hodlbod on Nostr: I only asked a rhetorical question. Your opinion is that the above content is a ...
I only asked a rhetorical question. Your opinion is that the above content is a criminal threat. I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that in court (it's not very specific or directed), but maybe you're right.
My point is about the term "hate speech", defined by the UN as "speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are." This is an extremely broad definition!
If a speech act is illegal, you don't need the extra category of hate speech, just call the cops and remove it if you can. If a speech act isn't illegal, it's protected in the US from government interference. A free speech protocol should be very careful about requiring all participants to censor more strictly than what is required by law.
Moderation is a different topic, and in my opinion can be basically arbitrary. The trick is decoupling protocol-level moderation (permissive) from platform-level moderation (strict).
The category of "hate speech" is in practice synonymous with that of "blasphemy". Every culture has norms regulating speech based on what it holds sacred, very often enforced by law. The US used to have Christian blasphemy laws intended to honor God; we will soon have liberal blasphemy laws based on the shared cultural value of "tolerance" (which is, by the way, not a Christian virtue or value. I can provide citations if you like).
The term "hate speech" is "hate speech", because it re-defines legal political speech as illegal, using the same framework as blasphemy laws. The result is that the freedom of certain groups to express themselves is restricted, because their speech contravenes the gods of their nation. Or, to borrow your phrase, "intolerance of intolerance" hurts all dissidents.
As a Christian, I prefer Christian blasphemy laws to blasphemy laws that restrict my freedom to say what I think is true. As someone who sympathizes with libertarianism, I am very cautious about all blasphemy laws, and would prefer to err on the side of permissiveness.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't condone the speech you cited above, and would choose to moderate it. But that's entirely beside the point. I also agree with your original note, other than the use of the term "hate speech".
My point is about the term "hate speech", defined by the UN as "speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are." This is an extremely broad definition!
If a speech act is illegal, you don't need the extra category of hate speech, just call the cops and remove it if you can. If a speech act isn't illegal, it's protected in the US from government interference. A free speech protocol should be very careful about requiring all participants to censor more strictly than what is required by law.
Moderation is a different topic, and in my opinion can be basically arbitrary. The trick is decoupling protocol-level moderation (permissive) from platform-level moderation (strict).
The category of "hate speech" is in practice synonymous with that of "blasphemy". Every culture has norms regulating speech based on what it holds sacred, very often enforced by law. The US used to have Christian blasphemy laws intended to honor God; we will soon have liberal blasphemy laws based on the shared cultural value of "tolerance" (which is, by the way, not a Christian virtue or value. I can provide citations if you like).
The term "hate speech" is "hate speech", because it re-defines legal political speech as illegal, using the same framework as blasphemy laws. The result is that the freedom of certain groups to express themselves is restricted, because their speech contravenes the gods of their nation. Or, to borrow your phrase, "intolerance of intolerance" hurts all dissidents.
As a Christian, I prefer Christian blasphemy laws to blasphemy laws that restrict my freedom to say what I think is true. As someone who sympathizes with libertarianism, I am very cautious about all blasphemy laws, and would prefer to err on the side of permissiveness.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't condone the speech you cited above, and would choose to moderate it. But that's entirely beside the point. I also agree with your original note, other than the use of the term "hate speech".