Let us go by the definition of `hate speech` as material that incites desire to, physically or otherwise, cause harm to a specific subject.
Does this book fall within this category? I have not read it for myself, but if what the others say about it merely presenting an argument against religion is true, then how can one fault the book? It attacks the idea but does not advocate bringing any form of harm to the proponents (presumably). It does not say, priests are bad, and ought to be shot.
Efox, on the other hand, wants the proponent of the ideas in the book punished. That is undoubtedly desire to harm a subject. He also makes known his desire in material posted on the internet. Who is guilty of `hate speech` now? |
|
