Some people even use the name and avatar of a guy committed to genocide of Native Americans while discussing civil rights.
“ “we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”
-WTSherman
That’s so… ironic, right?
No, it was developed half a century ago, before ubiquitous instantaneous global communications were the norm. It was before anyone with a phone could self-publish video of themselves or others for a global audience of billions, or share it anonymously with select people distributed over a large geography tuned to their particular motivations.
That’s why it needs updating. Again, there is no difference between an asshole committing violence 30 seconds after watching a pedagogue’s speech in person or a month later after watching it on YouTube. There’s no difference to the victims, there’s no difference to the perpetrator, and there’s no difference to the instigator - except for the get-out-of-jail-free card Brandenburg provides from 1969.
Or when a jerk in their basement can engage in sextortion, with the goal of driving teens to suicide.
I was referring to the fairly large body of cases and analysis that applied Brandenburg and analyzed why the standard is what it is. I just don’t think the issues you raise are so unique that it justifies what I think would be a pretty radical departure from modern free speech law. I think Brandenburg is mostly right, and most of the standards I’ve seen proposed in its place are so fraught with downside that I think it should remain in place.
For example, I agree with the outcome of NAACP v. Claiborne and the way it applies Brandenburg. You may disagree.
Also not relevant, being before the moden communication age.
I also must have missed your passionate defense of the free speech of student protesters against Gaza genocide at universities around the world…
And not relevant because it doesn’t apply to Canadian law.
If you think that Claiborne’s outcome and analysis isn’t “relevant” to the discussion of why Brandenburg’s reasoning and imminence test might make sense even in the context of modern communication, then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement about how free speech in this country works and should work. Take care!
A “personal coach” a long time ago told me to eliminate “should” from my vocabulary and I think that is good advice. Doesn’t should on yourself or others.
I should do that.
I’m more concerned about the lack of truly public squares than hate speech laws.
I had someone literally throw a rocks glass at my head when they asked me “Does Israel have a right to exist” and I replied “Israel has a right to exist and not do war crimes”
(I went on to say the issue is we don’t shame countries like Saudi Arabia in a similar manner to how an Israeli passport is treated rather than said treatment being some kind of bias… lord that touched a nerve… repeatedly… since I adopted it as a mantra at many a cocktail hour… the best part being none of the people violently opposed to the statement were actually Israeli… the few I met seemed to respect I was consisten on human rights rather than do thing where one suddenly knows every little thing about the geneva convention only when it’s them doing it, not us in Iraq or KSA in Yemen or… well you get the idea)
I used to be very much a free speech absolutist, but having traveled the world and worked in DC and seen a lot of (figurtive) sausage made, I think that if we think of it more as enforcing libel law rather than hate speech, we’d get a lot done.
After all, so much of “hate speech” is pushing false narratives about “the jews”, or other groups – that they didn’t show up on 9/11, or that they staged school shootings to take “our” guns or control the weather or some other bullshit…
If we took a more liberal view of libel such statements would be eay to prosecute.
(You said a group of people did X, I am in Y group, therefor you libeled me)
People could be free to spew hate, but the real danger is the conspiracies that fan it.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
