|
I regret this already. As an American, it's really bizarre to me to see most of the world making laws to protect their fee-fees and trigger warnings. Hate speech and blasphemy laws, in other words. From the American POV, the guiding bit of law is the Brandenburg Test. TL;DR unless I'm literally pointing at you telling my angry mob to light you on fire, it's almost certainly protected political speech. A pastor encouraging his flock not to vote to allow gays to adopt children because they're all evil socialist child rapists is protected in America and not most elsewhere in the first world. Or alternatively, calling God a loving joke and tipping my fedora is legal in America and the first world but not necessarily so in the developing world. It's really difficult for me to emphasize for international posters how much not in contention in America the supremacy of free speech is. Liberal, conservative, whatever, we have our disagreements but not on this one. Despite our hugely religious social tradition, nobody in America of any note wants blasphemy laws, if for no other reason than that they don't trust Uncle Sam to turn on them (maybe). I suppose the other far side of the spectrum of views on free speech would be someone like this, who could very well be a Poe's Law. Let me add that none of this should be taken to mean that I deny that people are incited to hate crimes by hate speech all the time. The link in the chain is what's missing. In the U.S. the buck stops with the person who heard the speech and acted, it's that simple. So statist bastards, explain yourselves. Short of actively communicating in the process of carrying out or planning criminal acts, why is it appropriate to respond to speech that offends you with state-sponsored violence? Can I respond in kind to your godawful shitposting if it sufficiently offends me (and it does)? DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 1, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
It seems dishonest to speak of the first world when the second no longer exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract TL;DR: the assumptions underpinning your beliefs visa vi the functioning of government and society in general are all wrong. This is not surprising, considering you are an American.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
It's pretty easy, in places other than America, some rights aren't absolute so these laws can exist within that constitutional framework. Trying to frame it as some kind of modern reaction to people on tumblr and "SJWs" is hilarious and disingenuous since, much like the American constitution, jurisprudence and constitutional law evolve from social beliefs and attitudes towards free speech, hate speech, and from the specific historical context. I'm not a huge fan of these laws but the collateral damage, at least in Canada, hasn't been particularly bad. The big test case was a man named Ernest Zundel who was a Holocaust denier, and his case went to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
ductonius posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract So it all comes down to underlying assumptions to you? Is it, in your view, on the free speech advocates to justify why given political speech should not be subject to violence? Dreylad posted:It's pretty easy, in places other than America, some rights aren't absolute so these laws can exist within that constitutional framework. It's never easy or fun to defend the boundaries of free speech, because it's never the fluffy ideas anyone wants to ban.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
If you're advocating harming other people without a reason you can justify before a court, your speech should not be unconditionally protected. I don't think it's especially necessary to prosecute people for it all the time but if someone's saying "hey maybe we should kill all the muslims because they're evil" then that's very obviously antisocial and it's not wrong to demand they justify to the satisfaction of society at large or shut the hell up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So it all comes down to underlying assumptions to you? No, that's just the beginning. Your comments on "violence" are just  Edit: You might want to develop some critical thinking skills too instead of just repeating whatever may-mays the American political echo-chamber feeds you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I suppose the other far side of the spectrum of views on free speech would be someone like this, who could very well be a Poe's Law. You'll probably want to strike that. In addition to being such an obvious troll that the only way to mistake it for reality is to desperately need to believe that one's ideological opposition is that extreme and idiotic ("be sent to special prisons designed to re-educate them and to instill values of tolerance"? Really?), "Tanya" was revealed as one of the aliases of Joshua Goldberg when he was arrested in September on questionable Terror/Incitement charges. Along with Free Speech, Goldberg also enjoyed trolling regarding ISIS, I/P and Gamergate. So, you know, there's a decent chance he's actually the lovechild of Reddit and D&D, taking human form. Regarding the thread question-it's ludicrously myopic for supporters of aggressive content-based speech laws to expect them to be enforced by the state to protect the disadvantaged and unprivileged rather than being abused to silence dissent and/or wrongthink (see the #killallwhitemen brouhaha. And all of recorded human history). On the other hand, "the solution to hate speech is more speech" maxim has been proven pretty thoroughly ineffective many times over the last few years thanks to structural advantages/disadvantages of various platforms and society at large. As it comes to possible solutions to that? I've got more trust in technology and "the market"/society adapting to handle these new situations appropriately than I have the desire to give the state authority to police and control content through what are typically vague and broad laws. With that said, I'm not a member of any segment likely to be targeted by any orchestrated hate and harassment campaign meant to silence me-so I recognize that "sucks for you, but it'll sort itself out eventually" is probably insufficient to the people currently being forced underground or into silence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's never easy or fun to defend the boundaries of free speech, because it's never the fluffy ideas anyone wants to ban. No, it's pretty easy to explain the differences in attitudes towards free speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
