"That's not an expression of the freedom of speech."
In many countries, it isn't considered one, but I'd argue that it should be. If we only protect speech that is offensive to no one, we might as well not have free speech at all. Offensive, divisive expression is exactly the sort of thing that deserves the strongest protections*, else the very concept of "freedom of speech" become meaningless.
If some become violent because of said expression, that is a symptom of deeper underlying problems, and those problems won't go away simply by discouraging certain kinds of expression.
(*this does not mean that such speech has no consequences, but these are matters for societal pressure, the court of public opinion, etc. Consequences should be the result of NGOs leveraging social pressure, not state punishment.)
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/15 20:53 (UTC)In many countries, it isn't considered one, but I'd argue that it should be. If we only protect speech that is offensive to no one, we might as well not have free speech at all. Offensive, divisive expression is exactly the sort of thing that deserves the strongest protections*, else the very concept of "freedom of speech" become meaningless.
If some become violent because of said expression, that is a symptom of deeper underlying problems, and those problems won't go away simply by discouraging certain kinds of expression.
(*this does not mean that such speech has no consequences, but these are matters for societal pressure, the court of public opinion, etc. Consequences should be the result of NGOs leveraging social pressure, not state punishment.)