Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Okay, so "hate-speech" prosecution is a slippery slope. I get that.

Over on WWL, the ever-industrious, indefatigable, and reliably trenchant observer of the passing scene, M_A, has tucked among his daily dozen an item on the pernicious consequences of a Canadian law aimed at punishing what might be called "intentional affront," the violation of ordinary politesse, the allusion to stereotype, the rude suggestion, the racial slur, the gendered innuendo. As probably should have been expected, because of the nature of laws themselves, it has had other, less salubrious consequences. The source is a recent Glenn Greenwald column for Slate.

I replied:
I agree with you that prosecuting so-called hate-speech is a difficult precedent. But that being said, if such speech is not legally actionable, then neither should be the quite understandable instinct of the victim to set upon such a speaker--should one so accost you--with whatsoever implement is available to impress upon them the folly of their arrogance and the error of their ways...

It seems only fair...

No comments: