11–20 of 480 posts
This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.
Although violent speech may seem hard to swallow, the alternative of censorship has been shown throughout history to be far more detrimental. It seems that the younger generation has not fully understood this fact, but hopefully they will come to understand it through the lessons of others, rather than through their own experiences.
Person B: "How so?"
Person A: proceeds to beat Person B until he stops talking
People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words…
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigger someone into an eating disorder relapse or coercing someone into suicide are heinous things that fall into violence. I think there is a line where speech can be violent or said with the intent to harm someone the same as a punch is.
Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim.
That said, specific threats aren't normally examples of protected speech. Extreme cases make bad law.
I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…
Edit: Why disagree?
Although violent speech may seem hard to swallow, the alternative of censorship has been shown throughout history to be far more detrimental. It seems that the younger generation has not fully understood this fact, but hopefully they will come to understand it through the lessons of others, rather than through their own experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigger someone into an eating disorder relapse or coercing someone into suicide are heinous things that fall into violence. I think there is a line where speech can be violent or said with the intent to harm someone the same as a punch is.
I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim. That said, specific threats aren't normally examples of protected speech. Extreme cases make bad law.
People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words…
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigger someone into an eating disorder relapse or coercing someone into suicide are heinous things that fall into violence. I think there is a line where speech can be violent or said with the intent to harm someone the same as a punch is.