> "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden"
Prohibitions like this one are overly broad and smother a lot of legitimate discussion. Exceptions to free speech used to be limited to things like:
* Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
* Don't call for violence.
If we broaden the scope to any speech someone, somewhere might take offense to, then we can no longer have much diversity of thought in public debates.
If these kind of "hate speech" laws existed in England in the 19th century, Charles Darwin would possibly never have published the book "Descent of Man", because saying "You and I both descend from animals" was a very demeaning thing to say to most people at the time, and therefore could have landed him in court. The very idea of biological evolution is still offensive to a lot of people today, BTW.
So a company that champions and celebrates science to the outside world (like in their many doodles about scientists) and that has control over much of today's human communication, believes at the same time that it is a thoughtcrime to cite the scientific consensus about something as basic as biological differences between men and women.
> If these kind of "hate speech" laws existed in England in the 19th century
These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the king/queen in a negative way.
And yet, his book was still published.
And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot.
> A stark warning that this concern is not a sterile theoretical exercise
The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial.
Not every country adheres to such a fanatical stance on free speech as the USA, and yet seem to be doing just fine. Especially the UK, where there are restrictions on free speech. Sensible restrictions supported by the sensible population, who are not oddly terrified of their government.
> These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the king/queen in a negative way.
True.
> And yet, his book was still published.
Because the subject of his book wasn't covered by these laws.
> And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot.
Neither did Damore. He still got fired.
> The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial.
These HR policies are a sign of the times. The fashion of suppressing rational speech & thought in a misguided attempt to "protect" the minority-du-jour will eventually creep upwards into the laws of countries, as has already happened in Canada:
It isn't as broad apparently. If you go through the wikipedia link it also states :-
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."
Certainly there are still going to be "grey incidents".
Prohibitions like this one are overly broad and smother a lot of legitimate discussion. Exceptions to free speech used to be limited to things like:
* Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
* Don't call for violence.
If we broaden the scope to any speech someone, somewhere might take offense to, then we can no longer have much diversity of thought in public debates.
If these kind of "hate speech" laws existed in England in the 19th century, Charles Darwin would possibly never have published the book "Descent of Man", because saying "You and I both descend from animals" was a very demeaning thing to say to most people at the time, and therefore could have landed him in court. The very idea of biological evolution is still offensive to a lot of people today, BTW.
A stark warning that this concern is not a sterile theoretical exercise came in August this year, when James Damore was fired from Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
So a company that champions and celebrates science to the outside world (like in their many doodles about scientists) and that has control over much of today's human communication, believes at the same time that it is a thoughtcrime to cite the scientific consensus about something as basic as biological differences between men and women.