> I find their content …dangerous even as satire
This is precisely why we need strong protections for satirists from those who are so insecure in their positions and beliefs that they respond to satire like it’s threatening.
This is precisely why we need strong protections for satirists from those who are so insecure in their positions and beliefs that they respond to satire like it’s threatening.
Speech is powerful, and it can cause great changes to the world. But, while all improvements are changes, so too are all diminutions.
edit: I don’t understand why people are downvoting a simple statement of undeniable fact. Do I need to mention that doesn’t mean I am in favor of government intervention?
What the parent comment means by referencing this phenomenon, which already has an Occidental analogue, is still unclear to me.
What people don't get is if you want to start censoring "dangerous speech" then you'd better have a perfect definition of what dangerous speech is. But there isn't one.
So what ends up happening is you ban speech with good reason, set a precedent, then your political opponent takes power and starts banning speech as well.
Nobody is directly hurt by it. It can be involved in a causal chain that leads to harm, but so can everything.
If you contend that speech is dangerous because it can lead to harm, then language itself is dangerous because it can lead to speech. For that matter air is dangerous, because it facilitates language.