|
Killer robot posted:So what I get out of this is that we could allow restrictions on speech, but apply some scrutiny to them. Maybe be a bit strict about it or something. It would be an interesting experiment. It's almost like no other countries have tried varying levels of free speech so we have nothing to learn but many hypotheticals to share. Who knows what is right? Truly, we can never know anything outside of what is happening now because now is all there is. Here and now. Everything else is abstraction at best or otherwise un-American.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Look guys, I think we should be really careful about this anti free speech slippery slope. If I can't express my opinion by screaming at teenage women through a bullhorn that they deserve to be raped, what's next? Gulags? Not in my America, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It seems like you are combining a fetish for Constitutionalism coupled with American Exceptionalism. That's as American as peanut butter and jelly, so I get you. Ytlaya posted:It just feels like a large reason this extremely pro-free-speech attitude exists is because, almost by definition, the mainstream wouldn't be affected by the most harmful types of speech. Like, if you're some wealthy white person you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing unrestricted speech. No, I'm elaborating on a basic defense of free speech in the most mild anarchist-leftist tradition, and recognizing the legal mechanisms which reinforce it in the US: the 1st amendment of the constitution and it's broad interpretation. Free speech has historically been a vital tool for activism and leftist political organization, and the history of suppression of those movements in the US is a history of the suppression of free speech. The first forms of free speech to go are always dissident speech. Even hate speech laws will be constructed because the powerful find them too counter-cultural. The mainstream GOP, for example, broadly opposes neo-nazism, even though nazism is a right-wing movement theoretically. That consensus can very easily slide in the opposite direction, especially in times of emergency. Look at the way possession of Islamist literature is used in investigations of terrorism. It is very easy for the reasonable to be made unreasonable with enough intent. When you look at defense of free speech in the US, it's not a defense of conservative values, it's a defense of pornography, of art, of literature and music; the defense of communists, flag burners, black panthers, homosexuals, blasphemers, and dissidents generally. I'm looking at lists of notable prosecutions under hate speech laws, and none of it really portrays them in a good light. In France it appears to be mostly failed attempts to suppress works of art/media: against The Satanic Verses, against promotional media of The People Versus Larry Flint, The Last Temptation of Christ, an ad that looked too much like the Last Supper, a sacrilegous depiction of Christ, Charlie Hebdo, Bob Dylan for inciting racial hatred against Croats??
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Look guys, I think we should be really careful about this anti free speech slippery slope. If I can't express my opinion by screaming at teenage women through a bullhorn that they deserve to be raped, what's next? Gulags? Not in my America, buddy. Believe it or not, laws actually have to be written with some underlying objective principles which can be inevitably applied in ways that the authors (who in this case will, of course, be forthright and noble progressives) had not foreseen. You can't just make a law that says "Guys with beards are not allowed to be gross on college campuses", as nice as that might be for that specific situation. Like, ya'll realize that Muslim student groups are being infiltrated by police agents intent on finding and intercepting radical muslims? There is a massive authoritarian wave happening in America right now. Free speech and free association are already very much under assault. If you want to just shrug your shoulders and dismiss that, okay, but don't pretend that you're taking a leftist position, that college kids don't have to deal with radical conservatives saying offensive things to them. It's not about gulags. It's about gay pride parades and protests and sit-ins and OWS and Ferguson and Selma. Yeesh. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
So, in functioning democracies you have failed attempts at suppressing speech. This leads to a kind of selection bias. It's in the same vein as "Why are people protesting this white person who killed a black person (and got away Scott free) when this black person killed a white person (and was convicted and spending a million lifetimes in prison)? Who is the real hypocrite?" It's more of an ancap position than anything. Good luck buddy, fly that poop flag. Bell, Jeannine (Summer 2009). "Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights.". Indiana Law Journal 84: 963–979. Was the first decent reference I found after two seconds of searching. If the best you can find are poo poo tier negative examples maybe you should figure out how to use the internet better? Or at least not fall for libertarian click bait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
