You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How Steem Protects Free Speech Without Promoting Hate Speech
It's impossible to have free speech if any type of speech is suppressed.
Hate speech for example. Anything can be deemed hate speech.
politics I don't agree with = hate speech
weather report I don't like = hate speech
unpleasant economic report = hate speech
public intimacy = hate speech
walking a dog in public = hate speech.
(all action is speech isn't it?)
Bingo
Any type of speech? What about threatening speech, speech vowing to harm others?
Why can anything be deemed Hate Speech?
Posted using Partiko Android
who's gonna decide?
If you say "hello" to me and I'm having a bad day and interpret that as a threat.
Izit?
Is' "Nice place you have here, shame if anything happens to it."
Is that a threat? How is it different?
Who decides.
Suppose I claim that you are speaking in code.
Hate speech encoded
who decides?
what about pep rallies?
'ra ra reej
kick em in the knee
ra ra rass
kick em in the other knee'
should they be banned
Of course, you cannot argue that threats are up to interpretation by saying that somehow someone could interpret an almost universal greeting as a threat.
If you don't have the sensibility to differentiate what constitutes a threat I'll offer you the explanation to develop such nuance: a threat is a "vow to cause harm or injury to others (including their property)"
You can claim whatever you want, the matter of fact is that you cannot demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt to convince a jury.
As for pep rallies, you ought to consider things before you express them, with common sense and sensibility, otherwise, why should anyone consider what you said as coherent or sensible (common sense)? Don't it seem as if you expect others to know the difference between whats a threat and what isn't and what's figurative and literal by the context its used in, such as a pep rally, unless you want others to deem you a threat to society and lock you up for good cause, or do you expect people who seemingly don't observe the difference between a threat and a greeting to freely walk around?
Posted using Partiko Android
You contest that anything can be deemed hate speech because "who decides" as if hate speech needs a well-defined list and stipulations of what is hate speech and when it isn't, handed down from some ultimate arbiter and that somehow people of all beliefs and creeds cannot come to a common understanding of such a simple concept.
So clearly, no, walking your dog isn't hate speech, neither is anything that doesn't directly fall into the definition above. Who decides is irrelevant at this point, what is wrong with the definition and why and how is all that matters, so do you have any contentions to the definition provided?
Posted using Partiko Android