tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post3125139061329048574..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: UC's Misguided Flirtation with Hate Speech BanDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-54697828451089732842012-08-05T20:58:33.006-07:002012-08-05T20:58:33.006-07:00Strange. Of course, you're right that a ban wo...Strange. Of course, you're right that a ban would be difficult to define and therefore difficult to enforce. However, it seems the thrust of your argument against a ban is that the alternative won't work either.<br /><br />My own view is that hate speech has the effect of silencing "more speech." We recognize that threats of violence have this effect, and so we ban these from debate. However, in doing this, we generally understand "threats of violence" in a very limited way. Hate speech generally is a threat, even if only implied. (Or even if it only "hangs in the air.") The report, according to the article, notes that many students do, in fact, feel intimidated. And that is always part of the difficulty in organizing a mainstream response against hate speech.<br /><br />That we would then have the problem of defining hate speech -- well, it would be good if we were talking about what antisemitism is, since so many communities are determined to avoid that discussion.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05146833770654841724noreply@blogger.com