Log in


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
08:01 pm: Hate speech laws mean the government decides what is hate speech
This is about as good an argument for why laws restricting speech are dumb as I've ever seen-although I don't think the author was trying to take a position on the wisdom of such laws:

Earlier this year, in a highly publicized trial, Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred through Hate Speech. Dutch courts stated that his speech is denigrating but not hateful. Prosecutors were asking for a sentence that contemplated the possibility of jail time. Wilders has used coarse and xenophobic language against immigrants and minorities in this country. His party is funded on the premise that those of us who hail from nations classified as Non Western have no place in this society. He actively promotes laws and initiatives to further alienate and isolate immigrants. And yet, his words were deemed non hateful and, as such, not deserving of a sentence or even one day in jail, protected by free speech laws. A young Black man protests racist stereotypes that actively hurt him, he protests a tradition that further promotes his isolation and his status as “Other” and he is brutally beaten and dragged through the ground, arrested. He is told he has no right to protest, no right to raise his voice. Obviously, the protections afforded by free speech are only available to those that the State deems to be free to begin with.

From a blog post on Tiger Beatdown about the "Black Pete" tradition.

Also--seriously, "Black Pete" defenders? Blackface isn't racist except in America? That's your argument? Is that like how gay people don't exist in Iran?

Powered by LiveJournal.com