I'm sorry for assuming this, but I think this could only come from someone that never felt like they're part of a threatened group. If people are marching the streets shouting "kill all the ${x}!", I very much feel like that's dangerous to democracy.
Would prohibiting such speech make the hate go away, or would it actually embolden the hate while allowing it to fester clandestinely, making it harder to prepare for if it comes to a head?
Would make the hate go away - probably not. But in the country I grew up, for example, we had a prime minister assassinated in the 90s, and I think that many would agree that it was the calls in protests and the kind of symbols that were used that created the ground on which a political assassination could happen.
That's a good example actually - should criticism of Trump now be subject to restrictions due to the two attempts on his life? "Stochastic terrorism" must be applied equally in both directions
Seems like he was targeted by people of his own political persuasion in both cases. So, yeah, maybe Trump should in fact tone down his violent rhetoric.
Are you familiar with the story of why the ACLU used to be so very respected? Or why they lost that status over things that would have been perfectly expected for other groups to do?
I'm not from the US, so I might be missing your point, but if you're referring to neutrality around free speech then I guess the answer is yes? I'm not sure where you're heading though. I do think this is a very complicated issue, and drawing the line is hard and often contextual. But at the same time I feel quite certain that a line must be drawn.
Yes, why not? I could imagine calls like these leading to hurting police personals. These personals are not only people (and therefore part of society, that democracy should protect), but they're also part of the law enforcement system, which is kinda crucial for, well, any society. Do we disagree?
