Re: Censoship List

On 14 Jan 2021 at 14:28, Ken Springer wrote:

> On 1/14/21 1:27 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:
> > On 13 Jan 2021 at 16:19, Ken Springer wrote:
> > 
> >> On 1/13/21 3:21 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> >>> On 1/13/21 2:51 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
> >>>> Technically hate speech is censorship,
> >>>
> >>> How is hate speech censorship?  Or are you describing an effect of hate
> >>> speech driving others away, thus censoring what they would have said?
> >>>
> >>> If so, I find that considerably different than something like censoring /
> >>> bleeping cuss words on TV.
> >>>
> >>>> The biggest problem here is who gets to define it.  you may find some
> >>>> speech as hateful, others may not.
> >>>
> >>> There is usually a commonly accepted average of what is and is not
> >>> hateful.  There's also how it's used.  Talking about something in the
> >>> abstract vs using it to describe someone (ad hominem attack) are two
> >>> considerably different things.  The former may be a slippery slope,
> >>> while the latter is a step too far.
> >>
> >> But all in all, the demarcation line here is still in the eye of the
> >> beholder.
> > 
> > That is true of "hateful" speech, but that is not the same thing as "hate"
> > speech, which is what is usually forbidden. "Hate" speech is speech which
> > incites others to hate someone, often leading to violence against them.
> 
> LIke it or not, being able to say it is true free speech.  Not being 
> able to say it is not.

As a definition that is indisputable, but then true free speech also permits 
someone to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, as has already been pointed out, 
so a line has to be drawn. Different people have different ideas as to just 
where that line should be. In my view "hateful" speech should be permitted, but 
the permissibility of "hate" speech depends on context - i.e. whether or not it 
is likely to immediately provoke violence, such as a genuine riot or an attack 
on some individual or group. Didn't I read somewhere that, some months ago, a 
USA court has ruled on more or less just those lines? Here in UK the law is 
more restrictive, unfortunately.

Jim Fisher