I'd like to understand better someone who is commenting on this site, or this thread, and raising the question of "How can we possibly define/moderate/ban what is hate speech and what isn't?"
The implication is because this is impossible, then we shouldn't even bother, because it's a slippery slope, and leads to all sorts of repressive behaviour.
If you believe this position, I have some follow-up questions for my own curiosity:
1) Is it not true that we already have defined lines that we universally agree cannot be breached? Child pornography. Explicitly soliciting accomplices for murder. Explicitly organizing plans for murder.
2) If lines in the sand have already been defined, why not redefine them if there is new information available in our society? Please answer me without a "slippery slope" argument. That is abstract and hypothetical. Let's deal with concrete scenarios.
The implication is because this is impossible, then we shouldn't even bother, because it's a slippery slope, and leads to all sorts of repressive behaviour.
If you believe this position, I have some follow-up questions for my own curiosity:
1) Is it not true that we already have defined lines that we universally agree cannot be breached? Child pornography. Explicitly soliciting accomplices for murder. Explicitly organizing plans for murder.
2) If lines in the sand have already been defined, why not redefine them if there is new information available in our society? Please answer me without a "slippery slope" argument. That is abstract and hypothetical. Let's deal with concrete scenarios.