[LINK] Survey Finds Support for School Filters (USA)
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:23:31 +1100
> > The idea that there's some common category "hate speech" is
> > just laughable -- it's even more contested and fuzzy a term than
> > "pornography".
David Goldstein wrote:
> Well, you may think this is laughable Danny, but there are plenty of
> others who don't. As I said, there is no reason a definition can't be
> defined, probably something along the lines of incitement to
> violence. Of course there would need to be more to it than that, but
> it can be done.
So, tell me where the encitement to violence is on
Or does your "obvious" approach to defining "hate speech" fail even
to agree with that of the Australian Human Rights Commission?
> So what if they used it before WWII? Do they use it now? I think not.
As someone pointed out, it's fairly widely used throughout the Indian
sub-continent in religious imagery. And what about military history
sites? Are they to be banned from displaying the insignia of German
military units? Or is someone going to decide what constitutes a
"genuine" history site?