| However, they negate it with this caveat: > "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute." Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined individual or group could use to stifle discussion about things like gender, race, etc (all the hot/touchy topics atm). As an aside, the "violates the law", is a trojan horse that (I understand covers them legally) but also enables laws that violate free speech. Here is a list that speaks to just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#So... They use the word "hate" speech, but it might be very far from what we'd see as hateful. |
The "violates the law" thing is a different story, but the South African law you linked to has no parallel in the United States, so I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt until such law exists.