Legal censorship lets anti-racists abandon open argument against prejudice
Evidence
The consequence of challenging bigotry through censorship also leads ‘anti-racists into a false comfort zone, where it feels like the basic arguments against prejudice no longer need to be put’, as the journalist Paul Mason (2014) has put it. It helps absolve us, in other words, of the responsibility of tackling such ideas openly and robustly. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 675
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Giving up the right to offend forfeits the power to challenge injustice. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 661; Censoring bigotry makes opponents complacent and shirks the work of countering it. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 680; Free speech serves the powerless while censorship protects the powerful — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 656 (+2 more)
Related
- Censoring bigotry makes opponents complacent and shirks the work of countering it. (similarity 0.91)
- Giving up the right to offend forfeits the power to challenge injustice. (similarity 0.87)
- Anti-racists’ expansion of ‘hatred’ legitimizes state censorship of minorities (similarity 0.84)
- Free speech serves the powerless while censorship protects the powerful (similarity 0.82)
- Hateful criticism should be answered politically, not legally (similarity 0.82)
- Hate speech censorship contributes to the rise of anti-Muslim parties (similarity 0.80)
- Bigoted speech should be countered morally and politically, not legally. (similarity 0.79)