What about the image where the woman is being fisted, apparently through the guts, until she pukes? You don't have to support us queers to have a problem with that.
...ethnic minority is the third. Apparently you can say anything hateful and violent based on gender/gender expression/sexual orientation and it is not hate speech. Nevermind that in a workplace or business it would be considered sexual harassment and creating a hostile environment and is illegal.
That image is pure woman-hate and I didn't choose to see it. It's sole purpose in being posted was to make women feel unsafe for the gratification of the poster. And I didn't consent to that.
California, I believe, also acknowledges hatespeech based on gender and sexual orientation, and possibly age and disability, but those two are rare. (Nobody says "we should kill all those stupid Social Security leeches over 65.")
Federal hate speech laws are fairly limited; California's are more extensive. However, "hate speech" doesn't mean "speech about hating _____," but incitement to violence or possibly other crimes based on protected category (race, religion, etc.)
The interesting twist in LJ's "hatespeech" interp is whether they allow the same hateful-to-women speech if it's obviously directed at teenage women... which would bring it into their "harm against minors" rule. If it could possibly be interpreted that way, it should be--'cos that's how they're interpreting "pictures of minors."
Reply
I think maybe race, religion, and..?
Reply
Reply
That image is pure woman-hate and I didn't choose to see it. It's sole purpose in being posted was to make women feel unsafe for the gratification of the poster. And I didn't consent to that.
Reply
Federal hate speech laws are fairly limited; California's are more extensive. However, "hate speech" doesn't mean "speech about hating _____," but incitement to violence or possibly other crimes based on protected category (race, religion, etc.)
The interesting twist in LJ's "hatespeech" interp is whether they allow the same hateful-to-women speech if it's obviously directed at teenage women... which would bring it into their "harm against minors" rule. If it could possibly be interpreted that way, it should be--'cos that's how they're interpreting "pictures of minors."
(IANAL;TINLA)
Reply
Leave a comment