Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame
I disagree with nebulous definitions of what "hate speech" entails. Today it may be White Supremacists and Nazis. Tomorrow its critics of BLM. Next week it might be any perspective to the right of Mao. Selective enforcement of overly-broad weasel-worded TOS is a problem for me.
Regulating speech is a complex subject and an extremely slippery slope that needs constant public vigilance to prevent the government from encroaching upon, let alone mega-corporations that already monopolize discourse on the internet. I would prefer to err on the side of allowing all speech (excepting already agreed upon illegal speech such as incitement to imminent violence, doxxing, links to child porn, etc..) with all the ugliness and warts that entails.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't really get in line with someone who believes the promotion of ethnic cleansing, Black people being seen as unintelligent savages, and that Jewish people are the enemy are positions that deserve promotion to an unlimited audience.
This is not a slippery slope argument nor is this about the government. This is fairly standard, hate speech is defined. You live in Canada, right? In terms of Canadian law, all three of the men (Duke, Molyneux, Spencer) banned by YouTube violate "already agreed upon illegal speech." So, do you or do you not support their right to spread hate speech despite the laws in the country you live?
Let's turn the slippery slope backwards. If we allow hate speech, why do you have a problem with child porn? I mean, it's not that much of a stretch, is it? Why can't people share child porn if they can promote ethnic cleansing? Isn't it dangerous to restrict our freedoms? What's next? First they ban child porn, then they ban regular porn, then they start putting restrictions on sexuality banning all sex not between a married man and a woman, and then they start banning sex altogether as a means to control the population? It's a slippery slope you know!