I will restate what I mentioned in a previous comment:
Offense (or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.
Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
When LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights, when Black people did the same, or when abolitionists fought against slavery, all of these individuals were viewed as “hate groups” (in the terms of their respective eras), “violent groups,” or “dangerous groups” because they were challenging the status quo and the power structures that oppressed them.
I understand that you have been shaped by a violent and hateful society. You don’t really seem to notice all the hate that is currently spread by your politicians and your media anymore. Yes, personal offense cannot be the line as it is arbitrary, but you’ve raised the bar so high in the US, it is frightening. Have you really listened to your politicians or your media talking recently?
Let’s see, I’m not from the United States so I don’t know their situation well (although I must say that I HATE Trump anyway), but I’m from Venezuela, which is really much, MUCH worse; Nicolás Maduro was literally a fucking dictator who killed anyone who dared to mock him (if you’ve never heard of Helicoide, I recommend looking it up), and now that they took Maduro they left us with Delcys Rodríguez, who is another fucking harpy.
I really cannot understand how someone who has not experienced a true dictatorship and who has not faced offense and repression for ideological reasons can say so calmly that freedom of expression should be limited; What blissful ignorance of yours to live in a bubble like that, you make me sick (with every intention to offend :3).
It really seems absurd to me how you think that “emotional harm” is a valid criterion or is in any way different from offense; No, they can apply in different areas, but epistemically and ontologically they are the same: pure subjective whim, and an ideology that the world revolves around you and your problems.
I’ll put it to you this other way:
Or only some speeches are prohibited (therefore falling into totalitarian arbitrariness).
Or all speeches are prohibited (and therefore language and existence themselves are also prohibited, in a non-metaphorical, non-figurative and non-hyperbolic, but literal sense).
Or no speech is prohibited, but only real and concrete actions (a defamation, a social lynching, a false denunciation, a fraud, a robbery, a coup or a murder), and, at most, imperative speeches (not a mere “hatred of X” but an explicit “X should die”).
Strict logic is the only reasonable law, and your ideology falls under the above reductio ad absurdum.
I will restate what I mentioned in a previous comment:
Offense (or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.
Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
When LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights, when Black people did the same, or when abolitionists fought against slavery, all of these individuals were viewed as “hate groups” (in the terms of their respective eras), “violent groups,” or “dangerous groups” because they were challenging the status quo and the power structures that oppressed them.
I understand that you have been shaped by a violent and hateful society. You don’t really seem to notice all the hate that is currently spread by your politicians and your media anymore. Yes, personal offense cannot be the line as it is arbitrary, but you’ve raised the bar so high in the US, it is frightening. Have you really listened to your politicians or your media talking recently?
Let’s see, I’m not from the United States so I don’t know their situation well (although I must say that I HATE Trump anyway), but I’m from Venezuela, which is really much, MUCH worse; Nicolás Maduro was literally a fucking dictator who killed anyone who dared to mock him (if you’ve never heard of Helicoide, I recommend looking it up), and now that they took Maduro they left us with Delcys Rodríguez, who is another fucking harpy. I really cannot understand how someone who has not experienced a true dictatorship and who has not faced offense and repression for ideological reasons can say so calmly that freedom of expression should be limited; What blissful ignorance of yours to live in a bubble like that, you make me sick (with every intention to offend :3). It really seems absurd to me how you think that “emotional harm” is a valid criterion or is in any way different from offense; No, they can apply in different areas, but epistemically and ontologically they are the same: pure subjective whim, and an ideology that the world revolves around you and your problems.
I’ll put it to you this other way:
Strict logic is the only reasonable law, and your ideology falls under the above reductio ad absurdum.