As a white person who’s worked in blue collar industries, I’ve often had discussions with other (usually white) co-workers about “why do black people get so upset about the N-word, it’s just a word, you can call me anything you want and I won’t care”.
Through much trial and error, I eventually discovered that “Okay, Colonizer” was a very effective way to challenge that assertion, though it was usually met with “BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT >:{” rather than “Oh, I understand now”. I’m sure “Okay, racist” would have had a similarly potent effect.
The point that I’m getting at here is that this is basically Florida scrambling to protect white fragility. Laws that protect but don’t bind the in group, etc. etc.
In the era of social media it’s become common for someone’s racism views posted on their personal social media to get forwarded to their professional relationships (employer, clients) leading to fallout, for example.
This is an attempt at stifling that sort of thing. When this first started the people on the receiving end complained about ‘freedom of speech’.
They where told freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences.
This is Floridas attempt at getting rid of the consequences by silencing free speech, ironically.
Isn’t truth a complete defense against defamation? As in, if your statement is provably true then it is by definition not defamation (like, this is why the news makes such heavy use of the word “alleged”). So, for example, forwarding someone’s personal social media to their employer couldn’t be defamation, presuming you weren’t claiming someone else’s social media was theirs or something. Always make sure when you dox someone you get the right John Smith, I guess?
The grey area this law attempts to exploit is that terms like ‘racist’ have no absolute definition. The term can be used as a response to anything from ‘i don’t like Indian food’ to ‘Hilters views on the aryan race were right’.
Take the Indian food example. If you were you say that, and I called you a racist for it, is that a matter of opinion on my behalf or a fact that is the basis of a defamation suit?
As a white person who’s worked in blue collar industries, I’ve often had discussions with other (usually white) co-workers about “why do black people get so upset about the N-word, it’s just a word, you can call me anything you want and I won’t care”.
Through much trial and error, I eventually discovered that “Okay, Colonizer” was a very effective way to challenge that assertion, though it was usually met with “BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT >:{” rather than “Oh, I understand now”. I’m sure “Okay, racist” would have had a similarly potent effect.
The point that I’m getting at here is that this is basically Florida scrambling to protect white fragility. Laws that protect but don’t bind the in group, etc. etc.
It’s less to protect white fragility, and more to censor anyone “woke” from talking about racism — same as banning books, changing history, CRT, etc.
It’s about implementing fascism.
In the era of social media it’s become common for someone’s racism views posted on their personal social media to get forwarded to their professional relationships (employer, clients) leading to fallout, for example.
This is an attempt at stifling that sort of thing. When this first started the people on the receiving end complained about ‘freedom of speech’.
They where told freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences.
This is Floridas attempt at getting rid of the consequences by silencing free speech, ironically.
Isn’t truth a complete defense against defamation? As in, if your statement is provably true then it is by definition not defamation (like, this is why the news makes such heavy use of the word “alleged”). So, for example, forwarding someone’s personal social media to their employer couldn’t be defamation, presuming you weren’t claiming someone else’s social media was theirs or something. Always make sure when you dox someone you get the right John Smith, I guess?
Yes, truth is a defense.
The grey area this law attempts to exploit is that terms like ‘racist’ have no absolute definition. The term can be used as a response to anything from ‘i don’t like Indian food’ to ‘Hilters views on the aryan race were right’.
Take the Indian food example. If you were you say that, and I called you a racist for it, is that a matter of opinion on my behalf or a fact that is the basis of a defamation suit?