wagesj45

It's wild how more and more brazen people are getting with the blatant racism. Were there always this many virulent racists, or is the right-wing hate machine really that effective?

I'm talking about the state, not whatever it is you choose to do in your personal capacity. I don't care what you call me. I care if the state labels me something that they can jail me for. This article is about the state labeling pro-Palestine solidarity as extremist. I can't speak for you, but I don't think that the state should have the right to quell that speech. If you do, then I think we have fundamentally different philosophies.

k

This is something I've been shouting from the rooftops every time people online cheer on the idea of "cracking down" on hate speech. It eventually will be used against you because some dipshits will redefine what "hateful" means.

I'm sorry but insults don't warrant state action. This seems to be a fundamental philosophical difference that we aren't going to come to agreement on.

I'm not convinced he actually read them. Seems to not be his "thing".

Kind of. As a private institution the ACLU is free to enforce restrictions like this if it chooses to. I would argue that there is still an ideal of free speech that people can believe in beyond its legal definition, which I would have hoped the ACLU does.

There are two different things that we're discussing here. The state and society. The state has a monopoly on violence and should not get to decide what people think and believe because of the monopoly on violence. Society, on the other hand, can and should make collective decisions on what is and isn't acceptable. We should all condemn hateful speech. We should take down confederate statues. We should advocate for change. What we shouldn't do is use the state's violence/force to do it. It has to be done by changing hearts and minds. It is our collective responsibility, not that of the state.

And they would say there is no question about trans or queer rights. You seem to be failing to consider how this would work from other's points of view. Just because you're right doesn't mean you're not outnumbered. You cannot change the status quo without necessarily being outside of it. Letting the state, with its monopoly on violence, enforce the status quo is counterproductive to the progress you and I both want. It is on us to use our speech to push for change and drown out the hateful speech.

The problem with limiting "hateful" speech is determining who draws the line and where it's drawn. In a democratic society, the majority's opinion shapes these boundaries, which may not always align with progressive values. For instance, the current efforts to ban "trans ideology" demonstrate how subjective interpretations of "hateful" and harmful speech can be. From one perspective, certain speech is harmful; from another, it's essential. This subjective line-drawing risks silencing minority views (which might be your views).

I come from an evangelical, deeply conservative area in Appalachia, where my leftist beliefs were often seen as degenerate. Without the broad protections of free speech, expressing these views could have been much more difficult. While the intention to limit hate speech comes from a place of wanting to protect, the reality of implementing such restrictions can ironically end up silencing the very voices we wish to empower.

I think I saw this in a Bugs Bunny cartoon once.