Originally posted by Putinbot1
When someone's private property impinges on the respect
Respect isn't a right.
and safety of a whole group
Literally any sort of dissent can be spun to fit those qualifications. Consequence is a result of luck, we judge on the action, and merely expressing hatred is not an infringement of someone's rights. Hence to infringe someone's rights over it is completely unjustified.
it is not degrading them to remove it.
To take someone's rights/freedoms is degrading them. Hence it can only ever be justified when they are violating someone's rights.
It is preventinting the group being abused being further degraded. When someone else's rights are affecting the rights of others, a cap needs to be placed on them.The irony here is that slavery violated people's right to free speech. And many justifications of this used an identical justification to the one you're presenting. If a slave speaks against his master, he can justifably be punished because he's accompanying to potential rebellion against said master. This is a technique used by literally every dictator ever. Silence speech on the basis that it will cause chaos and endanger people's safety. This is nonsense. If an act itself is not violating or threatening to violate someone's rights, you have no buisness to violate the actor's rights.
Free Speech laws helped propagate slavery... Free Speech is capped easily if you are rich enough. Take out a super injunction and sue, it's Trumps way, it's America's way. [/B]
Ah, so your solution for the subversion of free speech, is to further subvert free speech?
That makes sense.