You can have two people with almost identical positions on controversial issues on something like Israel-Palestine. But your ability to phrase and articulate your position can drastically change which side of the hate speech line you are on.
These sorts of policies are not actually in pursuit of reducing actual received harm - what's actually going on is a redrawing of our class system. People with high EQ are excluding low EQ people who can't "behave" in twenty-first century society. Even if you have never personally harmed someone - you won't get access to the same kinds of institutions - academia, journalism, politics, etc.
Reading these laws makes me think less of 1984 and more of, like, the 21st century equivalent of jaywalking or zoning rules or even redlining. We have new rules about how to fit in and behave - but the rules are not going to be equally or fairly distributed.
Keep in mind, you haven't heard the word "pluralism" as a democratic ideal in the last 20 years.
Plain, straightforward speech has immense value. It promotes clarity and honesty, ensuring ideas are communicated without the need for high-EQ code. Restricting political discourse to high-EQ speech to avoid offense stifles genuine expression and hampers robust debate. This not only limits free speech but also degrades the quality of political dialogue, making it more about adhering to social norms than addressing real issues.
We need to value pluralism and strive for inclusivity in our discourse, ensuring that all voices, regardless of EQ, can be heard and respected.
Being a free speech absolutist ensures that all ideas, even those clumsily expressed, get a fair hearing. It fosters an environment where truth and innovation can thrive, unhampered by artificial constraints on how thoughts must be articulated.
Speech shouldn't require constant PR massaging to be accepted / "legal"
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Worth considering that in terms of relative size, Israel has a population of 10 million, Jews in the world number ~14 million.
Whereas the Arab world, which tends to be relatively anti-Israel, numbers ~220 million. And Muslims, which tend to be anti-Israel as well, number 1.2 billion.
So just in terms of number of voices, the natural pro-Israel voices [1] are vastly outnumbered by the natural anti-Israel voices.
Think about how this impacts what you hear, how this impacts the votes in the UN (which is not democratic but votes are by country), how this impacts economic reactions (number of consumers), etc.
[1] This is a sweeping generalization, but it is statistically true that Jews are usually pro-Israel and Arabs and Muslims are usually anti-Israel. With other religions/ethnicities it's more complicated.
Western media often aligns with Israeli perspectives due to strategic alliances, lobbying influence, and media ownership dynamics, framing Israel’s actions as defensive while sidelining broader Arab or Palestinian views.
Online, pro-Israel narratives are reinforced by organized digital campaigns and moderation practices that shape public discourse. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian voices lack comparable resources and organization in Western spaces, limiting their visibility. This creates a media and digital environment where Western audiences are exposed to narratives that don’t fully represent the global spectrum of perspectives.