• sarjalim
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We already have that law, so the only thing up for debate is interpretation? Which legal experts are busy with debating now in public discourse in Swedish media, with no clear consensus except that it should be tried in court. I understand what you mean by slippery slope, but if everything is a slippery slope we would never be able to legislate anything. And let me remind you, both Sweden and the US have already imposed certain limits to the right to free speech. Defamation, for example, is not protected speech.

    I disagree that a public school isn’t a public place, but you’re technically right. It doesn’t really matter in the eyes of the Swedish law though, arguably it would be worse legally if the student had carved the swastika on a public playground outside, rather then in a semi-public spot in a school.

    • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      My mistake, I thought he was proposing a change / new law. I personally just disagree with that law then, I don’t think that creeds should be protected from hateful messages. Unless the messages amount to harassment or breaking another existing, more general law, I don’t necessarily see the issue it’s solving.

      • sarjalim
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No problem. It’s good to have well reasoned, civilized debates- we don’t have to agree at the end!