Pants-of-dog wrote:Seeing as how no one can make an argument for protecting racist speech,
I argued that unless speech is actual libel or explicitly threatens or implies, and or insinuates violence, it should be protected.
Give the definitions you had given earlier, and which Boycey and I discussed, I would be open to prohibitions under that definition wherein hate speech is defined as aggressive ad-hominems made on an explicitly discriminatory manner, and possibly also generalizations if they are made without any reasons whatsoever.
However, my conditional openness to that argument was qualified and conditionally retracted because it seems that those two additions are subject to wild variance in interpretation.
The problem with your claims is that you believe that racist speech (whatever that means) is de facto to be unprotected and it is up to free-speech advocates to argue why it should be protected.
However, given that free speech is already the de facto position of most anglo-sphere nations, and given that its definition has only been modified after cases for exceptions have been made; it would be expedient to point out that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that free speech should make an exception for racist speech. Not the other way around.
You have it backwards my friend. The burden of proof is on you to argue why racist speech should NO LONGER be protected, in lets say, the United States (where it is protected) which would also entail a definition of what racist speech in fact was.
The free speech advocates on this thread are starting from a position that free speech is an inherent right and the de facto position and then trying to argue against something that you never properly defined, and given the definitions you have given, would be innocuous and would likely not achieve what you are actually after in the first place.
Your refusal to be clear only further casts suspicions on your position.
Thing is, if the burden on proof were on us (the free-speechers) to argue why we should protect racist speech, then according to the rules of discourse, we would have the right to define the terms being used and argued for, including racism.
In which case, If we were to define "racist speech" as implied violence or ill-intent of any kind solely on the basis of skin color, I doubt you would be satisfied and the conversation would not be advanced. Even at best, given definitions you have given previously, you could only argue that such speech were aggressive ad-hominems made without reason and solely on a discriminatory basis. which is still insufficiently clear and not very practical or simple (as laws should be).
This gives even more support to the fact that you must tell us what you think should be prohibited, and that entails telling us, clearly and precisely, what in fact you think hate speech or racism was. I always find examples to be helpful....Why don't you give us examples of what you think qualifies as racist speech and then we can respond accordingly and have an actual debate? Or is it, that you don't really want to open your position to actual analysis?
We can only go on what you have told us, and our argument has been made and is simply this, "free speech as the de facto position of the west was formulated to protect the right of individual citizens to hold to whatever religious or political opinions they were apt to do against the infringement of the state, so long they did not directly threaten or imply violence or the incitement thereof."
Nothing you have provided seems to be an acceptable exception to this based on the definitions and reasons you have given, and everything you have given, is either too unclear or can be subsumed under the violence exception already advanced by free-speechers.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few." - Bishop George Berkeley