I actually know a Democratic state rep in Minnesota. I had to watch this video to make sure it wasn’t the one I know. It’s not, but I’m going to be asking the one I know what their opinion is on this.
"Well er uh, obviously we've gotta follow the constitution ya know. But we don't want people, er... you know - going around saying the (scare quotes) N-word or denying the holocaust. You know what I'm talking about. Governing is a balancing act ya know. None of us want to limit your (scare quotes) free speech. Hate speech isn't the same as free speech. And these days there's a lot of dangerous misinformation floating around out there doncha know. I just think Musk oughta do something about all that and if he won't then - the people want us to step in ya know?"
I went and did a little more reading on this and one thing I’m seeing is that they’re trying to say this is necessary because a lot of minorities don’t feel comfortable reporting potential hate crimes to the police because they don’t trust the police. I suspect this is going to become more common as an argument/excuse: “oppressed groups don’t trust the police (part of the government) so we need to enable our new human rights department (still part of the government) to track people’s speech so oppressed groups are still protected.” When in every case the remit of the “trustworthy” bit of government is always going to be wider than the “untrustworthy” bit of government, precisely because the latter deals with things actually passed into statute as crimes while the former can just make up what it deals with. And our rights to speech, privacy, and so forth shrink a little bit more, with probably the added bonus of them being able to borrow the “it’s not a criminal trial so you don’t need due process protections” claim from college Title IX departments.
I actually know a Democratic state rep in Minnesota. I had to watch this video to make sure it wasn’t the one I know. It’s not, but I’m going to be asking the one I know what their opinion is on this.
"Well er uh, obviously we've gotta follow the constitution ya know. But we don't want people, er... you know - going around saying the (scare quotes) N-word or denying the holocaust. You know what I'm talking about. Governing is a balancing act ya know. None of us want to limit your (scare quotes) free speech. Hate speech isn't the same as free speech. And these days there's a lot of dangerous misinformation floating around out there doncha know. I just think Musk oughta do something about all that and if he won't then - the people want us to step in ya know?"
I went and did a little more reading on this and one thing I’m seeing is that they’re trying to say this is necessary because a lot of minorities don’t feel comfortable reporting potential hate crimes to the police because they don’t trust the police. I suspect this is going to become more common as an argument/excuse: “oppressed groups don’t trust the police (part of the government) so we need to enable our new human rights department (still part of the government) to track people’s speech so oppressed groups are still protected.” When in every case the remit of the “trustworthy” bit of government is always going to be wider than the “untrustworthy” bit of government, precisely because the latter deals with things actually passed into statute as crimes while the former can just make up what it deals with. And our rights to speech, privacy, and so forth shrink a little bit more, with probably the added bonus of them being able to borrow the “it’s not a criminal trial so you don’t need due process protections” claim from college Title IX departments.
In other words...they want to create a secret police force who's goal is to benefit one racial group by persecuting another racial group.
Is there any point where compassion and empathy...isn't immediately seen as weakness to be exploited?