I wouldn’t use this language myself because I am not ready to defend that it is reasonable to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this context.
I think that they might be referring to Article 1, and possibly 5.
If this is their interpretation, then calling someone a worthless piece of trash is also a violation. You are talking to another human being as if they have less dignity, and you are treating them in a cruel and degrading manner.
Article 1 states that we should “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”
Which, I totally agree with. However if that was the definition for violation of human rights then essentially everyone in the world is constantly having their human rights violated because not everyone gets treated as a brother by everyone. This definition would be broad enough to be meaningless, I believe. Even though I agree we should love our fellow man and treat him with respect.
Article 5 I see more of an argument for, but I think even there is lacking. It says “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
For one, it’s clear that the context is in POW / criminal treatments. However let’s expand the broadness of this statement and say that perhaps using a racial slur is degrading. It’s open to interpretation but let’s follow the thread.
Would me making fun of Donald Trump’s hair be considered degrading? I would say so. Am I violating his human rights? I don’t think so.
If I am criticizing someone by calling them a tyrant, is it degrading? Well, it is open to interpretation.
I recognize you specifically said you are not arguing for this because you are not prepared to defend it - because you recognize it’s an overreach.
Freedom of speech is a critical part of having a free society. If we get rid of free speech to protect others, we are simply throwing away our free society for one where speech will inevitably be tightly regulated. We are heading down a dangerous road.
I would never call someone a racial slur because I believe that all races are equal. However I do not think government should be restricting hateful speech. If we believe in free speech, then we must defend it precisely when someone is making abhorrent speech. Because otherwise, we don’t believe in free speech at all. A wise man said that, one who went through the Holocaust. I am with him 100%
There is an entire category of laws called “hate crimes” which are to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. In many European jurisdictions this even is expanded to include speech.
If I key your car, I get one sentence. If I key your car and write a racial slur targeting your ethnicity or race, I get a more serious one. That much is true even in the United States.
So it’s not a false dichotomy but a real distinction we make in our legal systems. One which I agree with in the context of hate crimes but I don’t agree with in the context of hate speech.
And I’m totally fine with that. I’m asking why is one apparently a violation of humans rights and the other isn’t.
I wouldn’t use this language myself because I am not ready to defend that it is reasonable to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in this context.
I think that they might be referring to Article 1, and possibly 5.
If this is their interpretation, then calling someone a worthless piece of trash is also a violation. You are talking to another human being as if they have less dignity, and you are treating them in a cruel and degrading manner.
Article 1 states that we should “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”
Which, I totally agree with. However if that was the definition for violation of human rights then essentially everyone in the world is constantly having their human rights violated because not everyone gets treated as a brother by everyone. This definition would be broad enough to be meaningless, I believe. Even though I agree we should love our fellow man and treat him with respect.
Article 5 I see more of an argument for, but I think even there is lacking. It says “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
For one, it’s clear that the context is in POW / criminal treatments. However let’s expand the broadness of this statement and say that perhaps using a racial slur is degrading. It’s open to interpretation but let’s follow the thread.
Would me making fun of Donald Trump’s hair be considered degrading? I would say so. Am I violating his human rights? I don’t think so.
If I am criticizing someone by calling them a tyrant, is it degrading? Well, it is open to interpretation.
I recognize you specifically said you are not arguing for this because you are not prepared to defend it - because you recognize it’s an overreach.
Freedom of speech is a critical part of having a free society. If we get rid of free speech to protect others, we are simply throwing away our free society for one where speech will inevitably be tightly regulated. We are heading down a dangerous road.
I would never call someone a racial slur because I believe that all races are equal. However I do not think government should be restricting hateful speech. If we believe in free speech, then we must defend it precisely when someone is making abhorrent speech. Because otherwise, we don’t believe in free speech at all. A wise man said that, one who went through the Holocaust. I am with him 100%
Because that false dichotomy only exists in your brain.
There is an entire category of laws called “hate crimes” which are to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. In many European jurisdictions this even is expanded to include speech.
If I key your car, I get one sentence. If I key your car and write a racial slur targeting your ethnicity or race, I get a more serious one. That much is true even in the United States.
So it’s not a false dichotomy but a real distinction we make in our legal systems. One which I agree with in the context of hate crimes but I don’t agree with in the context of hate speech.