Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 90749" data-attributes="member: 158">Frostmarrow, the problem with enacting laws that "prohibit racist speech" are so broadly defined that anything from opinions to incitement to riot are covered. The fact that a symbol with a threatening slogan is considered illegal is quite different from a country like, say, Germany, where the Nazi party and all symbols are outlawed. You cannot buy a swastika in Germany on a flag, banner, or download its image legally from the internet, can you not? (Someone correct me if I'm incorrect on this.)In Sweden, if elves were a real ethnic group, and I said that all elves are tall, dumb, and cut deals with Satan for long life, would that be considered racist speech? Even if I were saying that all elves should be deported back to the Unseelie Court where they belonged, would that be racist speech? COULD it be prosecuted as racist speech?If so, then you run the danger of disallowing even more innocent forms of speech - it's not too far to outlaw all public displays of negativism toward a racial group. I could say, "I hate elves - they've never caused me anything but trouble." And if that is illegal, it only goes downhill from there.Under no circumstances would I agree that such thoughts were right - but I would say it is wrong and encroaches on a constitutionally given right to free speech to jail or fine such people for making this statment. In the U.S. we are derided for allowing such groups as the Ku Klux Klan to assemble - but the alternative for not allowing them to assemble is far worse in the long run. You may quell hateful speech, but (1) If you drive it completely underground, you create no means for opposing such speech in a debatable form, (2) you set the precedent for limiting other more innocuous forms of speech, and (3) you eventually create an atmosphere where it is difficult to express yourself without form of legal persecution. Civil persecution is different from Legal persecution, and should be treated as such.Each generation feels that it gives up no more freedom than it is comfortable with. The big problem here is that giving up ANY freedoms should be very carefully considered, because any freedom you give up for safety you will most likely NEVER get back, for good or ill. To make matters more difficult, every generation that is raised under lack of certain freedoms doesn't find it odd to miss such freedoms, and are more willing to give up other freedoms for increased safety.I'm not syaing by any means that any country is a totalitarian dictatorship for censoring their freedoms of speech - what I am saying is that it is a danger to free speech that needs to be carefully monitored to avoid future double-edged swords. Even now, legislation is in the public conscious that could mean a limitation on the application of free speech in specific instances (but to mention it by name will mean politicizing this thread which I don't want to do). So it needs to be on a public's mind constantly - how far does free speech extend, and how far does safety extend, before the two are mutually exclusive of one another?</blockquote>

Verification