The fact that your apparent twitch reaction is to attempt to paint me as a loving arch-conservative because I identify with OWS, BLM, Noam Chomsky, and MLK on issues of free speech in the US is depressing and seriously obnoxious. Good lord. While you're searching the internet, you might want to read about the history of protest and free speech in the US beyond, like, the past 8 years. Also, reality check: wealth and power is not behind the dude with the beard and the gross signs screaming on a college campus. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:The fact that your apparent twitch reaction is to attempt to paint me as a loving arch-conservative because I identify with OWS, BLM, Noam Chomsky, and MLK on issues of free speech in the US is depressing and seriously obnoxious. Good lord. While you're searching the internet, you might want to read about the history of protest and free speech in the US beyond, like, the past 8 years. I'm 90% with you, but for this: Wealth and power might not be with the spite-driven loon with signs, but the zeitgeist certainly is. The hottest rising conservative figure basically does the same thing but inside campus auditoriums and getting paid for it, and they got their dream presidential candidate while the Wealth and Power basically crwned embarrassing duds and are now sort of scratching their heads and looking at each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:The fact that your apparent twitch reaction is to attempt to paint me as a loving arch-conservative because I identify with OWS, BLM, Noam Chomsky, and MLK on issues of free speech in the US is depressing and seriously obnoxious. Good lord. While you're searching the internet, you might want to read about the history of protest and free speech in the US beyond, like, the past 8 years. You have all this history but somehow the law needs to be based on the Constitution and the American experience. You don't need history, you need context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
This photo was taken shortly before all protest, art and leftist political thought was stamped out forever
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
why do they always have that hideous bowl haircut?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This photo was taken shortly before all protest, art and leftist political thought was stamped out forever If you seriously can't figure out how your ideological opponents could use restrictions on free speech you advocated for against you, you don't have the right disposition for politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:why do they always have that hideous bowl haircut? That's how the police man knew where to find the Nazis, it's as good as a swastika armband, a bowl cut
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:No, I'm elaborating on a basic defense of free speech in the most mild anarchist-leftist tradition, and recognizing the legal mechanisms which reinforce it in the US: the 1st amendment of the constitution and it's broad interpretation. Free speech has historically been a vital tool for activism and leftist political organization, and the history of suppression of those movements in the US is a history of the suppression of free speech. Speech has also historically been a vital tool for oppressing minorities. Also, I don't really care about the constitution; I'm discussing things from the perspective of "is this a good idea that would have a net benefit to society." I'm not arguing that restrictions on free speech are necessarily a good idea. It's entirely possible that it really isn't ever helpful to do so. I just notice that there's a knee-jerk assumption that free speech is this wonderful thing that must be defended at all costs, when in reality it has its pros and cons just like anything else. If asked to give some examples of speech that should be restricted, I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head. I just think that it's a discussion worth having and shouldn't be shut-down by default. Keeshhound posted:If you seriously can't figure out how your ideological opponents could use restrictions on free speech you advocated for against you, you don't have the right disposition for politics. While this being a serious concern is a legitimate argument, our legal system is capable of judging things on a case by case basis and taking context into account. I don't think that banning neo-nazi speech necessarily means that all other forms of political speech are also vulnerable to being banned. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Eh historically conservatives have never needed precedent from progressives when they've wanted to jail people for pacifism, sedition, for going to labor meetings, or for distributing abolitionist literature or any other speech that's been banned before. If they get control of the courts again they absolutely will start rubber-stamping those laws just like they did before, this idea that we'll win their respect by tolerating hate speech and then they'll return it by not jailing their political opponents like they always do is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with getting the respect of your political opponents and everything to do with not just handing them the tools they need to supress dissent. Seriously, show me legislation that's strong enough to protect minorities, but limited enough that it can't be used to supress them next time power changes hands (because it will, that's how democracies work.) We're currently staring down the very real (if still improbable) possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Don't think about this topic in terms of how you and like-minded people could use hate speech laws for good, think of it in terms of how he'd use them; literally the worst case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
