= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Plasmon comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
I was talking in general, not about you specifically. In fact I much appreciate your out-of-the-box view on many subjects, and I can guess why you would argue against any form of censorship here, slippery slopes and all that.
Example of hate-speech laws being used
I think your example is rather atypical to be honest at least in the wider West. Emma West being the more typical one. Very much like with hate crime laws there is controversy whether hate speech against white people even is hate speech.
What would be considered unacceptable for one group is not unacceptable for another. The star of the recent popular movie Django Unchained, Jamie Fox joked for example:
in light of his other comments this is interesting
Whether this combined is ominous, righteous or innocuous depends on your model of the world. That how such laws are applied depends heavily on what kind of model of the world judges or police officers are likely to use is hardly disputable however.
Oh, I agree fully that such laws are problematic and open to abuse, and that it might well be better for no such laws to exist at all. Nonetheless they exist and should occur as a (possibly very low) cost in the calculation of the expected utility of advocating violence.