Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think you're misinterpreting the motivations to oppose hate speech.

Thinking it "might convince stupid people of wrongs" is something we might think of as a trope, but if you think about it it's an elitist fallacy.

It stems purely from the idea that I, smart and educated as I am, must preserve the common idiot from making mistakes.

The reason it's a debatable topic is much more banal und real: It's doing harm and impacting the lifes of the minorities targeted by such hate speech. No need for gullible fools to mistake it for a rallying call and do physical or otherwise subsequent harm. Hate speech is very well suited to hurt, oppress, silence and alienate all by itself.

So yes, free speech must prevail any counterargument! But so does the moral principles not to hurt others, and the logical necessity that my freedom ends when it would diminish the freedom of others.

And freedom of speech does not mean right to threaten others indemnity. If it would, that would do nothing but enable this very freedom of expressions downfall.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: