# So actually it's just fine to link to hate speech {This is not accurate} **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 6, 2025, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-actually-its-just-fine-to-link-to-hate-speech-this-is-not-accurate/1016692 "2025-04-06T08:31:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 23
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2025, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-actually-its-just-fine-to-link-to-hate-speech-this-is-not-accurate/1016692/23 "2025-04-06T19:29:58Z")
Just pointing back to where we started deeply talking about linking to hate speech: > [@Linking to hate speech, again](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-again/1013441): > > Well, our resident bigots are back at it. In post 1010 of the “Is It Time To Tone Down the Wokeness?” thread, DemonTree posts a link to horrific hate speech, while stating that it reflects her own opinion. The linked piece routinely misgenders trans people, and explicitly makes the claim that: There is no such thing as a “trans person”; there are people who identify as “trans,” and people who have gender dysphoria. There are people with chromosomal abnormalities, people with psychological sca… The whole thread is too long to summarize, but I wanted to go over a couple of points that seem germane to the current revival. First, that in this thread, and the followups, no “new” rules were decided on. Because the moderation fell within the existing rules. In that thread, What\_Exit quoted the Hate Speech Rules in their entirety, but this time, I’ll point to a specific subsection as it applies to What\_Exit’s immediately prior post: > 1. If we detect a pattern of pejorative or otherwise objectionable comments about groups by you that, taken individually, do not rise to the level of hate speech but that, in aggregate, detract from civil discussion, we may tell you to stop; failure to do so may result in suspension or revocation of your posting privileges. Now, digging into the whole “linking” to hate speech, again, the prior thread made a note of what the thread is about. Linking to a site that is largely devoted to such things, _especially_ if you’re saying it sums up your feelings? Not so good. Linking to a site that discusses the history and consequences of such? That’s furthering a debate. Linking to a government website that uses hate-speech imagery because it’s an example of current political thought and explicitly describing it as such (the circumstances cited in the current OP)? That was to support the argument and even included (IMHO) fair warning of objectionable content. I think overall, the feeling in the followup to the followup seemed to be acceptable to the majority (not all obviously) of posters: > [@Linking to hate speech, the Journey Continues](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-the-journey-continues/1013506/7): > > > [@Linking to hate speech, the Journey Continues](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-the-journey-continues/1013506/5): > > > > But it’s another thing entirely to link to such a discussion and to **endorse** its content in any way. I’d suggest that doing so should be treated the same as if someone wrote those same slurs and hate directly into a post, and moderated accordingly. > > Indeed, that is how it would likely be handled. This is of course, not a written rule, but I think it’s in line of how I myself view such things. Context is almost always going to play a huge factor, which is where the Mods come into the equation. And I believe the context of the post the in the OP of this thread is extremely clear. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-actually-its-just-fine-to-link-to-hate-speech-this-is-not-accurate/1016692)._