| sapphi_snake said: Obscenity is quite ambiguous these days. Obscenety laws aren't really meant to restrict free speech, as much as they are meant to promote conservative (chirsitan) sexual mores. For example, in Romania 2 decades ago 2 men kissing, or even holding hands in public was considered an "obscenity" and could get the arrested. As for the second paragraph, you have to understand that hate speech laws aren't designed to "bring people together", they're designed to protect high risk groups, such as minority groups, or groups that have been historically abused by society (like women). White protestants don't qualify, because they're the majority (and also the "ruling class"). Realistically, the only thing that you can do to them is offend them, but since they're the majority they're not likely to experience any persecution/violence from society, because... they make up most of society. As for the example provided, I'd havre to actually read his article to form a proper opinion, but if my hunch is right, it was probably one of those fear-mongering rhetorics meant to demonize muslims and present them as evil "invaders" (such a rhetoric is quite common amongst European right-wingers). I also have a hunch that ironically, the reporter himself probably misquoted the imam to present "proof". If this is the case, then it's downright hate speech, and should be banned (of course, this is just a hunch, I'd still have to read the actual article). |
First, I'll only say that you should read Steyn before jumping to any conclusions about the guy. In addition to being a damned amusing writer, he's about as affable and tolerant as it gets without being a braindead multiculturalist, while Krekar is an antagonistic fuckhead who was saying exactly what it sounded like: we're going to outnumber you one day sooner than you think, and then you'll have to do things our way or else.
As for hate speech, what exactly constitutes a majority for our purposes? (I think the term "ruling class" doesn't apply at all, as that assumes a certain amount of wealth and political clout, and we're not talking about Rhodesia or South Africa decades ago. A poor white person doesn't benefit from being white, and in many instances due to affirmative action they are actually at a greater disadvantage than a poor minority.) I'm a white male, the lowest man on the political correctness totem pole. But white males haven't been the majority in the US for a long time, if ever they were. For obvious biological reasons, there tends in just about any species to be more females than males unless they socially engineer themselves into a corner like the Chinese have, but political correctness favors women over men - and so would hate speech laws, if we had any of the dreadful things. Also, one can be a member of the majority in the nation as a whole but a minority in their particular neighborhood. Are they entitled to special protections, or aren't they, or are they but only when they're in their neighborhood?
It all gets to be pretty silly pretty quickly once you start trying to regulate speech, as if people need to be protected from fucking words to begin with. You seem awfully convinced that it is needed, though, and that such laws help do... something or other, but I don't see one shred of evidence to support that position. It's perfectly legal to run up and down an American street shouting "nigger nigger nigger", yet we don't have any greater epidemic of such behavior than any nation that is saddled with hate speech laws. (It does happen, of course, but it's almost invariably set to a hip hop beat.) In the end I think the best way to end discrimination is simply not to discriminate, and that goes double for the government. "Unequal protection is equal protection" is something straight out of 1984.
