[pacala]

Legal precedent is moving from "you can say whatever you want" into "you can be thrown in jail for speaking the wrong way", where "wrong" is defined by a small unelected bureaucratic entity [for example, Ontario Human Rights Commission]. There are softer ways to handle improper language, like social shunning, up to job loss, etc. Your argument is essentially an argument to regulate every aspect of life under penalty of law.

Just leaving this here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

[camgunz]

Oh hey :)

> where "wrong" is defined by a small unelected bureaucratic entity [for example, Ontario Human Rights Commission]

This insinuates -- again -- that the government is jailing people for using certain words. That's some Saudi Arabia shit, Canada's not doing it and neither is the US.

> There are softer ways to handle improper language, like social shunning, up to job loss, etc.

I would argue those aren't really working. Our culture is still deeply sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic. You're essentially saying, "the majority should police itself" but that never happens. The majority polices the minorities -- which is exactly what democracy and the idea of human rights is supposed to prevent.

> Your argument is essentially an argument to regulate every aspect of life under penalty of law.

I don't think that an argument in favor of a single regulation or law (water quality, speed limits, sanitation standards, domestic violence) is an argument to regulate every aspect of life. If you believe that advocating for a single law means you're advocating for "regulat[ing] every aspect of life" then that's an argument against all laws which I find ridiculous.

I do think there should be civil penalties for bigoted speech though. The specific standard doesn't matter much, but maybe we'll see fewer Confederate flags if you can be sued for flying one. Maybe then we'll have a real discussion about what bigoted speech is, how it hurts millions of Americans every day, and how you can avoid it.

[pacala]

If adding one law is not a slippery slope argument, then removing [or not adding] one law is not a slippery slope argument either...

Very convenient to support civil penalties against speech that you disagree with. What if some people find BLM "bigoted speech". What if some people think that pro-choice argumentation is "incitement to murder". How about we fight together to preserve our freedom of speech?

[camgunz]

> What if some people find BLM "bigoted speech".

Black Lives Matter is a political advocacy group that protests police and state violence perpetrated against Black people. Bigoted speech is speech that denigrates people based on ascribed statuses (gender identification, sexual orientation, race). These are blatantly not the same thing.

Words have meaning. If we have a law that says "killing people is illegal" and you force me into a dead-end 12 hour a day 7 days a week job for the rest of my life, I can't say "you killed me" even if spiritually you might have. That's not what "kill" means.

If your argument is that people interpret words differently and consequently laws are inherently too ambiguous, that's another argument against all laws. And even though the premise is correct - human languages are by their nature imprecise - that's why we have courts.

Most of your arguments boil down to: you can't do this perfectly, therefore you shouldn't do it. But that's not at all how law works, and if we were to apply this standard to laws we would never write one.

> How about we fight together to preserve our freedom of speech?

Sure, but that's not under assault here. Can we also fight together to protect the two-thirds of Americans who suffer under racism, misogyny, homophobia and discrimination?