Total bull. A speech cannot be prejudged to be hate by a small group of individuals and blocked from public dissemination so that it can never be actually seen and analysed by all communities. There is always a route to respond after exposure.
When a small group whose workings and decision making process r not exposed and answerable to the people secretly decide to block something claiming it’s a hate speech we have no way of knowing whether they have any reasonable basis to do so or they are pushing their own biases.
Once something is in the public domain it can always be challenged by those affronted. The legal as well as media routes are open. The power to decide what is “hate” cannot be given over to opaque groups depriving people of chance to judge for themselves. That’s dictatorship.
This is a cynically abusive dangerous attempt at usurpation of power bypassing the democratic engagement and a blatant attempt at ideological hegemony by “trustees” who want immunity from all challenges to their stranglehold on power without being representative of the people.
In the particular case, is the advocate claiming that successful IAS/IPS officers from allegedly hated community can’t defend and challenge the claims of the TV channel by data? What is so scary in numbers being put out that can be challenged with numbers and authentic sources?
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.