When power changes hands conservatives will appoint right-wing hacks to the supreme court who will write "oh yeah criticizing the war kills people just as sure as shouting fire in a crowded theater, lock 'em up for public safety" just like they did before. And sure I'll show you legislation that's powerful enough to suppress Nazis: the anti-Nazi provisions in the German constitution. Will it prevent the Nazis from suppressing dissent if they somehow get into power anyway, no of course not, nothing will because Nazis don't respect constitutional protections which is why the solution is to not put them in power in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
No, you need to understand that the only country that exists in America. The only legal system that exists is The Constitution. The only party that exists is the eternal Republican Party. I am a leftist and these are the views of OWS, JFK, MLK, Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield. These are normal opinions, why can't you just meet me at least halfway you loving worthless piece of poo poo. I bet you are a racist Bernie Bro. God bless America and White Power!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I thought the justification for hate speech laws like Germany and France have is just that it's bad PR for the country?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:You can't just make a law that says "Guys with beards are not allowed to be gross on college campuses", as nice as that might be for that specific situation. Yes you can, you just need the right mix of legislative and executive control. See: "In God We Trust"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
So clearly I click on too many youtube links from this (and other) threads around here. This showed up on my suggested videos feed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHrI7W3WCQ "D'Souza Obliterates Leftist Professor During Q&A Session" by Dinesh D'Souza -- I feel dumber after watching this; enjoy! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:If you seriously can't figure out how your ideological opponents could use restrictions on free speech you advocated for against you, you don't have the right disposition for politics. this is actually trivial to counter tho? in Germany you can't make the hitler salute, how in the world can my political opponents turn this against me (hint: I'm not a neonazi)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I thought the justification for hate speech laws like Germany and France have is just that it's bad PR for the country? Not really, no. The concept of personal honour and dignity is a pretty big deal in german jurisprudence (dating back to Prussian times, I think), and so there are laws to protect against having that violated. It's literally the very first article of the Grundgesetz/constitution: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/738190463820304384 He'd rather berate and attack the trans population until they end their life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Not really, no. The concept of personal honour and dignity is a pretty big deal in german jurisprudence (dating back to Prussian times, I think), and so there are laws to protect against having that violated. It's literally the very first article of the Grundgesetz/constitution: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." I didn't know that, that's interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/738190463820304384 While he was writing that tweet, 12 million babies were aborted. Why doesn't he care about the aborted babies anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When power changes hands conservatives will appoint right-wing hacks to the supreme court who will write "oh yeah criticizing the war kills people just as sure as shouting fire in a crowded theater, lock 'em up for public safety" just like they did before. Yeah conservatives have shown that it doesn't take much for them to go mad with power and hate speech laws aren't going to be the thing that allows them to legally start abusing people. They have entire think tanks and legal teams designing ways to get around legal protections and conservative SCOTUS Justices have no ethical issues with ruling on policies they have been trying to destroy before getting to the bench (John Roberts on the VRA or Scalia and his obvious racism). I think there's an important debate to be had on the balance of free speech vs speech that harms people (and the current anti-trans stuff is a good example of speech that is designed to get people to start assaulting minorities which not technically calling for it) and I don't know where the line is, but saying that the other side is going to abuse it when they get in power doesn't win me over. If they are going to abuse their power for evil, they are going to just do it themselves and don't need a preexisting law to start making it illegal to speak out against them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
So since we're talking about hate speech laws, what are people's thoughts about the French banning the burqa and other religious symbols, since that's also a restriction on speech?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Radish posted:
