I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same.
Sorry I’m bad at reading facial expression over the internet. My mistake.
What you clearly missed was the point of the law.
I literally quoted the law: “where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.”
That goes beyond what you claim. While even a possession of such speech would be an offence.
So you do think governments should enforce speech laws.
I think it’s a more complex question that people make it out to be. I would say any speech regulation by the government is something we should be wary about.
If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.
I don’t get your argument here.
Don’t be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.
Sure, when people who disagree with you are weak minded, it’s easy to be always right.
You should maybe read the law.
Part 2 Section 3, 32: […] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
It’s talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:
Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it’s own, but even more so in digital age.
Later it quite literally defines on which terms it’s permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.
To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:
I don’t think it’s a case of a law protecting weak from the strong. Since that was what I replied to.
But it’s a fair question where I draw the line. It’s somewhere with direct and indirect consequences, which is hard to define. I absolutely agree that her speech might have very tangible real consequences to real people from a group she is targeting. But than again it’s due to actions of other people “inspired” by her words. While when shouting fire, you create panic just with your own words. Than again one can definitely incite violent actions through media. But that it is even more complicated since it becomes about intent and interpretation.
My argument is more, that while I trust at least some governments with deciding on what food is safe, I don’t trust governments at all with decisions about what speech is permitted.
Agreed. It just becomes problematic when speech itself is redefined as crime, that is what I’m arguing against. And the the line with the consequences is not that clear either. Someone could read a book and go an kill someone. I personally think it’s a hard thing to really understand consequences of words.
What do I have to do with USA? USA would be a rather good example why government should not have the power to censor speech.
How should I know? I personally don’t follow those crazy people.
And I don’t trust governments with defining and enforcing those lines, when it comes to speech.
I make that point in general, that I don’t trust governments with regulating speech. By the way I’m all in for private platforms regulating speech, would not hang around here otherwise.
Or maybe you got it wrong and that’s not the point I was making?
The reasoning used in Assange and Manning case, is that information they made publicly available is endangering peoples lives. That is not unsimilar to the argumentation that hateful speech is endangering people targeted by it.
Do you ever try to understand what the other person is saying? Why bother otherwise?
Dude, I’m not siding with her on any issue besides freedom of speech - which just happen to be my opinion.
Calling for extermination, I would agree on. Since it’s more than an opinion it’s a call to action.
Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.
I’m really curious for examples.
I disagree with her on pretty much everything, except on the freedom of speech part - even for speech I might personally find disgusting.
Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.
And my point, governments have a history of using such laws in the end to get rid of critics. Sure this time it will be completely different. I would love to share your optimism, but you will have to allow me to remain skeptical.
Taliban are obviously the only terrorist group on the planet and rebels were never before labeled as terrorists.
They were fighting against first Sowjet and than US-American occupation.
Maybe bad faith interpretation of my argument on your side.
War kurz davor was produktives zu machen.