thank you for correcting me but ultimately still proving my original point. Which for the intents and purposes of this discussion you cant really say whatever the fuck you want. It has been this way for a long time.
Well of course, we have laws that limit speech, or rather, define what free speech is, limiting it to forms of expression, redress of grievances and so on. There's a large range of statements that do not qualify as such, including libel and defamation, incitement and so on. The problem here is that the terms mentioned in the legislation are not normally classified as prohibited speech. The Constitution, or the law in general, is not designed to protect people from being offended - offensive speech must necessarily be permissible in order for speech to be free in aggregate. I object to the idea that speech should be banned strictly on the premise of
"being offensive" or
"derogatory" - being offensive isn't illegal, it's merely frowned upon. Besides, the idea of what is and is not offensive is nebulous, subjective and impossible to define. The law does not exist to protect people's feelings, it exists to protect their rights. Legislation like this legitimises bizarre oxymorons like
"undocumented migrant" which make me personally sigh and shake my head. It's a weird form of Orwellian
"newspeak" that we've been warned about in the past, and it never led to anything good. It's forced upon the public as opposed to developing naturally, I consider it a state intervention in language. The correct legal term is, and always has been,
"illegal alien". Whether the term is used in a derogatory fashion or not is irrelevant to me - so long as the speech doesn't purposefully incite an
immediate unlawful action, like for instance a lynching, it should be permissible. We might not like it, but I personally prefer bigots to advertise themselves as such. If all it takes for someone to assume that another person is an illegal alien is a turban or a slightly different shade of skin, they're the assholes. There are social penalties for this kind of behaviour, the state is overstepping its boundaries by effectively creating a thought crime policy. It's certainly an interesting subject with lots to unpack, I can understand both sides of the issue.