[ 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

[ariakas]

Not to mention threats. Should threats be legal, too?

Most hate speech laws are just making speech that is already illegal (yes, even in the US) like libel, slander, and threats against one person apply to a group of individuals.

Think about it like this: "Jews are baby-eating Jesus murderers who control the world's economy and impoverish good people! They should be rounded up and gassed"

Versus

"Bob is a baby-eating Jesus murderer who controls the world's economy and impoverishes good people! He should be gassed"

Bob would absolutely be able to sue; he'd probably be able to call the police for criminal threats and harassment. So why is it exactly that it's perfectly acceptable when more than one person is the target of libel, slander, and threats?

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe because it's a whole lot easier to make a credible threat against Bob The Individual than it is to make an actual credible threat against, you know, millions of people.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know, genocides are a thing worldwide.
And somehow I don't feel that threatening millions of Jews is actually that incredible, considering it happened not that long ago...

[(Anonymous)]

It's not incredible that genocides could happen. It is incredible that a single person's speech about them is equivalent to a credible threat, for the most part.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate to be obvious but Hitler...

perhaps 'uncommon' rather than 'incredible'?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure uncommon captures the rarity. Can we say "extremely rare"?

[(Anonymous)]

I am okay with 'extremely rare'. I do accept your premise, that it's definitely far from the norm, but I also think that it's important to learn from WWII and part of that is recognizing that this is a thing that can happen. So obviously I'm not saying we should panic at everything and overreact, but awareness is important imo

[(Anonymous)]

I definitely agree but I think that awareness is best expressed through making sure people are aware, not through banning certain forms of speech.

Similarly, I think the best way of fighting hate groups is building a society that's tolerant and that rejects hate groups, not outlawing them.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I'm an American, and I'm used to our crazy liberal speech laws, but I don't think this argument holds water.

It's pretty easy to caricature entire cultures.

[(Anonymous)]

terrorism threats aren't taken seriously now?

[(Anonymous)]

Because there is a difference between slandering an entire group and slandering a specific individual.

[(Anonymous)]

IANAL but I'm not sure that applying standards of libel and slander to hate speech would actually result in most of it being outlawable, at least not in the United States.