"language" is speech. It doesn't say, "don't incite violence." It says "sectarian" and "language." Whatever the excuse or rationale, it's an ominous sign to see in an ostensibly Western democracy.
-
-
there are certain words/phrases that are sectarian, and I won't repeat some of them here as they are offensive. That's why it says language. It's been passed down through generations, and it needs to be stamped out. Racist language is not tolerated, neither should sectarian.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Lexiefem @4th_WaveNow and
You can't put a big list- bigging up the IRA/UDA, singing about the battle of the Boyne, 'Fenian' said in London would probably be interpreted differently to if it was said on a train of Rangers/Celtic supporters. It's complicated.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Americans don't have 1,000-year-old divisions that have been inculcated in every generation from birth. It's more like the Serb/Bosnian conflict & factional Muslim warfare than black/white in the US. Words and customs are triggers. (Americans are pretty dim about Irishness, too!)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CherryAnnAustin @Lexiefem and
Imagine two of the most powerful gangs in America gained control of the country and split it between them. You'd have constant low-level fighting with sporadic flare-ups, and there *would* be words, phrases, colours & customs that incited violence all by themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
...or if the British had won the war of Independence...but the war was between the Native Americans and the British, and there were more Native Americans than British. And then the British and the Native Americans kept bombing/shooting each other, for centuries.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Right, but it's the bombing and shooting that's the issue though, isn't it? Not the "language." Of course language can incite, but that sign "sectarian language" as a prosecutable offense is overbroad. But it's ok that we disagree on this point.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @Lexiefem and
"A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all." Kennedy, SCOTUS ruling on 'hate speech' 2017
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @FightUnreality @4th_WaveNow and
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” Alito, SCOTUS 2017
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FightUnreality @4th_WaveNow and
But ... in cases like these, mere mention of certain things - a song, a phrase, certain names - is understood by the hearer to be intentionally demeaning. It's the whole point. Sectarian, here, means religion and some would say ethnicity. So that ^ supports the sign on the train.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Right. But the point of the SCOTUS justices' opinions (upholding the 1st Amendment) is the right to say demeaning things. Emphasis on "SAY". Actions are another matter.
-
-
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @FightUnreality and
Yes. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I probably don't think freedom to say any old shit, as loud as you like, to whomever you like, is necessarily paramount. The German govt tried to prevent Hitler speaking at Nuremberg, for eg. I'm on their side.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CherryAnnAustin @FightUnreality and
So the million-dollar question is whether successfully suppressing Hitler's speech would have prevented him coming to power. The answer is unknown...although there is ample historical evidence that perceived victimhood only increases public support for a controversial figure.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.