Speech which does blatantly incite violence, and without any reasonable ambiguity, encourage harm, violent or murderous acts, in particular from influential and powerful figures, is dangerous and reckless. Where exactly to draw the line and curtail certain speech will be interpreted by others and lawmakers who, one would hope, are unbias…
Speech which does blatantly incite violence, and without any reasonable ambiguity, encourage harm, violent or murderous acts, in particular from influential and powerful figures, is dangerous and reckless. Where exactly to draw the line and curtail certain speech will be interpreted by others and lawmakers who, one would hope, are unbiased, fair and ethical. Curtailing the speech of animal rights activists who, very obviously, are fighting for justice , ethical standards and the abolition of barbaric practices should not be censored or curtailed.. Any reasonable, ethically minded person who believes in fairness and the exposure and rectification of wrongdoing, should surely agree that it is right and proper that animal rights activists speak up for animals brutalised as in this case. Animal rights speech should be allowed as a distinct and unique category because these activists are representing a group, animals, who are totally and utterly voiceless and dependent, uniquely so compared to other groups, on the speech from activists and others advocating for their rights.
Speech which does blatantly incite violence, and without any reasonable ambiguity, encourage harm, violent or murderous acts, in particular from influential and powerful figures, is dangerous and reckless. Where exactly to draw the line and curtail certain speech will be interpreted by others and lawmakers who, one would hope, are unbiased, fair and ethical. Curtailing the speech of animal rights activists who, very obviously, are fighting for justice , ethical standards and the abolition of barbaric practices should not be censored or curtailed.. Any reasonable, ethically minded person who believes in fairness and the exposure and rectification of wrongdoing, should surely agree that it is right and proper that animal rights activists speak up for animals brutalised as in this case. Animal rights speech should be allowed as a distinct and unique category because these activists are representing a group, animals, who are totally and utterly voiceless and dependent, uniquely so compared to other groups, on the speech from activists and others advocating for their rights.
These are some useful and reasonable distinctions, Chris. Thanks for sharing.
What is your take on what Twitter did with Trump?