Wednesday, 17 February 2021

"Hate speech": Vague, inherently subjective, and indefinable


If the government is to punish speech, specifically speech that they call "hate speech," then what speech precisely is it that they're punishing?

Since "hate speech" is inherently subjective (what's hate to me might be loving to you, and vice versa), how can you possibly define it in objective terms? And since even the best legal scholars haven't been able to, then what should we expect from Andrew Little's attempt?

Past President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen argues in this interview above -- and in her book -- that "hate speech" laws are a threat to freedom of speech precisely because they unleash governments to arbitrarily silence dissenting or unpopular speech. What so-called "hate speech" demands in response, she argues, is not censorship but more speech.


No comments:

Post a comment

Comments are moderated to encourage honest conversation, and remove persistent trolls.