc
[/QUOTE]
So, you made a broad, general statement. I rebutted with a broad, general statement.
[QUOTE=Robert163]
Since I’ve never actually heard anyone say “niggardly” (in the last 30 years) perhaps you could pick a real, actual example.
[/QUOTE]
The David Howe incident in my initial post happened in 1999. Howe lost his job. Several other incidents in the link happened within the last 30 years. So it’s a real, actual example.
I disagree. Political statements are dissected in America all the time.
There’s plenty of American media outlets that have argued that the PP video was fallacious. A partisan press is going to do all it can to call out the other side when they lie.
And I noticed you like to single out Republicans, e.g. Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, etc. It’s not unreasonable to assume you’re keen on hate speech laws because you think they’ll silence people you disagree.
n.b. Don’t construe what I wrote above as an endorsement of Republicans; it’s not.