I think you could make the argument that Oaks’ conference talk is tantamount to hate speech.
There is no content-neutral way of defining what constitutes hate speech.
The only answer to offensive speech -- if we are to preserve our traditional way of debate and discourse in this country -- is a fully open marketplace of ideas in which hate speech is rejected on its own demerits, rather than censored by a benevolent big brother.
So, good luck with making your argument so that it has wide appeal.
Have you ever engaged in ANY form of “hate speech”? After reading the article I linked to how would you define hate speech?
Gets a little tough to so so, right? Or would you just say, “Hey, I know it when I see it.”
You’ve heard that argument be relative to pornography, I’m sure.
Anyway, I think you’re going to have a hard time prosecuting your argument against the full textual context of Elder Oaks’ talk.
Regards,
MG
Your op-ed piece is a link from 1992.
Also, did you read it? Do you realize it says that a definition of hate speech can’t be content-neutral? In other words, Chap’s opinion that the talk could be construed as hate speech is exactly correct, exactly as defined by your article.
Continuing with this idea from your link, are you, as an lds member, able to debate the topics in question with your lds leaders, and “reject” a bad idea “on its own demerits”? Or would your remarks “be censored by a benevolent” lds authority?
So, good luck with making your argument so that it has wide appeal.
Have you ever engaged in ANY form of “hate speech”? After reading the article I linked to how would you define hate speech?
Gets a little tough to so so, right? Or would you just say, “Hey, I know it when I see it.”
You’ve heard that argument be relative to pornography, I’m sure.
Anyway, I think you’re going to have a hard time prosecuting your argument against the full textual context of Elder Oaks’ talk.
Regards,
MG
Your op-ed piece is a link from 1992.
Also, did you read it? Do you realize it says that a definition of hate speech can’t be content-neutral? In other words, Chap’s opinion that the talk could be construed as hate speech is exactly correct, exactly as defined by your article.
Continuing with this idea from your link, are you, as an lds member, able to debate the topics in question with your lds leaders, and “reject” a bad idea “on its own demerits”? Or would your remarks “be censored by a benevolent” lds authority?
I'll take censored by a benevolent lds authority for $200 Alex....
I think you could make the argument that Oaks’ conference talk is tantamount to hate speech.
In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expands on the UDHR, stating that restrictions on freedom of expression would be permitted when it threatens national security, incites racial or religious hatred, causes individual harm on health or morals, or threatens the rights and reputations on individuals.[24] The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What Oaks said certainly runs the risk of causing individuals harm, both mentally and physically. It certainly threatens the reputations of individuals within their familial and societal circles. It would be interesting to submit the transcript of Oaks talk (when it’s published in the UK) to scrutiny by those who police such matters. If you know a LGQBT+ Church member, give them a call, give them a hug, tell them Oaks is a homophobic half wit and that you don’t agree with what he said. Ask your Bishop to publicly disavow what he said. They will need your support at the moment and that of the ward. If Oaks words are disseminated across social media I encourage everyone to report it to the social media platform. It’s unacceptable.
