Loading...
Title : De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope
link : De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope
De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope
In an article published in the Atlantic last year entitled "What Europe Can Teach America About Free Speech", University of Virginia law professor Mila Versteeg, a descendent of both Nazis and Nazi resisters, makes an interesting case about free speech.
She posits that Europe's post-World War II human rights framework is, in some ways, a more reliable inoculation against fascism and ethno-nationalism, because its prohibitions on hate speech don't rely on the "free marketplace of ideas" to root out such scourges.
The rise of Nazism in Europe gave the lie to the idea that an unregulated marketplace of ideas--which is largely what we have here in America today--was a sufficient insurance policy against ethnic cleansing and genocide.
"In an unregulated marketplace of ideas," Versteeg writes, "private citizens need to take up the burden of holding the line against racist extremism."
That's where de-platforming comes in.
The thing about the First Amendment, which not everyone fully understands or appreciates, is that only government actors need to comply with it, because the Founding Fathers knew that government has the ultimate power to oppress us. So for better or worse, here in America, it's up to private citizens to step in where the government won't; to decide that certain ideas are so toxic, so dangerous, and so detrimental to society that they simply should not be given a megaphone.
It's not a "slippery slope" problem. There is zero evidence that snuffing out white supremacy through de-platforming is going to upend Free Speech as We Know It.™ There is, however, evidence that de-platforming is an effective tool to use against hate speech.
And we are fortunate enough in this country not to have learned this lesson the hard way.
Yet.
When private media actors like the New Yorker, Twitter, and Facebook hand Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopoulos a megaphone, they endorse the "both sides" canard that every crackpot bigot deserves a private platform, and that people's live and safety are a reasonable price to pay for engagement and clicks.
It's up to us as private citizens to push back and say they're not.
She posits that Europe's post-World War II human rights framework is, in some ways, a more reliable inoculation against fascism and ethno-nationalism, because its prohibitions on hate speech don't rely on the "free marketplace of ideas" to root out such scourges.
The rise of Nazism in Europe gave the lie to the idea that an unregulated marketplace of ideas--which is largely what we have here in America today--was a sufficient insurance policy against ethnic cleansing and genocide.
"In an unregulated marketplace of ideas," Versteeg writes, "private citizens need to take up the burden of holding the line against racist extremism."
That's where de-platforming comes in.
The thing about the First Amendment, which not everyone fully understands or appreciates, is that only government actors need to comply with it, because the Founding Fathers knew that government has the ultimate power to oppress us. So for better or worse, here in America, it's up to private citizens to step in where the government won't; to decide that certain ideas are so toxic, so dangerous, and so detrimental to society that they simply should not be given a megaphone.
It's not a "slippery slope" problem. There is zero evidence that snuffing out white supremacy through de-platforming is going to upend Free Speech as We Know It.™ There is, however, evidence that de-platforming is an effective tool to use against hate speech.
And we are fortunate enough in this country not to have learned this lesson the hard way.
Yet.
When private media actors like the New Yorker, Twitter, and Facebook hand Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopoulos a megaphone, they endorse the "both sides" canard that every crackpot bigot deserves a private platform, and that people's live and safety are a reasonable price to pay for engagement and clicks.
It's up to us as private citizens to push back and say they're not.
Thus Article De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope
That's an article De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope with the link address https://wordcomes.blogspot.com/2018/09/de-platforming-hate-speech-is-not.html
0 Response to "De-Platforming Hate Speech is Not a Slippery Slope"
Post a Comment