|
Maneck posted:It isn't a good example. NAMBLA advocating their positions is actually a crime in Canada. Just advocating for sexual relations between adults and children is a violation of the criminal code. Which flies in the face of "free speech" the right likes to champion. It's going to create a lot more problems than anything it's trying to solve, and our constitution doesn't support it anyway. Also I'm pretty sure if nazis can skirt hate speech laws, NAMBLA's going to be able to figure out how to skirt the laws prohibiting them explicitly talking about pedophilia. Just throwing that out there. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Mar 3, 2019 |
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm going to say that the NAMBLA comparison is in fact valid, because both Nazis and pedophiles should be criminalized and made to gently caress off and die. Don't we already have these laws though? Like we have clearly defined laws for hate speech or inciting others to violence. If some faith goldy type is actually advocating for violence or crime then they would be penalized if they spoke here. Right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Don't we already have these laws though? Like we have clearly defined laws for hate speech or inciting others to violence. If some faith goldy type is actually advocating for violence or crime then they would be penalized if they spoke here. Right? Go look up how many times the hate speech law has actually been enforced. Im sure one of our resident lawyers could explain it way better but as far as Im aware the law was written hastily and is either too vague or has too many exceptions that make it nearly impossible to enforce, even on actual nazis like Faith Goldy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
The thing about Goldy, Spencer, Levant, et. al. is they know how to toe the line re: hate speech. They say things that foment hatred against identifiable minority groups without actually calling for violence. It's all very junior debate club because everyone knows drat well what the intent is, but as long as they don't cross the line into explicit hate speech it's not illegal. No platforming works in that it denies them the ability to do that in public forums, but you get the pearl clutching over "free speech".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
It's the soapboxing equivalent of "just asking questions." Everyone knows what they are doing and it's not technically illegal even if they're blatantly thumbing their nose at people and winking so hard their eyelids get embedded in their cheekbones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:tagesschau bursts in to the thread panting, visibly out of breath This, but neither panting nor visibly out of breath. Let me know who, anywhere, thinks pulling a fire alarm or similar in order to disrupt a speaker who you dislike, and who legitimately reserved the meeting space in which they are holding their sycophant convention, is free speech. The answer is "nobody with a shred of knowledge about the subject." If you're in favor of using mob rule to enforce the correctness of your opinion, at least have the decency to identify yourself as a fascist and save the rest of us time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Lmao shut the gently caress up nazi defender
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
It's a joke friend, playful ribbing, please accept it in the spirit in which it was intended. e: THC is probably not joking though
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
THC posted:Let me be a fascist in peace
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:This, but neither panting nor visibly out of breath. Let me know who, anywhere, thinks pulling a fire alarm or similar in order to disrupt a speaker who you dislike, and who legitimately reserved the meeting space in which they are holding their sycophant convention, is free speech. The answer is "nobody with a shred of knowledge about the subject." Paradox of tolerance. Freedom of speech doesn't absolve you from the consequences of that speech, if it happens to be the majority drowning out that speech then maybe do it in a safer space like youtube or have a nice Nazi google hangout session. Otherwise, gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Love to be a white straight man and call people “fascists” for nonviolently protecting themselves and their communities from actual fascists
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:This, but neither panting nor visibly out of breath. Let me know who, anywhere, thinks pulling a fire alarm or similar in order to disrupt a speaker who you dislike, and who legitimately reserved the meeting space in which they are holding their sycophant convention, is free speech. The answer is "nobody with a shred of knowledge about the subject." "Let them be fascists in peace  " is basically what you're saying here, so I don't know what point you think you're making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Paradox of tolerance. This is a tricky topic. Using the word "majority" there is misleading. Does this change if it's a minority of people trying to deplatform someone, or is all that matters how effective it is? What if a bunch of nazis try and drown out some kind of gay pride speech? How do you establish that someone is the majority in these situations? If the majority of people believe a thing, does that mean it's right? There seems to be too many pitfalls to police this properly, which is why I think we should err on the side of free speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Hmm. Nuance and context are difficult to codify into law. Best to just let the kid diddlers and Nazis speak at universities then, in the interest of fairness, lest we enable a tyranny of the majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
edit: why am I talking about this
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
link the dril tweet about drunk driving and we're all done here
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Is there any legislation with actual text yet? All I've read so far is that universities must have a free speech policy with some fairly vague requirements, and that any universities violating these rather unspecific terms would have funding withheld proportional to the damage caused (which is basically zero). Meanwhile, UofT's reaction was that "we've had a free speech policy for nearly 20 years" so it doesn't sound like they're actually going to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Yeah, in this day and age I'd almost err on the side of "shut the gently caress up" instead of pro free speech. I'm sick of crazy religious nutjobs yelling about how gay marriage is going to cause us all to die while I try to make it through younge and dundas square. Not that the particular example is anything but hate speech that isn't enforced. edit: not to mention having to see dead babies for the pro-life protesters in front of hospitals. ugh vincentpricesboner fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
How to tell if you are an rear end in a top hat and your free speech should be curtailed. A primer. 1) Are you targeting a minority? 2) Do you want to take rights to be taken away from another group? 3) Do you feel your cultural values are clearly superior to another's? If so you are an rear end in a top hat and deserve to shut the gently caress up and be de-platformed in all instances. Thank you for reading my pamphlet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
