It's really disheartening to see so many abandon the concept of free speech. Free speech has to include offensive speech, or you're inviting the government to make determinations about what is acceptable and the government cannot be trusted to do that.
No, it doesn't. Countries which have hate speech laws like Canada and Germany prove this is not the case. There is no fucking slippery slope. I'm sick and tired of hearing about it. It doesn't exist, so stop beating us over the goddamn head with it unless you can provide some actual proof of it's existence and stop just yelling "slippery slope, slippery slope!" as if that should shut down discussion of it in of itself. Until I see some actual proof of European countries/Canada falling into this so-called slippery slope despite having such laws on the books for decades that are very clearly defined with no such thing occurring, I ain't buying.
This ain't a thing, because as countries like Canada and Germany prove, it's very easy to concoct such legislation that doesn't leave any room to leave itself open to that. This just wreaks of cowardice to even try it in the United States despite it being just fine in other nations. Even if the US is in fact different and it does happen here despite not happening elsewhere, even if the slippery slope does magically appear in the US despite not appearing elsewhere, all that proves is that such hypothetical piggyback laws are unjust (which, no duh) and would need to be overturned
says nothing, absolutely nothing of hate speech itself and whether it should be legal or not.
Yes, such laws, if they indeed happen, would be completely 100% unjust and deserve to be fought and kicked down. That's absolutely, positively no reason not to try at all and to allow the current situation to stand.
Regardless of any hypothetical consequences, hate speech itself is nonetheless unjust and deserves absolutely no protections. No matter what hypothetical consequences, that remains true and in no way changes. All that says is that those piggyback laws would be unjust. It doesn't change the fact that hate speech is currently legal in the United States despite it causing any number of different types of harm to its targets, an inherently unjust proposition. No matter what the hypothetical consequences you come up with, all that says is that those consequences too are unjust. It doesn't change the fact that hate speech is essentially completely legal in the United States, despite the harm it causes, an inherently unjust proposition which should not be allowed to stand.
Yes, of course there are risks to acting and changing the law! There always are! But if and when those arise, we are capable of dealing with those as well and not allowing to them to stand one moment longer than they have to!
That is not, however, by any stretch of the imagination, any excuse for not acting at all to begin with when the current situation itself is unjust and allows others to cause harm with no repercussions or justice being allowed to be served whatsoever. That's something I
refuse to accept, particularly when we do in fact have the power to enact change and make sure that such justice
does occur and such acts are not allowed to continue unabated.
To do otherwise, is to simply give into fear over what might or might not be, and let that fear decide our actions, while injustices continue to go on while we refuse to act and refuse to change the situation. But to quote FDR:
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
Of course, to be perfectly clear as I don't at all want to imply otherwise, it's perfectly natural to be afraid of such possibilities. That's just part of being human--naturally being afraid that the things we care about the most could be stripped away at any moment. But at the same time while it's perfectly natural and understandable, as FDR himself said, we can't allow ourselves to be paralyzed by that fear or else needed efforts to progress and improve our situation instead of letting the status quo continue unabated will just disappear entirely.
So while indeed it's perfectly natural and understandable to be afraid, it's unnecessary, because even in the event the worst happens, we can then stand up against that and fight that in turn with everything we've got. And then just continue to fight, and continue to fight, and continue to fight, as long as it takes.
But nothing, absolutely nothing, can happen or change if we refuse to fight to begin with. And that's something I refuse to accept with injustices such as these occurring every day.
After all, in the end, all we have to fear is fear itself. That's the real enemy here. Just take a look at your own post. You seem to recognize that it's indeed unfair and unjust that people are targeted by hate speech and there's nothing they can do about it, but you refuse to act to change the status quo because of what you
fear will happen next if that indeed occurs. Those fears are valid and natural, but they're nonetheless no reason to let an unjust situation stand. Cause even if worst comes to worst, we can deal with that in turn. But that's no reason not to act to begin with and to let injustices stand. I completely refuse to accept that, 100%. To give into fear like that, no matter how valid, justified, and understandable those fears are, is to lose before we've even begun to fight. And giving in and losing without so much as a fight is something that I refuse to do.
