Hate speech is a good start. Go about the place saying “Muslims rape children” or “F-slurs make us lose wars” and you are actively making life more dangerous for people.
We had a decades long problem with Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and this kind of attitude was what prevented the authorities from intervening for so long. In some cases actively covering up the existence of the gangs or casting aspersions on the victims. Estimates of the number of victims are in the hundreds, possibly thousands.
Every day we get another horrifying new detail about historical abuse and in some places these gangs are still active.
“Muslims rape kids” is wrong, bigoted, and a gross generalisation. However if there is a pattern of certain abuser profiles then the general public needs to be informed.
“Muslims rape kids” is wrong, bigoted, and a gross generalisation.
Yes. That’s why it’s an example being used. It’s not how you inform the general public of real atrocities, and the important kernels of truth behind that wrong, bigoted and gross generalisation don’t justify making it. So I don’t understand why you felt compelled to detail them.
Hate speech is not protected by the constitution and is typically a point of proof in hate crime cases. There are also civil remedies for directed hate speech in many states. Also assault is a crime that only involves words.
We allow generalized hate speech because we believe that the appropriate counter to speech is speech.
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” - Justice Louis D. Brandeis
We allow generalized hate speech because we believe that the appropriate counter to speech is speech.
In the world of corporate mass media where money is a microphone, unfortunately this belief is just idealist faith. Overall, good ideas and speech alone hasn’t prevailed, and harmful speech has done more than counter-speech could hope to fix.
Hate speech is a good start. Go about the place saying “Muslims rape children” or “F-slurs make us lose wars” and you are actively making life more dangerous for people.
We had a decades long problem with Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and this kind of attitude was what prevented the authorities from intervening for so long. In some cases actively covering up the existence of the gangs or casting aspersions on the victims. Estimates of the number of victims are in the hundreds, possibly thousands.
Every day we get another horrifying new detail about historical abuse and in some places these gangs are still active.
“Muslims rape kids” is wrong, bigoted, and a gross generalisation. However if there is a pattern of certain abuser profiles then the general public needs to be informed.
Yes. That’s why it’s an example being used. It’s not how you inform the general public of real atrocities, and the important kernels of truth behind that wrong, bigoted and gross generalisation don’t justify making it. So I don’t understand why you felt compelled to detail them.
Hate speech is not protected by the constitution and is typically a point of proof in hate crime cases. There are also civil remedies for directed hate speech in many states. Also assault is a crime that only involves words.
We allow generalized hate speech because we believe that the appropriate counter to speech is speech.
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” - Justice Louis D. Brandeis
In the world of corporate mass media where money is a microphone, unfortunately this belief is just idealist faith. Overall, good ideas and speech alone hasn’t prevailed, and harmful speech has done more than counter-speech could hope to fix.