I’d have to listen to what he said to determine that. I’m not searching through several hour long podcasts. The snippets that are published by others aren’t flattering. That said, offensive or provocative statements aren’t sufficient for me to believe in exile.
I don’t agree with the concept of labeling speech hate speech and then saying that’s not protected speech. We all know that such a labeling is easily abused, which is the point of creating the so-called ‘hate speech’ category. It allows one to silence others without recourse.
But it’s not exile. It’s stopping doing business with him. Not necessarily because they think it’s wrong, but because doing business with open racists is bad business. If the owner of my favorite restaurant suddenly starts to advocate for racial segregation, then I might stop getting food from them.
What’s the problem with making business decisions like that?
That’s certainly a danger, I won’t disagree. And this is a great example of what I was referencing when I talked about how people will disagree on what kind of speech is dangerous. I am not going to agree that we should always protect hate speech, but I do agree that exempting it from protection is something you must be very careful to do.
But once again, you are talking about whether hate speech is actionable enough to have criminal penalties for it. No one is saying anything like that about Adams.
However, a newspaper deciding to drop a comic strip is not quite the same thing as being criminally charged.
Be very careful not to conflate the two. There is a difference between the privilege of making lots of money for drawing some silly characters being retracted and going to jail.
Besides, I’m sure that Parlor or even Twitter could hire him for their weekly newsletter. Don’t worry about Adams, I’m sure he will be just fine.
No I’m not. Free speech doesn’t just govern what might get you tossed in jail (in fact, that’s rare). It usually is an issue about whether the government can suppress your speech or take away your platform.
SCOTUS has affirmed that hate speech is protected, full stop. That’s the law. That not only means you can’t be criminalized for it, but the government can’t even hinder it.
But they can regulate other kinds of speech. For just one example:
Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC’s rules if:
The station licensee knew that the information was false;
Broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm; and
It was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.
In this context, a “crime” is an act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law, and a “catastrophe” is a disaster or an imminent disaster involving violent or sudden events affecting the public. The broadcast must cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties, and the public harm must begin immediately. If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm.
This matches what I said before, where speech that is harmful is not protected. It’s just a matter of deciding what is or isn’t harmful. But that’s extremely difficult to resolve and will probably always be a source of political conflict.
I don’t agree with her conclusion, but she does give a good explanation for source of the “Is it OK to be white?“ Rasmussen question. Though it’s still pretty clear to me that by asking that question without providing context, Rasmussen was still trying to stir some shit up.
The poll was prompted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) labeling the statement “It’s ok to be white” as hate speech. The ADL picked up on the fact that it has been used as an alt-right campaign in 2017, which started on the avowedly racist social networking site 4Chan and advised college students to plaster “It’s okay to be white” across their campuses to protest diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
No kidding. I didn’t know who Rasmussen are before this, and my first reaction was WTF are they doing. Very often the press misreport the actual question that was asked, but not in this case. They asked a question that was analogous to asking:
“Do you think all lives matter?”
Rasmussen is apparently not an actual polling organization, they are alt right trolls. The only valid answer to their question is of course “fuck off”, which I suspect was not one of the available options.
If you aren’t aware of the use and history of the phrase, it’s a push pull, leaving respondents wondering who it is that doesn’t think it’s okay to be white.
If you are, then it is trollery, putting a respondent in a position of either approving of racist language, or being a position to be framed as being racist against white people.
It’s sometimes impressive how creative people can get in expressing their hatred. If they put their energies towards something constructive, the world would be a much nicer place.
Then of course, the results speak for themselves, throwing more fuel into the right’s pursuit of the culture war.