寄稿者別フィルター 'MOLNAR Peter' 寄稿者 2 ポスト menuキーワードを使ってトピックを探す Academia (1)Access (4)Africa (1)Anonymity (6)Arab Spring (2)Art (8)Atheism (1)Australia (3)Blasphemy (7)Blogger (4)Brazil (2)Burma (1)Canada (2)Celebrity (2)Censorship (17)Charlie Hebdo (1)China (5)Christianity (6)Civility (20)Colonialism (1)Copyright (3)Corruption (1)Defamation (14)Democracy (14)Denialism (2)Discrimination (3)Education (8)Egypt (2)Exclusion (1)Facebook (3)Film (1)France (4)Freedom (18)Genocide (1)Germany (4)Google (2)Governance (4)Hate speech (6)Hinduism (1)History (12)Homosexuality (2)Humour (2)Hungary (1)Hunger strike (1)India (4)Internet (19)Internet companies (1)Islam (6)Japan (2)Journalism (11)Knowledge (14)Language (4)Latin America (3)Law (27)Lese majesty (1)Liberalism (6)Libya (1)Literature (2)Media (22)Memory laws (1)Middle East (3)Minorities (1)Money (6)Morality (3)Multiculturalism (4)National security (11)Net neutrality (8)New Zealand (1)Nudity (2)Occupy movement (1)Pakistan (1)Piracy (1)Politics (18)Pornography (5)Power (21)Privacy (15)Protest (8)Public Morality (8)Radio (1)Regulation (1)Religion (12)Reputation (11)Right to information (23)Satire (7)Science (4)Scientology (1)Secrecy (1)Social media (7)South Africa (3)Southeast Asia (1)Surveillance (2)Technology (14)Terrorism (2)Thailand (1)Turkey (3)Twitter (5)United Kingdom (9)United States (6)Violence (13)Whistleblowing (2)Wikipedia (1) ―危険な道具になりうるアイフォン― The speed and ubiquity of mobile devices have changed the context of “hate speech” online, writes Peter Molnar. Why hate speech should not be banned Restrictions on hate speech are not a means of tackling bigotry but of rebranding often obnoxious ideas or arguments are immoral, argues writer Kenan Malik.
―危険な道具になりうるアイフォン― The speed and ubiquity of mobile devices have changed the context of “hate speech” online, writes Peter Molnar.
Why hate speech should not be banned Restrictions on hate speech are not a means of tackling bigotry but of rebranding often obnoxious ideas or arguments are immoral, argues writer Kenan Malik.
