Re: Censoship List

On 1/15/21 2:30 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:
> 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. 

I have no problems with this type of restriction.  But there is no grey 
area to deal with.  It's not aimed at any particular individual or gropu 
of individuals with a particular political belief, appearance, or similar.

> Different people have different ideas as to just
> where that line should be.

And this is where we need  more "adults in the room", but I think that 
will require better education than is currently offered.

> 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.

I can't comment about a court decision.  Sorry, Jim.


-- 
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 84.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"