Dan Roodt immediately predicted that the Penny Sparrow case was a classic Communist Potemkin (false flag). How do I know this? Because many, many reactions I saw to the “post” either supported her or used words starting with the 11th and 14th letters of the alphabet. These accounts are still on Facebook/Twitter and are real as far as I can discern. Why have we not heard about complaints against these people ? Why have there never been complaints against Mike Smith or Steve Hofmeyr? If there is such a thing as “hate speech” (which there isn’t) they would be prime targets for years and years of “racist” viewpoints.
Friends, the people who support hate speech legislation, but not THIS hate speech legislation are the real culprits. Oh, I support limiting freedom of speech, but I do not support these drastic limitations. You can’t have it both ways folks. As Stefan Molyneux says: “A country either has free speech or it doesn’t.” This continent clearly doesn’t. The great irony of course is that the Internet offers almost limitless freedom, if you are willing to use a pseudonym. Countries that have tried to block websites (WW2 Revisionism in Germany and pornography in Saudi Arabia and Russia) have made themselves look like complete idiots, since a Grade 1 student can get past such blockades. Even if the blockade was successful, for every website blocked, there are 100 alternatives.
What history has taught me is this: If the state pushes people too far, bad things happen. 1) Putting someone in jail for a racist tweet is going to lead to social breakdown (since there are 100 other bastards who have just sent similar tweets and will never be prosecuted). 2) It is going to lead to REAL racism and ethnic hatred because we know that these laws will not be implemented across the board. Just today Julius Malema said after his court appearance :”We are not going to kill all the whites in this country… yet”. This man, as the leader of the unofficial opposition, is allowed to make such grotesque and dangerous statements without any threat of prosecution, but you Joe Blow are not allowed to use a slur or share a politically incorrect cartoon.
The worst outcome from our current situation is that this legislation will be tweaked in order to make it more “acceptable”. This will result in just enough wiggle room for arrogant “academics” like Pierre de Vos to humiliate any white/heterosexual/Western-minded person tweet after tweet, year after year, without ever seeing the inside of a court room.
Vicky M.
Rory Short
Objectively wrong speech is when a secondary characteristic of being human is given more weight, or relevance, than the fact that the person is human. A lot of comedy and ridicule seems to rely on such speech. On the other hand such speech is resorted to by people who intend that it should harm others. Is it possible to legislate in way which would clearly distinguish between these two to uses of such speech? I am not a lawyer but I do not think it is possible. This is not something to which law can be applied.
Vicky
I don’t believe it is possible.
Harald Sitta
Good you mentioned PdV >> go on my blog “Harald Franz Heinrich Sitta”. There you can find a piece of satire against him!