634
Two brands suspend advertising on X after their ads appeared next to pro-Nazi content (www.cnn.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
168 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

It is a tempting proposition to let the state handle hateful speech, but we don’t have to look much further than Florida to see what happens when the shit side is in power

You seem to be suggesting that separating hate speech prevention from legislation will protect you from a "tyranny of the majority" situation.

But if the populace has a bigoted plurality, won't that also create a tyranny of the majority?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If the populace has a bigoted plurality, then they get to declare what is officially hateful. So yes, you're right.

    I put the onus on the collective citizenry, but there is no perfect solution in reality. There is a role for the state to play in protecting people, I just don't think they should dip much into what speech is or isn't allowed. The majority should rule in my opinion, but we have the job of maintaining a majority that isn't regressive bigoted shitheads. It's an eternal struggle, unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Defamation, intellectual property, stalking/threats, harmful digital communications, false advertising, accurate declarations of food contents, protected names, conspiracy to commit serious crimes: all these forms of speech are regulated by law and the judiciary where I live, so I have no problem with hate speech laws as long as they are clear and reasonable.

    Personally I am in favour of proportionally representative democracy with a lot of checks and balances to enshrine human rights in law, so that if a populace wavers toward the hateful there are still protections for minorities and the non-hateful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Fair, but the more people you have, with more diverse viewpoints, the harder it will be to get people to agree on what is hateful. And the more nuanced your laws, the harder it will be to agree on what is reasonable or even clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    That's a fair point.

    But we have got people to agree on everything from what is a fair defense against defamation, right through to the percentage of meat a product such as a meat pie has to contain in order for it to be able to be labelled "meat".

    Democratic consensus is something that gets built up and refined over time. We don't try to invent it all in a single day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent