On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 12:15 -0500, Patrick Dufour wrote: > I don't see any contradiction between the freedom of expression against > concepts and beliefs (such as religions) and the expression of hate speech > against people. A concept should be powerful enough to be believable and > avoid criticism (or defamation if you are a believer). Expression of hate > against individuals can lead to violence.
Was the fatwā to assassinate Salman Rushdie not intent to do harm? Is he the one to blame for that violence? Why is whether something could result in violence a relevant distinction? People go postal for all sorts of reasons. Why should the rules of discourse be influenced by that? If I could choose among, say, working in a dangerous environment that had a high probability of giving me cancer, being in bottomless debt, being unemployed for a long time, or getting beat up, there's a fair chance I'd opt for the beating. Why are people afraid more of violence from racist hoodlums, criminals, and terrorists than, say, poverty traps or lack of health care? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
