Without a doubt, what progressives seem to want from such laws is admirable. According to the Library of Parliament, the central motivator of hate-censors is their belief that penalizing such speech is necessary to protect vulnerable groups from harm. That is laudable, but the next step then is to establish causation between the words and the harm. They haven’t done that.
According to a new report from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration on hate crimes and online speech, there’s a reason why they haven’t. As the authors found, theories connecting the two “lack any definitive, or even much suggestive, empirical backing. No doubt people who commit hate crimes use social media… [but the research thus far] fails to demonstrate any causal relationship between increased social media use and increased violence.” So, with no benefits to hate-speech prohibitions, what is the actual point? A cynic might ask whether Trudeau simply intends to score points with the Marxist-leaning NDP. Or, divert attention from the poor vaccine rollout. Or, chill criticism of some of his policies.
While the bill hasn’t dropped, the response has so far been noticeably tepid. Considering we may be winding back one of our most cherished fundamental freedoms, it’s important to ask why. It’s hard to answer, but moral strong-arming coupled with a lack of political leadership probably explains a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment