This half-baked "analysis" by Mike Elgan illustrates why Free Speech must be protected at all costs.
In the following examples, I will use the term "Twit", a deliberatedly insulting term to describe a stupid or foolish person.
First of all he is wrong about SM sites like Facebook and Twitter, in that much of what is said on these sites, especially Twitter, is not like a private conversation between 2 consenting persons, such as during a phone call.
The crap being posted is intended by the Twit and Twitter to be read or heard by everyone that can access it. That can easily be a huge number of persons and that is part of the SM sites intended function.
Consequently, the site is a publishing medium, and the site's owners should be liable for any genuine hate speech and any speech that is slanderous according to the general laws pertaining thereto.
No big loss to our society would occur or ever has occurred as a result of the lawful throttling of such speech.
But there is a problem with that too,in that the proper definition of "hate speech" must be speech that is intended to and does cause actual harm, and insulting or unkind words, such as calling someone a cunt, a prick, foolish, dumb or stupid, and the like, because of his or her ideas, opinions or beliefs, should not qualify as constituting "actual harm". One of the strongest arguments why that must be the case, is that many ignorant people believe their actions, beliefs, opinions, etc., should be protected from challenge in any way, shape or form.
Of course, characterizing a person's opinions, beliefs and ideas as being stupid, ignorant, dumb, and the like, is part of ordinary strongly-stated opinion on the part of the characterizer, and should never be considered "hate speech" or slander or harmful in a legal sense.
A good example of a statement that is both possibly slanderous and obviously uncomplimentary in the sense of calling a person ignorant or dumb or stupid and the like is located in the first sentence following the Pomp Chart in the article. The former is actionable, and the latter is not. However, the latter may hurt Joe Rogan's tender feelings. But that is not a harm in a legal sense. For obvious reasons, I did not wish to repeat that part of the accusation that could easily be slanderous.
This half-baked "analysis" by Mike Elgan illustrates why Free Speech must be protected at all costs.
In the following examples, I will use the term "Twit", a deliberatedly insulting term to describe a stupid or foolish person.
First of all he is wrong about SM sites like Facebook and Twitter, in that much of what is said on these sites, especially Twitter, is not like a private conversation between 2 consenting persons, such as during a phone call.
The crap being posted is intended by the Twit and Twitter to be read or heard by everyone that can access it. That can easily be a huge number of persons and that is part of the SM sites intended function.
Consequently, the site is a publishing medium, and the site's owners should be liable for any genuine hate speech and any speech that is slanderous according to the general laws pertaining thereto.
No big loss to our society would occur or ever has occurred as a result of the lawful throttling of such speech.
But there is a problem with that too,in that the proper definition of "hate speech" must be speech that is intended to and does cause actual harm, and insulting or unkind words, such as calling someone a cunt, a prick, foolish, dumb or stupid, and the like, because of his or her ideas, opinions or beliefs, should not qualify as constituting "actual harm". One of the strongest arguments why that must be the case, is that many ignorant people believe their actions, beliefs, opinions, etc., should be protected from challenge in any way, shape or form.
Of course, characterizing a person's opinions, beliefs and ideas as being stupid, ignorant, dumb, and the like, is part of ordinary strongly-stated opinion on the part of the characterizer, and should never be considered "hate speech" or slander or harmful in a legal sense.
A good example of a statement that is both possibly slanderous and obviously uncomplimentary in the sense of calling a person ignorant or dumb or stupid and the like is located in the first sentence following the Pomp Chart in the article. The former is actionable, and the latter is not. However, the latter may hurt Joe Rogan's tender feelings. But that is not a harm in a legal sense. For obvious reasons, I did not wish to repeat that part of the accusation that could easily be slanderous.