Timeline for Is 'identity politics' vs 'freedom of speech' a valid dichotomy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2017 at 19:22 | comment | added | Maxim | @Machavity I was merely answering the question of "Who decides...?", here: court, essentially. Personally, I'd rather there were no limits on speech at all (except social ones). As it stands I don't think there is an immediate danger of SJWs taking over the courts, since to become a judge is long and convoluted process where the person is taught for a long time on how things should be interpreted and they can still be benched or disbarred if they go against the grain too much, but who knows, anything is possible I guess | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 19:13 | comment | added | Machavity | @Maxim I think you've missed the broader point. The argument for free speech is that the government doesn't get to pick what is and isn't acceptable. In your view, the current courts can, and should, do this. But what happens when new people are on the court? And what if these new people are empathetic as those defining words as violence? At the end of the day, the government is still allowed to decide if some speech violates the rights of others and they are the ones who determine that definition. In other words, you're left arguing semantics by the time it's gone too far. | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 16:20 | comment | added | Maxim | @Machavity In the specific case of Canada what constitutes "harm" is defined by the courts, so while some people like to use "violence" pretty "liberally" :) those people aren't in charge of courts. And, if we are being honest, freedom of speech does mean that they are allowed to misuse the word "violence" if they want | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:52 | comment | added | user4012 | @Maxim - the problem is that who decides if "harm" was advocated are... same identity politics warriors. Arbitrarily, based on their hierarchy of "priviledge" and other such logic. | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:48 | comment | added | Machavity | @Maxim "identifiable group" isn't really an objective thing, though (LGBT are all self-identification). And "advocating harm" will inevitably descend into "saying things that group doesn't like is harmful". The top search result for "misgendering" defines it as an act of violence. | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @Maxim ...but not all Canadians feel the same way as the official government definition, so even saying every country has differing ideas is a vast over simplification, since every group, and probably even every person within every country has different ideas on the topic. | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:34 | comment | added | Maxim | @user4012 I don't know about other places but in Canada hate speech is defined as "advocating harm against an identifiable group", so "misgendering" or not supporting reparations wouldn't qualify. | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | Machavity | @user4012 That's a major problem to be sure. Every country (and even the EU) all have differing ideas | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:17 | comment | added | user4012 | The problem is, who gets to define what "hate" speech is? Which at this point is anything from using "wrong" pronouns to not supporting reparations. | |
| Jul 21, 2017 at 15:16 | comment | added | HopelessN00b |
If the government can limit your speech in one area, inevitably it can limit speech in any area. ...relatedly, Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media. Government limits on speech also seem to result in police raids over the content of social media postings.
|
|
| Jul 21, 2017 at 14:00 | history | edited | Machavity | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Rephrased awkward sentence
|
| Jul 21, 2017 at 13:19 | history | answered | Machavity | CC BY-SA 3.0 |