Did they really get to the Moon ...
... or did they just fake it in a film studio?
311 posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
The way to challenge hate speach is to let everyone see what these morons are saying and openly condem those views, present different perspectives and actively work against the hate.
Banning hate speach doesn't eliminate it, just moves it underground where it can't be monitored and challenged. Thus creating a focussing effect for those who might buy into whatever is being said. No one to counter the views espoused.
Freedom of speech means, well, exactly that, even if that speech offends some people."
So that is free-speech (I guess that is what you mean - speach?) without limits?
You are assuming that the audience will always be indifferent to the exhortations of purveyors of "extremist" views. However, what happens when the audience is manipulated? Group think and action is relatively easy to manipulate, you only need to look at the alleged actions of Facebook, or the modern product of many of our Universities and Colleges to see that that is the case.
You may want to look back at some of the developments of the last Century.
"Luckie contends that black people have had trouble discussing issues among themselves, because other people are reporting these discussions as hate speech, even though the conversations often don't violate Facebook terms of service. Accounts are suspended and content is removed, without notice or recourse, he claims."
It could also have been another case of an activist trying to organise a faction within the organisation along racial alignments. It does not need to be actively racist against others for it to be considered as such if it is being organised around specific racial groupings.
Unfortunately there is too much of this kind of racism within (certainly UK) organisations, frequently with the explicit backing of HR departments that are lacking in judgement.
"Isn't it then more a case of "know your audience"? I share things with my spouse in private because I trust them to keep my confidence. I trust that our relationship is means more to them than scoring cheap points and idle gossip. In the workplace, I generally try to avoid discussions which are possibly incriminating and may come back to haunt me later. Especially when that conversation is written down and logged! Especially especially when that conversation is with an already annoyed employee."
You overlook the case of the counter-party deciding that the relationship has become detrimental to their interests.
If the individual is of a character that does not subscribe to the terms of trust within a relationship, then your efforts will amount to nothing.
P.S. Using your relationship with your partner as an example is probably the worst you could choose; you want to sit-in on divorce proceedings and see how soon all standards are broken.
The counter part to that is the publication of a private conversation is a deep betrayal of trust, and the effective termination of a working relationship.
Anyone that that publicises a private communication within an organisation is heading to the exit door from then on.
People that would take such a course of action do not deserve the privilege of working with others and are better suited to sweeping the gutter.
An utterly ridiculous proposition.
If a property own does not want the service it is not for the Authorities to intervene and force it upon them. Would they condone Landlords subsequent recover of full costs plus premium charges from the Tenants?
Next they will have Tesco and Sainsbury's obtaining orders to inspect the contents of peoples fridges.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019