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.
-
-
...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 -
Replying to @CherryAnnAustin @FightUnreality and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @FightUnreality and
Oh, I'd better back away from this now. I know how precious freedom of speech is to the USA. I think it's a nuanced question - your schools can teach creationism as science; our police can prosecute racism. I've got a bad cold, I can't handle this tonight! Netflix calls
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Have a good night! There are some recent cases (Ofsted found I think) where certain state schools in the UK were promulgating religious doctrine...so maybe not immune there?
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.