[ SECRET POST #2951 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2951 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The To-Do List, Brandy/Willy]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Amazing World of Gumball]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Agents of Shield]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Galavant]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Soukyuu no Fafner Exodus]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jamie Dornan from "The Fall"]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Neil Gaiman)













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 054 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think libel and slander laws are probably reasonable, assuming they're well-formed.

I think that there's a reasonable justification for banning speech if it leads to or immediately encourages concrete real harm. That's obviously hard to turn into a bright line, so there's good arguments on both sides. But for me, hate speech, in and of itself, doesn't cross that line.

[(Anonymous)]

The fear and emotional damage caused by hate speech constitutes "concrete real harm" as far as I'm concerned.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem that I have with that argument is that there are all kinds of fear and emotional damage that can be caused by language that no reasonable person could possibly consider hate speech.

I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

Should I suffer legal penalties for saying, "The Jews own all the banks"?

How about using the word "Gypsy"?

What's the statutory penalty for saying "darkie"?

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

If you say that those groups should be killed and incite other people to join you, then yes, you should suffer penalties IMO. People DO get killed by hate groups in the present day. It's not some bizarre thought experiment.

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

There's fine-grained distinctions here, though.

I'll certainly agree that if you're saying "Let's all go, right now, and kill these specific people from a minority" that should be actionable. But what about "It would be a good thing for society if there were no more minority"? I mean, there's some tricky lines to draw. Which is why drawing a line at concrete harm makes sense to me - it's a reasonably clear standard to use.

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, making active threats isn't (and doesn't) fly. That's actually illegal. And how many official white supremacist groups have rallied in public or marched, chanting about all the murder they are planning on doing? pretty sure even the KKK doesn't "officially" sanction violence anymore.

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

OK, that's a lot clearer. But that means defining "hate speech" so as not to include slurs and stereotyping in general. And that's a much narrower definition than I have taken the term to mean.

Re: I'm curious now

[(Anonymous)]

That's not considered hate speech in any place that has laws against hate speech. People will think you're an utter fucking asshole, but you won't be arrested for it.

Now, if you're banging out pamphlets about how someone should kill all the Jews, or if you're heavily using slurs in a verbal attack that's likely to get you written up for harrassment anyway, you'll suffer legal penalties under anti-hate speech laws. And yes, you absolutely should.