Except that the issue isn't someone's right to be an asshole. I addressed that in the OP. Speech which consists of or implies threats against a whole class of people contribute nothing meaningful to society or to social dialogue. pretzelsalt's example was graphic, but conveys what i mean. Threatening to slice up someone's infant is not "speech" that deserves to be protected. And the principle applies when the threat extends to a whole class of people.
It is actually exceedingly difficult to prove that someone has committed a hate crime or disseminated hate speech. And it should be. The standard being applied is very specific.
I for one am not proposing that we use popularity or lack thereof as basis for the soundness of an idea. If that were the case, the civil rights movement would have gone nowhere. Rights protections for minorities are not popular, anywhere, ever. What guides my logic is a definably objective ethic, which i have set out in great detail over the last couple of years.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-04-11 09:03 pm (UTC)It is actually exceedingly difficult to prove that someone has committed a hate crime or disseminated hate speech. And it should be. The standard being applied is very specific.
I for one am not proposing that we use popularity or lack thereof as basis for the soundness of an idea. If that were the case, the civil rights movement would have gone nowhere. Rights protections for minorities are not popular, anywhere, ever. What guides my logic is a definably objective ethic, which i have set out in great detail over the last couple of years.