The specific objections to that bill was that it was 1) legally ambiguous and 2) could be interpreted in such a way that mundane speech acts could be considered human rights violations, which carries a VERY stiff legal penalty.
I disagree with Peterson on a lot of stuff but I strongly agree with him on considering it an unreasonable infringement on freedom to start declaring various mundane speech acts criminal because they might hurt someone's feelings.
-
-
Note that this is VERY different than, for example, legislation regulating FORMAL (i.e. not mundane) speech acts, such as the language used in government documentation that has legal weight to it.
-
I could say a lot more and maybe one day I'll blog about it or something but for now that's where I'll leave it. Last thing to note is just that smear campaigns work by draining nuance out of the discussion and they succeeded here. I'm trying to bring some nuance back.
End of conversation
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.