If you see a pair of men walking down the street holding hands and you start following them while screaming "You loving piece of poo poo faggots are what's wrong with this nation, it should be illegal for you sodomite rear end-fuckers to be considered citizens!" do you believe that should be protected political speech? After all, it isn't directly advocating for violence against those two men.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
^^^Yes, and for the reason you stated. I guess you have gray areas crop up when you have to subjectively determine if the person might be engaging in stalking or harassment or assault if they're screaming in someone's face or following them for a long period of time.ductonius posted:No, that's just the beginning. If you're expecting an American to describe government censorship in anything but the shittiest terms, you're going to be waiting a long-rear end time. You could stand to explain what your personal social contract is and why anyone should care though. You're the one who wants the law, the burden of proof is on you. OK, not really surprised about the troll. The most memorable point for me was "her" proposal that burden of proof be shifted onto the defendant in hate speech cases. As for your solution, I'm pretty much in the same place. I can't say I fully understand the suffering of marginalized groups but in terms of systems that solve those problems over time, the 1A is kinda like democracy. It's the least worst solution we've found. Dreylad posted:No, it's pretty easy to explain the differences in attitudes towards free speech. I mean the ACLU ends up defending pretty lovely people in service of the First Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you see a pair of men walking down the street holding hands and you start following them while screaming "You loving piece of poo poo faggots are what's wrong with this nation, it should be illegal for you sodomite rear end-fuckers to be considered citizens!" do you believe that should be protected political speech? After all, it isn't directly advocating for violence against those two men. Should the speech itself be protected? Yes. Should the intentional harassment of people be protected, just because it involves politically controversial speech? No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Should the speech itself be protected? Yes. Difficult to see how you do one without the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Right now in many jurisdictions it is a felony to threaten me because I am an agent of the government. This has not stopped Republicans or libertarians from trying to use the language of hate speech to get America to self destruct, consuming its public servants. For some reason aforementioned groups dont seem to understand that hate speech is not speech thr government doesnt like, its speech specifically that attempts to prosecute people for exisiting in ways they have no choice about. I choose to be a public servant and yet I also get special dispensation in the law because without it some people will attempt to terroize me. Likewise hate speech laws are not created in a vaccum, they exist because without them people will be afforded undue suffering. Once again we have an example of a false dichotomy, free speech and hate speech are not opposing polar nodes on an alignment chart and its only because the world is full of pedantic fuckwits who can't interalize The Golden Rule that we have to create such laws in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you see a pair of men walking down the street holding hands and you start following them while screaming "You loving piece of poo poo faggots are what's wrong with this nation, it should be illegal for you sodomite rear end-fuckers to be considered citizens!" do you believe that should be protected political speech? After all, it isn't directly advocating for violence against those two men. Yes. Now, some questions right back at you: -same situation, but no swear words or slurs. Protected? -now no shouting. Protected? -now not following them, just saying while you're all standing there. Protected?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Difficult to see how you do one without the other. Not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Not really. If you say he can't say that, you protect the objects of his ire but not the speech, if you say he can say that, you do the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Right now in many jurisdictions it is a felony to threaten me because I am an agent of the government. This has not stopped Republicans or libertarians from trying to use the language of hate speech to get America to self destruct, consuming its public servants. Thats pretty much where this debate ends for me. Swedish hate speech law is dated to 1947 for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
i think i should be able to say what i want when i want without fear of reprisal, as is my right as a white man in america. thanks, obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
This is one of the few thing where America gets it right and everyone else gets it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Right now in many jurisdictions it is a felony to threaten me because I am an agent of the government. This has not stopped Republicans or libertarians from trying to use the language of hate speech to get America to self destruct, consuming its public servants. I agree. Because of their historical experience, European democracies want to be able to defend themselves against the enemies of democracy. This even leads to some countries like Germany having eternity clauses in their constitution that make it impossible to abolish defined basic democratic principles without destroying the entire state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you're expecting an American to describe government censorship in anything but the shittiest terms, you're going to be waiting a long-rear end time. Truly the most  poster. DeusExMachinima posted:You could stand to explain what your personal social contract is and why anyone should care though. You're the one who wants the law, the burden of proof is on you. So, your lovely thread is nothing more than a "come at me, bro"? That you can't even bring yourself to justify your own biases shows you're not looking for a discussion. "I'm right, you're wrong. No, gently caress you!" in essence. You're the one who wants hate speech to be called free speech. The burden of proof is on you. You see how lovely debates get when you just assume you're right without a hint of self-criticality? It's like we've replicated the entierty of American political dialouge in less than one page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
