"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 -
The problem with laws restricting speech [vs actual incitement to violence] is the definition of "hate/offensive" is contingent on who is in power at a given time. It's why a woman is being investigated in the UK for a "hate crime" for daring to defy the current trans doctrine.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
I really don't think that will get anywhere. Of course I'm contributing to Jennifer's and Posie's funds in case we need to fight in court. I agree with Lexie that we DO have 'banned' words: paki, mongol &co. We have restricted the speech of various religious & political leaders.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CherryAnnAustin @4th_WaveNow and
But freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy as well as other things like social development. One should always assume that it is under threat, and resist excessive control. People will differ on what is 'excessive' - so we need freedom to debate that too!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
In US, actual incitement to violence is actionable. All other speech is protected. Restricting speech is a slippery slope which has been misused by the State in every country which prosecutes ppl for saying (thus thinking) "wrong" thing. Better to fight bad ideas w/ better ideas.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
But when both sides have done wrong it's a 'nobody can win' situation. Casual sectarianism leads to 'otherness' of people of a different 'brand' of Christianity. It's ridiculous, and it can't be argued or reasoned out. It just needs to be stamped out.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Don't disagree that racism & "othering" is repugnant. The issue is how effective prosecuting *speech* is. And whether it actually changes anything. People don't change their beliefs/speech simply if it's made illegal. History proves that. There are hooligans in the US too, BTW.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @Lexiefem and
I do admire the US commitment to free speech! I'm afraid this doesn't resonate this side of the Atlantic.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MrHenryWimbush @4th_WaveNow and
The U.S. First Amendment protection of speech and the press is largely a reaction to English laws prohibiting or restricting criticism of the crown and the church.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The Founders were bold. Their Amendment protects ALL speech, even speech they no doubt abhorred. They knew what they were doing.
-
-
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @MrHenryWimbush and
Exactly that. The purpose seems to be lost today, too, which is to restrain those in power. Today's SJW's want to amplify state power and turn it against the segments of the people they don't agree with. Hate crimes/speech are on the path to tyranny.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.