> whether the solution is to “leave everything up and let everybody kind of just duke it out in the town square of ideas,”
Most solutions I see often assume that the humans involved are intelligent, open to discussion, and peaceful. This works in the town of theory.
What solution for the rest of the world, where hate speech incites violence, societal harm and instills fear?
I don't have solutions to either side of the problem, but I do know that they are often discussed in isolation, or at least there's a lot of pretending that they exist in isolation.
1. Misleading headline. Glasser says that there’s no clear definition of „hate speech“ so you won’t know what you’ll get when you ask government to ban it. Just because something is ambiguous doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist (e.g. definition of freedom is also ambiguous, doesn’t mean „no such thing as freedom exists“). What are words even?
2. Shady website. Unclear who runs it. Seems to have been popular on Parler according to Google index.
Most solutions I see often assume that the humans involved are intelligent, open to discussion, and peaceful. This works in the town of theory.
What solution for the rest of the world, where hate speech incites violence, societal harm and instills fear?
I don't have solutions to either side of the problem, but I do know that they are often discussed in isolation, or at least there's a lot of pretending that they exist in isolation.