Hate speech

(1/2) > >>

Tweefo (July 06, 2017, 06:45:38 AM):
I don't know, still seems a fine line to me on what exactly hate speech is. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2017-07-05-freck-white-people-court-correct-not-to-find-artwork-to-be-hate-speech/. Rather get rid of the whole idea and expect that sometimes things are going to be said that you may not like. Defamation and inciting violence is, of course, something else.
cyghost (July 06, 2017, 07:54:00 AM):
I agree.

I also don't think this construed hate speech in the first place either. Black people have some pretty good reasons to say freck white people to boot. Probably not the wisest course of action but sometimes best to rage then resort to violence.

Fuck white people and lets move forward together. /shrugs

BoogieMonster (July 06, 2017, 08:58:11 AM):
Lol, our own free speech inhibitor has mangled your link so it doesn't go to the correct article anymore. ;)
brianvds (July 06, 2017, 09:30:52 AM):
I made the mistake of doing a Google image search for 'dean hutton art.' I wish I hadn't - some things cannot be unseen. The art work in question is in any event so dreary a piece of non-art that I can't imagine why anyone would waste any time on it.

I notice that apparently, the exact same art work but with the word 'black' substituted for 'white' would not be okay. Because of white power and privilege and so on. So speech isn't as free as we think, and works of art are not necessarily exempted.

I also wonder what exactly the thing with white privilege is. What exactly do they mean? Can they give some examples? Because then we can perhaps do something about it. Otherwise it's just a vague notion.

Perhaps they just mean the fact that whites are on average still way richer than blacks. That is true, but it follows directly from government policies to curtail economic growth. It's not some fucking conspiracy by white people (or at least, if it is, I have never been invited to any of the meetings).
Rigil Kent (July 06, 2017, 15:23:39 PM):
I notice that apparently, the exact same art work but with the word 'black' substituted for 'white' would not be okay.
Yes, this is rubbish. The statement hinges on the idea that due to the history of this country, artistic criticism is acceptable one way, but not the other. BUT it neglects to take into account that there is no exact way of interpreting art. Consider, for instance, what will happen if the Dean Hutton piece is considered ironic. (And I think it should be, because of it's repetitive wording (cf. politicians criticising whites directly or indirectly day after day after day). Then the work is not the fashionable jab at white privilege as most would assume, but a parody of whites being criticised. Then what? Is it now disqualified?

Rigil

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page