Quote:
Originally Posted by Sim
Also, I don't believe it makes sense to protect hate speech as "free" speech: What sense is there in granting people the right to free speech, who abuse this free speech in order to abolish free speech? Why granting freedom to the enemies of freedom? It's like treating a dead man with medication, or like killing the patient in order to defeat the illness.
|
The problem that goes into criminalizing hate speech is it sets a bad precedence for at least America in particular, we've given the people to say whatever you want, even if we don't like it. If we shut down one type of speech people find offensive what about the rest, such as dissent for the government. With the precedence of hate speech being illegal because someone might act on it opens us up to the argument dissent for the government shouldn't be protected speech because someone might try to overthrow the government. Maybe its American thinking, but I believe strongly in it.
Quote:
|
And still I believe its a double standard to go after "enemies of freedom" like radical islamists or Nazis, when they are outside your borders, but protect their hateful drivel and incitement to terrorist acts as "free speech" when they do it within your borders.
|
Thats probably a debate for a different thread, but I will say in the case of the Nazi's in WW2, they were at war with our allies and after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Japan's alliance with the Germans we had a duty to our allies to take on Germany as well. Had Germany not taken on our allies the story might have gone differently.
Waterproof
