12-12-2022, 09:36 AM
The issue with hate speech is defining what it is. As someone posted above there is already statutes on the books the details severe penalties for speech that incites violence towards others of different race, religion, political leaning and sexual preference.
The government simply couldn't define what they wanted to stop in the new law. Ardern stated "you will know it when you see(hear) It " - a dangerous statement. Because what one person believed is hate speech may simply be something they strongly disagree with.
Already someone here stated they would like misogyny to be included as hate speech. Would they expect a comedian to to arrested and charged for telling a sexist joke?
The danger in failing to CLEARLY define hate speech is that it could be perceived as anything offensive by someone else. Then it could be defined as speaking out against the government or government officials. I think we can all agree that would be a truly terrible place to find ourselves.
The government simply couldn't define what they wanted to stop in the new law. Ardern stated "you will know it when you see(hear) It " - a dangerous statement. Because what one person believed is hate speech may simply be something they strongly disagree with.
Already someone here stated they would like misogyny to be included as hate speech. Would they expect a comedian to to arrested and charged for telling a sexist joke?
The danger in failing to CLEARLY define hate speech is that it could be perceived as anything offensive by someone else. Then it could be defined as speaking out against the government or government officials. I think we can all agree that would be a truly terrible place to find ourselves.