Botim
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Messages
- 663
- Supports
- Royal Antwerp FC
Ok, how about just bluntly saying: "trans women are not real women". Is that hate speech? The line is very thin and it continually changes. My grandpa used the word retard as a genuine term to refer to mentally disabled people. That would no longer be tolerated. This is the biggest problem with the whole idea of "hate speech", you can mold and bend it to fit your agenda pretty easily. And you can interpret someone's intentions as you like.Context is everything.
Take your J.K Rowling quote for example. Saying a woman has a womb cannot be considered hate speech in any way. It only becomes hate speech if the person who said it intended to cause harm/offence. I don't know if that was his intention as I'd never heard the quote until just now. I guess it's open to interpretation until Rowling clears it up for us.
Off course I think it's a despicable and hateful thing to say. But if he would have said asshole instead of the n-word, it would suddenly be ok in the eyes of the law?However, the following quote is hate speech in its truest form: "YOU F****** STUPID N***** MISSING A FREE PEN MY DEAD NAN COULD HAVE SCORED THAT”. If you agree with that, and I'm sure you do, then the law states he can be prosecuted. Which he absolutely was to the harshest extent.
There was an online newspaper which had a problem with horrible (racist) comments on its articles. They made ID verification obligatory and also prohibited the use of usernames other than your real name. The abuse immediately went down. Why not start there and force Twitter and others to do the same. Most of these keyboard warriors feels safe hiding behind some meme name and Pepe the frog picture.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. There's other possible "solutions" than jailing a teenager though.Skimming through but are there posters arguing you should be free to racially abuse people without any come back because of free speech?