Under the generally accepted definition of “Free Speech”, or under a particular definition you support?
I can’t go along with making that a crime. People should be held accountable for the actual results of such speech, but I’m not going to go along with censoring opinions, no matter how odious. And I truly wish there was a way to do that without resulting in the suppression of valid and necessary speech. It does suck, but freedom comes at a price, and abiding the existence of such garbage and the humans who spout it is one of those prices.
I don’t think the principle of free speech has a precise, agreed-upon definition. I’m not even sure what you mean by ‘the generally accepted definition of “free speech”’. If you’re looking to discuss it though, I’d offer this as starting point.
Paywall-blocked.
(well, those newspapers won’t sell themselves)
Here and here are (non-paywalled) links to his list of 10 principles of free speech, as at least a starting point.
I think any law curtailing hate speech is bound to be abused by those enforcing it. That being said, I understand where the frustration from those on the left comes from. The problem is that on the right, hate speech is largely of the “I hate blacks, Muslims, gays, Mexicans, etc. because they are black, Muslim, gay, Mexican, etc.” Someone from one those groups then responds with “I hate you because you hate me.” The original haters on the right then respond to the effect of saying, “see, there is hate speech on the left to.” Those are hardly equivalent in terms of hate speech, but many on the right make them out to be the same.
There’s a fair bit of the “I hate white men because they are white men” variety of hate speech coming from the Left these days too.
A fair amount?
If you’ve got cites from any non-obscure left-wingers, would you mind posting them?
Got even one instance of that happening?
Let’s start with an easy one: Sarah Jeong
That’s not even within ten miles of being a good cite. Give a pertinent quote.
How about Thailand’s lèse-majesté law?
From Wiki:
And what would have been the fate of someone in Russia or China making such comments about Stalin or Mao?
From her Wiki page:
No, I understand perfectly. We are discussing Stengel’s suggestions for how we should curtail free speech by labeling as “hate speech”
Biden’s threat can cause violence and would therefore be “hate speech” under Stengel’s rules. It would therefore have to be outlawed.
That’s if consistency and the equal protection of the laws is of concern. If it’s just “punching Trump doesn’t bother me but evicting Muslims does so the first isn’t hate speech but the second is” then it’s a question of whose ox is being gored and that doesn’t work as a definition either.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s the “context” around “white men are bullshit” that you think would make it acceptable? or not ‘hate speech’? or, most importantly, not a perfect example of ‘the “I hate white men because they are white men” variety of hate speech coming from the Left’?
On top of hiring that outspoken racist, Sarah Jeong, the NY Times also published a racist rant titled “Can My Children Be Friends with White People” in 2017, by a professor named Ekow Yankah. The Washington Post published a pile of sexist bilge under the title “Why Can’t We Hate Men” in 2018.
As the OP showed, both the Washington Post and the New York Times have recently published calls for censorship of “hate speech”, thus turning away from their history of supporting a free press in past generations. Luckily those two newspapers don’t govern the country and the First Amendment clearly makes any ban on “hate speech” unconstitutional. But if the First Amendment were overturned and hate speech were made illegal, then obviously the New York Times and the Washington Post should be the first two entities to be prosecuted under the new law, because they are the most powerful publishers of hate speech in the country.
Again, this is all fine and well in theory, but how is it going to work out in practice? There is likely to be a punch-up vs. punch-down phenomenon at play in real life, whereby if someone from a disadvantaged group spews hate speech against a privileged group, it won’t be considered as prosecute-able as vice versa.
Another part of the problem is that the left labels opposition to (for instance) illegal immigration as being “that is because you hate brown people therefore it’s hate speech”. And when the response is “no, I just don’t like illegal immigration” they say “yes it is because you hate brown people”.
Which goes back to what I said earlier. If you give the government the power to decide what you meant, there is no way in principle to stop the government from abusing that power even against you, or groups you favor. And then Trump issues an executive order that desecrating a US flag is an incitement to violent overthrow of the government and there is no consistent way to argue against it.
I don’t want a government controlled by SJWs to tell me what I can say. You presumably don’t want a government controlled by fascists telling you what you can say. So we compromise and agree that the government doesn’t get to tell anyone what to say, absent some kind of incitement to immediate violence.
It’s not a perfect compromise, but it’s better than if either side wins.
Regards,
Shodan
You did provide one example. They are rare, and certainly not accepted by the so called ‘left’ except for a few extremists. That is no where near a ‘fair bit’ of that kind of speech though, it’s one of the weakest ‘what aboutisms’ I’ve ever seen.