lol wasn't some straight dude in this thread demanding gay/trans people let the police represent themselves during pride in the name of freeeeeee speeeeeeech like a month ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Paradox of tolerance. Stop repeating this like it's something other than a thought-terminating cliché. "When the mob whose politics align with mine does it, it's fine and good" is the same illogic as "when the president does it, it's not illegal." In other words, you might want to read your own pamphlet before you start handing it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Are you actually mad and arguing that racist/hate speech should not just be allowed but also protected from consequences?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Are you actually mad and arguing that racist/hate speech should not just be allowed but also protected from consequences? No, what I'm arguing is that private citizens do not have the right to enforce hate-speech laws they wish existed, and that deplatforming people in private spaces is trespassing and not the exercise of free speech so many people here apparently think it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Stop repeating this like it's something other than a thought-terminating cliché. "When the mob whose politics align with mine does it, it's fine and good" is the same illogic as "when the president does it, it's not illegal." Christ, look at the world around you. Populism on the backs of hating immigrants and scapegoating them for all the ills brought upon by globalization and the fleecing of the general public by the 1% is rearing its ugly head again and you're like "No, no, let them speak" apatheticman fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
I think they're saying "you can't legally stop them from speaking", which is different even if it's not necessarily a distinction you care about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Danaru posted:lol wasn't some straight dude in this thread demanding gay/trans people let the police represent themselves during pride in the name of freeeeeee speeeeeeech like a month ago you're gonna have to be more specific, there's a lot of those guys in this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:No, what I'm arguing is that private citizens do not have the right to enforce hate-speech laws they wish existed, and that deplatforming people in private spaces is trespassing and not the exercise of free speech so many people here apparently think it is. Hosting a talk at a university is not a private space. That is literally the entire justification for the whole "free speech on campus" argument in the first place. They receive public money and thus are required to follow the laws prohibiting government censorship. You can't have it both ways. You either accept that as a public event then people are completely within their rights to show up to protest, or you accept that as a private event the university is within its rights to simply tell the speakers to gently caress off, they won't be providing them a platform to spread their message.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:How to tell if you are an rear end in a top hat and your free speech should be curtailed. A primer. wow get a load of THIS facist propaganda m.. mods.. ???
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Hosting a talk at a university is not a private space. That is literally the entire justification for the whole "free speech on campus" argument in the first place. They receive public money and thus are required to follow the laws prohibiting government censorship. An event being open to the public doesn't mean anyone is permitted to show up and disrupt it without being kicked out by the organizer. And no, that's not government censorship—not even remotely—but picking and choosing which political messages you will provide these services for, while taking public funds, is. tagesschau fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Universities don't have a moral or legal imperative (as far as I know) to provide every random Nazi, charlatan, crank and general idiot with a platform to spew nonsense. Besides, public debates and lectures represent a tiny fraction of what universities do, so the suggestion that this is all about broadening the horizons of curious young minds is obvious bullshit. Grifters and con men can find other venues to spread their lies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:An event being open to the public doesn't mean anyone is permitted to show up and disrupt it without being kicked out by the organizer. And no, that's not government censorship—not even remotely—but picking and choosing which political messages you will provide these services for, while taking public funds, is. Believe it or not people already are subject to removal or arrest during disruptive acts of protest so I'm not really sure what more you think needs to be done
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
You're never going to punch a Nazi, please stop pretending you will. It's very hard to find fascists to punch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:You're never going to punch a Nazi, please stop pretending you will. It's very hard to find fascists to punch. who do you even think you're laying this sick own on???
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Universities don't have a moral or legal imperative (as far as I know) to provide every random Nazi, charlatan, crank and general idiot with a platform to spew nonsense. Besides, public debates and lectures represent a tiny fraction of what universities do, so the suggestion that this is all about broadening the horizons of curious young minds is obvious bullshit. the ancient aliens guy is being censored because universities won't let him give public lectures
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:who do you even think you're laying this sick own on??? I guess no one, you got me, BM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
Help the libs are censoring my very important craniology lectures
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
e: never mind, it's clear you don't understand the subject
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
As part of the never-ending garbage news coming out of Facebook, a leaked memo shows that the social media company strong-armed the Harper government into promising to not apply Canada's data privacy laws to a future Facebook datacentre. Facebook never got around to building that datacentre, but it's nice to see remember how spineless the Tories were. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-canada-data-pressure-1.5041063
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:08
|
|
|
Well, I'm sure the Liberals would have... ~*Looks at Waterfront TO, Sidewalk Labs, and the Quayside project*~ ...hmm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:No, what I'm arguing is that private citizens do not have the right to enforce hate-speech laws they wish existed, and that deplatforming people in private spaces is trespassing and not the exercise of free speech so many people here apparently think it is. Shut the gently caress up you loser Liberal centrist
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:05
|
|
