Big choc does your experience prove that censorship works either though? Those kids knew that they were not supposed to say those things due to the rules, which they ignored and break regardless. This is part of my point. They pushed against that and ignored it because they had no responsibility of their actions despite the rules.
The rules are too blunt an instrument alone. People do not respect them. Its about how you get people to respect those rules that underpin how effective they are.
It was only when those kids were held to account and told not to be dicks by society that they actually did change their behaviour. That has to be through social pressure as well as through the law. Otherwise the law ends up being challenged as 'wrong' even if its not.
This is partly why we have a wave of hate crime; people have lost respect for the law we do have and feel embolden enough to break them because they don't think people will report them or challenge their behaviour.
Free speech for society as a whole requires, society as a whole to believe in it, and to understand its weaknesses and dangers. Free speech is a responsibility as well as a right.
I think we need to be careful of the law, and yes I do think that we do need something but I also believe there are dangers in having laws which are too aggressive because the power of the state can abuse it and use it inappropriately too.
In terms of freedom of speech, society needs to step up more - and this includes whites who are very often blind to it - and say its wrong and tell people they are being dicks even if the law doesn't cover it, it still has consequences.
This is the missing thing right now. But the law can be a hindrance, if it is not respected by wider society as having value.
If you put a white English person in a situation where they are abused for their skin colour or nationality, it comes as one hell of a shock. Its not something they normally EVER come across. Its what breeds the arrogance. It is because of majority consensus. I think this is a huge part of the problem. Why did NI, Wales and Scot act differently? It was not just because of the difference in the political landscape in the regions. A huge part was due to identity.
I think you need to draw a line in saying that is ignorance and saying society must educate people in taking responsibility for their actions, rather than purely saying that is racism and it must be punished by the law as that just becomes draconian. I do think there are people who are just that blissfully naïve and protected from ever facing the effects of abuse their whole lives. They are the people who conform and fit in and don't ever stand out in anyway. They just don't get it, because they have never needed to or been exposed to it.
Instead what has happened post ref, is that people have been left off both needing to be held to account socially and via the rules alone. Ignorance has been legitimised as being ok socially and that in turn undermines respect for what laws there are from people who act out of hatred rather than ignorance.
The failure of society was the thing that led to your abuse to understand the power of words. Censorship did not protect you from those words. Censorship is supposed to stop things happening at all. Those actions still took place.
The law is only so much of a protection. It can always be changed. What matters is society and how they react to people who are dicks.
Hence why I am hesitate of censorship. I think it also lulls people into a false sense of security and into a mind set where it is not for them to stand up and make the point that things that are said are wrong. That's the job of the law and not them. It can allow people to abdicate their responsibility to protect freedom of speech - which includes challenging speech which may make people less willing to speak up and use their voice.
I hope that clarifies my point. I think its one that's difficult to explain well.