The greatest damage we’ve done to speech is “everyone” agreeing that “we must, of course, ban hate speech.” Hate speech has no definition, and no one but those seeking to control you, gain anything from limiting hate speech. Everyone should want ALL speech protected. If someone wants to cause you harm, shouldn’t you prefer that be mad…
The greatest damage we’ve done to speech is “everyone” agreeing that “we must, of course, ban hate speech.” Hate speech has no definition, and no one but those seeking to control you, gain anything from limiting hate speech. Everyone should want ALL speech protected. If someone wants to cause you harm, shouldn’t you prefer that be made public so it can be monitored and investigated? This idea that some speech is okay and some is “wrong” is exactly the slippery slope those who wish to remove your liberties desire it to be.
I completely agree. Any law that seeks to create inequality of justice is, by definition, unequal. Every single human deserves equal liberty, and the law should respond to assaults on that liberty equally.
The greatest damage we’ve done to speech is “everyone” agreeing that “we must, of course, ban hate speech.” Hate speech has no definition, and no one but those seeking to control you, gain anything from limiting hate speech. Everyone should want ALL speech protected. If someone wants to cause you harm, shouldn’t you prefer that be made public so it can be monitored and investigated? This idea that some speech is okay and some is “wrong” is exactly the slippery slope those who wish to remove your liberties desire it to be.
“Hate crimes” also have to go. It’s an absurd idea. Who murders a stranger out of love?
I completely agree. Any law that seeks to create inequality of justice is, by definition, unequal. Every single human deserves equal liberty, and the law should respond to assaults on that liberty equally.