Tainari88 wrote:@Unthinking Majority the truth is that real racism starts in people's heads Unthinking Majority. The USA already has a lot of very heavy, violent and discriminatory racist history.
This is a scene from the movie Loving. Based on a real case in Virginia in which people of different races weren't allowed to marry. It had to go to the Supreme Court to be dealt with. How can states tell people who they can or can't marry? It starts in a some racist group's social psychology and becomes law.
There is other scenes in which a sheriff comes barging in on the couple and drags them away. The pregnant wife is jailed like a criminal. Yes, justice. Racism. It does no harm.
The law reflects the mindset of the people making it happen. It starts as an idea that is usually related to economic or social institution. The USA had to deal with it for years and still uses racist legal arguments to deny rights to people even in 2020. So the racists are still using the law.
Got to deal with racist thoughts that then takes the next step into 'allowing' racist speech. In Germany? they made it illegal. Because they had to live an entire lost generation of youth of German ethnicity to a regime that pushed racism as its many foundational principles. It affected them extremely negatively and as such? They created anti Racist speech laws. Most laws reflect the history of the society and the cultural matrix of that society. The USA is and has been in its past very racist.
Thank you for a thoughtful post. There are limits to free speech. It really comes down to where each person would draw the line. I've said where I'd draw it. If people disagree, that's ok, and I understand why they'd want to ban all racism including racist speech.
Pretty much all of the arguments against the right to racist speech i've heard in this thread are slippery slope arguments, which is a logical fallacy. ie: If the speech is allowed, it may lead to X or Y bad action. My argument is to make X or Y bad action illegal, and let the idiots say their peace and be largely ignored. IMO people should be responsible for their own actions, they have free will and the capacity to think and make decisions. If a bad idea is bad, most will ignore it and condemn it.
Under the your logic, anti-vaxxers should be charged and their opinions banned because it may cause people to not vaccinate their kids and cause illness and death and the spread of disease. If the logic is based on the potential to cause harm, anti-vaxxers are just as or more dangerous, as are all sorts of other people with all sorts of "harmful" opinions. At some point you have to draw the line to protect speech that most people deem stupid and harmful. This is where i'd draw the line. If you disagree, ok thats fine, understandable. Lots of countries have different sorts of hate speech laws, i happen to disagree but it's not the end of the world that they exist.