To quote myself from elsewhere on this matter where I further expand on these thoughts:
That would definitely be a huge step forward, but still isn't good enough for me personally if I'm getting that right. That would be saying that it's just the guns and other weapons that are the problem and if they didn't bring them with them or whatever the speech itself is still fine. That only makes sense if on some level one believes "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" to be true when it's in fact quite obviously false on its face. Not only is the pen is mightier than the sword, that words in both spoken and written form can inform and inspire hope and wonder, but they can also inflict tremendous pain, doubt, and fear. And indeed, that's the intent of these assemblies--to attempt to put fear and despair into the hearts of those despise and to more effectively do that as much as they're able to by assembling in numbers to strengthen the impact of those words and acts as much as they can. Permitting such acts intended to cause pain, fear, or any other type of suffering in the mind of another under the guise of "freedom" is simply unacceptable and as nations such as Canada and Germany have proven, unnecessary besides.
No, I offer an alternative premise based on an extension of the bolded statement carried to its logical (and rightful, IMO) end: we each, as individuals, have our freedoms, but our freedoms end where the rights of another begin. That doesn't seem controversial and is generally accepted, correct? That freedoms and rights are great, but when they infringe on the rights or well-being of another, they've gone too far. In this particular case, that of the speech of white nationalists, Nazis, and other hate-groups, their speech by it's very nature is intended to infringe on the rights and well-being of its intended recipients. Their speech is inherently meant to harm and degrade, to cause fear and doubt, pain and suffering, in the hearts of minds of the groups they. At that point, it's gone far beyond an issue of free speech, the rights of the speaker, as such speech inherently violates the rights and well-being of its intended recipients.
And even if one wants to personally believe in the adage of "sticks and stones," despite it being incorrect on its face, even if one believes in it anyway, clearly white nationalists, etc, don't, or else they wouldn't engage in such speech or actions to begin with. Their intent is to cause harm/fear/suffering in their targets by their own admittance. At that point, the rights of the speech of the hate groups and the rights of the well-being of their targets are in conflict. Only one can win out. You have to side with one or the other. There's no way of avoiding that conflict.
Traditionally, we've been siding more with the white nationalists, saying their right to free speech is more important. But I challenge that and turn it on its face. Why side with them in the first place? Only one can win, but why them? Why not side with the rights and well being of their targets, instead? After all, denying the rights of these hate groups to free speech in these particular instances causes them no harm whatsoever, other than mild mental discomfort and frustration due to not being able to spread their hate. On the other hand, letting them speak, and siding with the free speech of the hate group, can cause any of a number of different types of pain and lack of well-being in their targets. And indeed, that's the intent of these groups to begin with! To cause that very thing!
So, since in these situations, it's impossible to avoid an infringement of the rights of one one group or the other, and restricting the rights of free speech to hate groups would cause them no particular pain or suffering, but letting these groups speak will, and indeed that's their intent on top of it all, the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that their rights to speak on these topics should indeed be fully restricted in order to prevent such harm from coming to be. Such speech inherently causes harm in its targets and is its intent as well, and denying the right to that speech causes no such harm in the would-be speakers. Therefore, a conflict between the two groups rights being unavoidable, and to protect the rights and well-being of the victims, such speech must be restricted, in doing so both protecting others from harm and inflicting no particular harm or discomfort on the speakers.
I can see no flaw in this unless one refuses both premise
a.) that speech can cause harm, in such forms as emotional/mental pain, fear, despair, or self-doubt/self-hate etc.
and premise
b.) that the intent of these groups is to cause that exact type of pain with the speech (among other potential courses of action)
Otherwise, one naturally comes to the conclusion that such speech crosses the line from freedom of speech to illicit action by ceasing to be a mere expression of thought by infringing on the rights and well-being of another, which should be unacceptable and where we draw the line for rights or freedom (unless, that is, one disagrees with that premise and feels we should be able to violate one another's rights which is a huge can of worms that I hope no one would want to open).
(And yeah, I realize this post was long-winded. Just trying to make sure as well as possible any enthymemes don't creep into posts of this nature that might cause confusion.)
