On 4th August 1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award British regime offered separate electorates/countries to Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Parsi/Buddhist/Jain/SC/ST communities where Upper caste/Brahmin/Bania/Kshatriya should live on a Visa https://archive.vn/BFZlJ https://archive.vn/1iser https://archive.vn/imIlk
Removing Holocaust Denial Content
821–823 of 823 posts
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#822Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions. The legal differences between those entities has nothing to do with the general concept.
>The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions. But the manner in which governments can affect free speech is very much broader, because they can criminalize and regulate it in a way that is generally binding on all societal participants. Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments: except that the…
> Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments
The concept has absolutely nothing to do with governments. If you were the only person in the world living alone on an island, the concept would still exist.
That some entity deals with the concept, or doesn't, does not change this.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#823Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
"stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed. Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
> Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
I think that "disagree" isn't exactly the correct description of someone's stance vis-a-vis hate speech, particularly that which is targeted at them.
It has been noted that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". For what it's worth, tolerance isn't a suicide pact either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance