Placing people at risk of prosecution for linking to sites that may be deemed to promote hatred against an identifiable group encourages censorship, is anti-democratic and will create more conspiracy theory adherents.
We already have enough people who think certain groups control the media and government. Why feed into their absurd notions by expanding the offence of public incitement of hatred?Shanoff's solution? He says we should get
rid of this offence in its entirety and [focus] attention on the real form of hate speech we ought to be policing: Speech that threatens, advocates or attempts to justify violence against members of identifiable groups.
That’s what law professor Richard Moon advocated in his 2008 report on the regulation of hate speech on the Internet, where he also expressed the sensible view, “religious beliefs or values cannot be insulated from debate and criticism, even that which is harsh and uncivil. The criticism of religious belief cannot be restricted without undermining our commitment to freedom of expression.”
Too subjective
Yes, hate speech can be harmful, but who gets to make the decision on what is and isn’t hurtful? It’s too subjective.
Threatening, advocating or justifying violence, however, presents a much easier line to draw...It does? I'm not so sure about that, particularly at a time when a potentially violent flash mob can be summoned up in, well, a flash via social media. Where does one "draw the line" there--and who gets to draw it? Authorities, who will try to ban all such communication (as the Brits seem to want to do)?
No, I'd be far happier if we didn't worry so much about curtailing "hate" (an effort that invariably gives rise to all sorts of problems--dweeby bureaucrats policing our words, highly selective prosecution due to political correctness, etc.), and worried more about property rights--a genuine right that, pointedly, is not enshrined in our "sacred" Charter.
No comments:
Post a Comment