6 ms·
>freedom of speech has limits Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is lim
by eeky 13y ago
>freedom of speech has limits
Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
- adsche 13y ago>-Voltaire Just FYI: Nope, not Voltaire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago"but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context" Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible. As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.
- pstuart 13y agoFunny thing about the "crowded theater" bit, because it was used to stifle free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States