Recognizing a legal right to think is only a pretext for someone to justify taking that right away. Of course you can think freely, and it's ridiculous to even imply that taking that away is an option through stating so in the law.
Obviously homophobia is wrong, the problem with this kind of thinking is that there isn't any real evidence that outlawing speech protects people's rights. Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.
> Recognizing a legal right to think is only a pretext for someone to justify taking that right away. Of course you can think freely, and it's ridiculous to even imply that taking that away is an option through stating so in the law.
Have you heard of the Lumières ? These principles basically created modern Europe, but sure, it's just a trick to steal your freedom of thought...
> there isn't any real evidence that outlawing speech protects people's rights.
Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc. you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.
> Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.
? People wrote the laws. Rights are made up, they're not universal constants
> Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc.
Harassment, regardless of motive, is illegal. Is there a need to make it more illegal?
> you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.
Restricting a collective right does in no way grant more rights to a minority. It may (superficially and short term) improve their lives but do you really thing people will be less hateful from being told they are hateful? I always found that conclusion odd
"Hate" is fuzzy. Some Jews believe hate is any kind of critique of Israel. "Racism" is fuzzy. Some black people believe it is racist to dance a certain way if you're not black. "Sexism" is fuzzy. Some women believe they have been violated by a compliment.
Definitions change. Most of the time irrationally. What was well-intentioned yesterday becomes hateful tomorrow.
This is a slippery slope my friend. Not many things in life are absolute but freedom to speak your mind must be one of them.
> Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc. you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.
Being harassed is wrong and illegal but what I meant to say is that it doesn't take your rights away. These two things are fundamentally separate. Someone breaking your rights does not mean that you then don't have them under the law. Which is the reason I wrote this:
> Rights are not given by anyone's graceful speech - that's why they're rights.
Because even though people codify laws they write them into law for a reason, so that the current mainstream discourse or some refuse someone throws at you cannot easily take them away. Hopefully I'm making myself clearer in that regard, since it's not the kind of thing I wanted to equate. I definitely wasn't asking for the requirement of any kind of long study on this topic.
I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts. If these texts were revolutionary at the time it's because they were not enforced before. You could be legally imprisoned for your thoughts (which you had or people thought you had), and it still is the case in many places around the world.
> Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence.
> What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?
So which is it ? Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence
Those statements are not in opposition to each other,
> Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence
If you define an insult to be violent in the same way as taking a life then I see why we are so far from each other. I make a clear distinction between the two. Do you really think an insult is an act of violence? I'm curious why you would think that
Inciting to violence and performing a violent act is not the same thing. If they were one could defer responsibility to the actor who incited one to be violent. That ends all personal responsibility for ones own actions.
> I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts.
Such derogatory remarks does not further any conversation. I'm here to debate - to learn - to expose myself to different worlds. I hope you are as well. Question - don't assume.
