Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
hes got you there ao. see also all the ppl arrested and fined and jailed for hate speak in canadia. and see also all the ppl who win cases of defamation when they arent hating.
its just logic.
I mean it's clear to me where the issue is: the person criticizing peterson work applies the misogyny label with too much ease.
Which, wouldn't be a problem in a free speech country. She can keep having very low standards to define misogyny, and other people can tell her she is wrong with that, and that's a normal conversation.
But, the moment your characterization of some other people speech touches criminal aspects, then it's like saying a person is a criminal. Which, normally (not 100% sure about canada, but that's pretty normal in most countries) , is libel and not free speech for basic reputational issues.
You can dislike some content being produced by some1, but calling him/her literally a criminal is something else.
Now, of course this is one of the many horrendous consequences of hate speech laws. When they exist, they LIMIT the capacity of critics to describe content, unless they want to go to court with their assertions.
In a completly obvious for free-speech supporters, but seemingly paradoxical way for naive people who like to "protect" others through hate speech laws, one of the most serious effect of hate speech laws is to reduce the scope of the critique you can do to content that maybe borders hatred, but doesn't go over the line (a line which has to be decided case by case by a judge).
So every time you read or watch something that makes you unease because you think it maybe has some negative effect on some group, you have to be extremely careful in the words you choose to describe it.
Hate speech laws literally help people who push the boundaries of speech, because they can't be described as hateful without legal consequences for the person that critics that content.