[flagged]
While I do agree on most of the points, the conclusion "Tell People That All They Have to Do Is to Not Listen" does not follow and is borderline offensive. Are you really saying that the solution to racism and discrimination is to just ignore it?
Here's some points I grabbed from ChatGPT.
Complexity of Speech: While the idea of 'just don't listen' might sound simple in theory, it does not consider the nuanced complexities of real-life situations. There are circumstances where hateful or harmful speech can incite actual physical harm or can propagate harmful stereotypes.
The Impact on the Vulnerable: Telling people to simply 'not listen' can be especially problematic for vulnerable groups or minorities who are often the target of hate speech. For them, it's not just about ignoring the speech; it's about navigating the real-world implications and potential threats that come with it.
A Shared Responsibility: While individuals can choose to 'not listen', it's important to note that platforms, corporations, and societies also play a role in moderating and guiding the discourse.
I've banned the account until we get some indication that you won't do this any more.
You seem to be though equating speech with racism. Racism typically takes many other forms. The racism you cannot ignore is when it’s violence, or policies or the like. Neither of those is free speech.
So yes if it’s racist * speech* in the sense of truly just words, then yes. Ignore it.
I’m really surprised this isn’t obvious.
>Yes the solution to racist speech is to just ignore it.
Citation needed. As a foreigner living in Germany it's pretty obvious they've drawn different conclusions than that.
I'll also point out that there is nothing obvious about how free speech is defined (by Americans). There's obviously limits to speech, it's just been delineated into the constitutional "free speech" and the colloquial notion of "free speech". Which you seem to be conflating (or assuming that I care about). The OP is squarely about the more colloquial understanding of the word.
a) Speech that spreads outright lies about someone, damaging their reputation for the sake of that damage, etc (libel & related). Knowingly spread lies, prepare to be held accountable.
b) Outright calls to incite violence, call for one group of citizens to go out & attack another group, and so on. There is (and should be) no room for that in a civilized society.
(maybe more. IANAL)
The article is not about above exceptions.
It’s just a civil offense for which you can be sued. So I think the language of the first amendment (the government shall pass no laws…) still stands true.
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred...
"If you said something like "the First Amendment only stops the government from censoring you so it doesn't apply to this civil case, which is one individual suing another.""