71–80 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is 'hate speech'?
I am not too certain. But here are some examples (NSFW). https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search Looks like they involve discrimination (on race or religion or such). But Japan's new law is more general.
Results this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
The philosophers behind Free Speech even concluded that expression which harms individuals should be prevented, aka harm principle:
> That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
I think the appropriate aphorism here is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." No doubt the Japanese government believe that this law is for extreme cases where someone sends thousands of awful messages, or where a mob drives someone to suicide, but this will end up being used to prosecute some poor 14 year old kid who calls someone else a bad name in Call of Duty. Without strict limitations in laws they'…
Do you see a country that successfully navigated the issue ?
To note, under this law the charges still need to go to a judge to decide how heavy any of it should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not too certain. But here are some examples (NSFW). https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search Looks like they involve discrimination (on race or religion or such). But Japan's new law is more general.
No, if you're making a law, you need to strictly define it. Otherwise we will create another fuzzy law that can be interpreted any way the judge sees.
But I don't have a legal definition, while I do have that link.
Results this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Is there any practical evidence of this slippery slope? Here in Canada hate speech, defamation, and obscenity have been illegal for a while. The idea is that you have freedom of expression, but it only extends as far as it doesn't infringe on another person's entitlement to a life free from discrimination & harassment. I don't feel like this has been a slippery slope for us, only a different place to draw the lines b…
Results this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Is there any practical evidence of this slippery slope? Here in Canada hate speech, defamation, and obscenity have been illegal for a while. The idea is that you have freedom of expression, but it only extends as far as it doesn't infringe on another person's entitlement to a life free from discrimination & harassment. I don't feel like this has been a slippery slope for us, only a different place to draw the lines b…
Results this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Is there any practical evidence of this slippery slope? Here in Canada hate speech, defamation, and obscenity have been illegal for a while. The idea is that you have freedom of expression, but it only extends as far as it doesn't infringe on another person's entitlement to a life free from discrimination & harassment. I don't feel like this has been a slippery slope for us, only a different place to draw the lines b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That link has already sailed. Libel and slander are already illegal speech, as is inciting violence, as is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, as is saying curse words on broadcast TV and radio.
If you’re referring to US law, then yelling “fire” in a theater is indeed permitted under the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard.
Personally I feel this is law is a great step forward to stop hate speech and other forms of severe harassment but the thought that if you happen to “rage” on someone mid game and receive jail time for that scares me. Society is becoming more and more closed off in a way where rather then freedom of expression you have to limit ur speech to not offend another.
You think it's a great step forward, but you're scared of it and feel that society is becoming more closed off because of a lack of freedom of expression. How does this make any sense?