Posted: 24 August 2025 at 2:12pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
By whose definition? (JB)
*********
Preaching a genocide is an exemple, or racism.
And i think people shouldn't be allowed to stand a rally in front of an abortion clinic where very vulnerable women can be their victims. Harrassment isn't ok with me. That's not a question of being in favor or against abortion, it is about accepting bullying of vulnerable people or not. They can still write about it or do a rally, but somewhere else. I know it is not the american way, and that the american law allows this. For me, and i am more in favor of adoption than of abortion (even if i think that if abortion there is, it should be done with the maximal security of modern medecine.) bullying is never acceptable, and even less on vulnerable people. The freedom of some ends where the one of the others begins.
To avoid that a tyran (or anybody else) could label anything a hate speech, a legal definition can help. It may be imperfect, but it is a point of reference. A point that can be contested, and changed by the parliament (the United States Congress in this case), but as long a it stands it is the law (or would be, if it was) ; moral or immoral ; good or bad. And it is not just the whim of the said tyran, or the opinion of a citizen or a preacher. That's how i think it should be, and it is sad that some behaviors makes it necessary. Without a law what is orr not a "hate speech" is a matter of opinion. Without a law, the strongest wins, whether he is right or wrong, fair or unfair.
But as i said, i am not American. This is what i think, but not my decision nor the country where i live.
|