[cpncrunch]

While it would be nice to have online discussion without moderation, in practice it simply doesn't work. There are just too many trolls out there who wreck it for everyone else. (I've moderated online chat for > 20 years, so I have some experience of trolling).

The other issue, which is perhaps more relevant here, is illegal content. Are you saying, for example, that it shouldn't be illegal for someone to put posters up on every street corner in their town saying that Mexicans are all child molestors and should be shot? Where should the line be drawn?

[briandear]

Actually, in the US, hate speech is not illegal and the hypothetical posters you mention would be protected speech. “Should be shot” is protected, “should be shot at 11am today at the soccer field on Hicks Road” would not be protected. There’s the concept of “true threat.”

Here is an interesting article related to this: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threat...

There is a mistaken assumption that hate speech is illegal. In the US, it isn’t illegal. Speech that contains a specific threat of violence would be illegal — but such threats have to be specific.

There is a song by the band Type O Negative called “Kill all the white people” and the first line of the song is “kill all the white people and then we’ll be free.”

That song is hate speech and promotes violence against white people — but it isn’t illegal.

Even speech promoting overthrowing the government is also protected as is speech calling for killing police or raping people.

Disgusting stuff sure — but not illegal speech.

[printf_kek0]

> Are you saying, for example, that it shouldn't be illegal for someone to put posters up on every street corner in their town saying that Mexicans are all child molestors and should be shot? Where should the line be drawn?

It would be inconsistent with the principle of free speech to sanction certain things from being said in public. Even racist, offensive and blatantly stupid bullshit (like your example) should not be censored.

The reason for this is because, paradoxically, if we assume that people are capable of rational discussion and debate they will eventually see where their beliefs or statements were in error through their reasoning.

To borrow my previous analogy, _hate-speech_ laws are akin to telling a child to: "obey; because I am your father" as opposed to people self-correcting their ethics through open debate and questioning.

[cpncrunch]

> if we assume that people are capable of rational discussion and debate they will eventually see where their beliefs or statements were in error through their reasoning

I think it's pretty obvious that many people aren't capable of that.

[mturmon]

Also, there’s that troublesome word “eventually”.