Is it not obvious to people that in order to pass any sort of meaningful hate speech legislation you'd need to gut the first ammendment, which has historically been one of the strongest protections against the abuses you're referring to? It's not just that any hate speech legislation you pass can and will be abused, it's that passing it requires weakening protections for everyone. And no one's been able to give an example of hate speech legislation that actually significantly inhibits racist ideologies; we've been discussing that problem here for months with the US Right's use of dog whistles. If you legislate it so that people can't say "friend of the family," they'll say "thug" instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
I think the American political arena doesn't usually like having "people can't say [x]" as an end in itself. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because there are measurable impacts on other people that it's our business to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:as a white dude... gently caress white dudes. 800peepee51doodoo posted:This photo was taken shortly before all protest, art and leftist political thought was stamped out forever Literally the opposite of US cops. edit Levantine posted:While he was writing that tweet, 12 million babies were aborted. Why doesn't he care about the aborted babies anymore? This should be the response to every one of Walsh's tweets going forward. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:And no one's been able to give an example of hate speech legislation that actually significantly inhibits racist ideologies; we've been discussing that problem here for months with the US Right's use of dog whistles. If you legislate it so that people can't say "friend of the family," they'll say "thug" instead. alright I missed this, how does the German anti nazi legislation not significantly inhibit nazies? apologies if this actually has been discussed for months
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Germany's an interesting example to pick - arn't they prosecuting a comedian for lese majeste against Turkey's Erdogan?Chantilly Say posted:I think the American political arena doesn't usually like having "people can't say [x]" as an end in itself. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because there are measurable impacts on other people that it's our business to prevent. When this phrase gets used, it's important to remember it was originally in the context of a SCOTUS case involving anti-war speech during WW1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Germany's an interesting example to pick - arn't they prosecuting a comedian for lese majeste against Turkey's Erdogan? You don't even have to go that far; Germany still has neonazis, they just don't wear swastikas or do the salute. (Apparently many of them dress like hipsters.) Because, as I'd thought everyone but freep knew, racism isn't the words you say or the symbols you use, it's the core belief that a there are real disparities in ability and character that can be determined by broad physical characteristics. And guess what, the US does have legislation against that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:alright I missed this, how does the German anti nazi legislation not significantly inhibit nazies? apologies if this actually has been discussed for months How does it? Like I said, I've always seen it presented as "you can't be a Nazi in public because that's distasteful and it makes the rest of us look bad" and not as something that has a more tangible effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Levantine posted:While he was taking another poo poo on the floor, 12 million babies were aborted. Why doesn't he care about the aborted babies or using the correct bathroom anymore? Let's mix and match his history for the most effective attacks. Crabtree fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Germany's an interesting example to pick - arn't they prosecuting a comedian for lese majeste against Turkey's Erdogan? Yes. quote:When this phrase gets used, it's important to remember it was originally in the context of a SCOTUS case involving anti-war speech during WW1. Also yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:How does it? Like I said, I've always seen it presented as "you can't be a Nazi in public because that's distasteful and it makes the rest of us look bad" and not as something that has a more tangible effect. I think I may have misunderstood your position, you also can't be a Nazi in private, and the tangible effects are you can go to jail for being a Nazi in public or private.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:I think I may have misunderstood your position, you also can't be a Nazi in private, and the tangible effects are you can go to jail for being a Nazi in public or private. Yeah sorry, I was posting on the bus there and forgot that it actually covers being a literal Nazi because of the significance of actual party membership during postwar German history. So imagine I said "Notzi" instead, because I don't think that forcing Nazis to rebrand themselves has very much of an impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:I think I may have misunderstood your position, you also can't be a Nazi in private, and the tangible effects are you can go to jail for being a Nazi in public or private. There have been plenty of Nazis in private, one of them used to be the head of the FIA. Why do you hate successful private Nazis? Why do you want to punish success?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Xanderkish posted:So since we're talking about hate speech laws, what are people's thoughts about the French banning the burqa and other religious symbols, since that's also a restriction on speech? While it's implementation is imperfect, laïcité is more good than bad. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 15:44
|
|