In regards to how much suffering they caused, socialist beliefs (marxism, communism, stalinism, national-socialism and so on...) should be banned, and their advocacy severely punished by law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you see a pair of men walking down the street holding hands and you start following them while screaming "You loving piece of poo poo faggots are what's wrong with this nation, it should be illegal for you sodomite rear end-fuckers to be considered citizens!" do you believe that should be protected political speech? After all, it isn't directly advocating for violence against those two men. Now please craft a law that would ban this behavior (more effectively than stalking/harassment/assault laws already on the books) while not preventing: Catholic Priest Abuse survivors from seeking redress, Ex-Scientologists from airing their grievances, Striking workers from forming picket lines or demonstrations, counter-protesters at WBC rallies or pro-life rallies, anti-war/anti-capitalism protests, Pastors/Rabbis/Imams from preaching about social issues, or raped women from protesting their abusers and/or institutions that protect them. Back to your hypothetical-what if I'm not following them down the street and screaming? What if I whisper that to my son, so he learns about the abnormal deviancy of such ungodly behavior? What if I'm a radical gay environmentalist and I scream (or whisper) about straight couples leaving fertility clinics for being filthy breeders ruining our planet via overpopulation? RuanGacho posted:For some reason aforementioned groups dont seem to understand that hate speech is not speech thr government doesnt like, its speech specifically that attempts to prosecute people for exisiting in ways they have no choice about. I choose to be a public servant and yet I also get special dispensation in the law because without it some people will attempt to terroize me. Likewise hate speech laws are not created in a vaccum, they exist because without them people will be afforded undue suffering. Whose definition of Hate Speech are we codifying? The popular majority? If told that the only way homosexuality and gender are protected are for the cis, how quickly would those movements sell out their fringier, less publicly respected members in order to gain protections for themselves? What are we using to determine "ways they have no choice about"? How far down the slippery slope of innate sexual attraction do we wish to slide these protections? If I'm a protestant and I believe in the concept of the Elect, my belief system may mean that I was born destined, without the choice of rejection, to aggressively witness and espouse my Christian social values. What happens when my 'existence in a way I have no choice about' conflicts with gay couples (or those who wear mixed garments, or football players)? Don't get me wrong-I understand and agree with you that this topic tends to bring out the fishmech in people. It also tends to bring out Pollyanna ignorance for a vocal contingent of the opposite end. It's a complex issue. "Do unto others, and make it illegal to be a shithead" is as disingenuous and wrong as "Prohibition on any speech will become prohibition on all speech"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
This seems pretty straight-forward: Ban the following & harassment part. You ban the first 2. Not because they're political, but because they involve a creepy stalker forcing conversation onto people who are actively avoiding it. The third one isn't really stalking, given that it's a normal situation where people can just walk away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:This is one of the few thing where America gets it right and everyone else gets it wrong. As a foreigner, I sadly agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:i think i should be able to say what i want when i want without fear of reprisal, as is my right as a white man in america. thanks, obama. The NRA is thinking of your best interests, son!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
ductonius posted:Truly the most i think youll find that is you who has to prove that i am biased at all, and that america is not truly the land of freedom to call for the death of minorities
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
As a non-american I will happily describe the primary function of government to be censorship. The entire reason we have a government is because it exists to say that some things aren't allowed. It says dictatorship isn't allowed, it says murder isn't allowed, it's supposed to say that letting people die when we can afford to feed and house them isn't allowed. And sometimes it says that verbally abusing people and trying to incite violence against people isn't allowed. A government exists to prevent members of its society from acting to destroy the cumulative benefits of that society, so it necessarily must pursue unity within that society first and foremost. People who act or attempt to incite disunity to the detriment of others are antisocial and censorship is the prudent response. Either of actions, or sometimes, of words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As a non-american I will happily describe the primary function of government to be censorship. The entire reason we have a government is because it exists to say that some things aren't allowed. It says dictatorship isn't allowed, it says murder isn't allowed, it's supposed to say that letting people die when we can afford to feed and house them isn't allowed. And sometimes it says that verbally abusing people and trying to incite violence against people isn't allowed. Yes but perhaps you should think of the freedom and liberty you lose by not allowing unbridled hate speech??
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As a non-american I will happily describe the primary function of government to be censorship. The entire reason we have a government is because it exists to say that some things aren't allowed. It says dictatorship isn't allowed, it says murder isn't allowed, it's supposed to say that letting people die when we can afford to feed and house them isn't allowed. And sometimes it says that verbally abusing people and trying to incite violence against people isn't allowed. spoken like a true america-hating communazi
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Like 99% of the decisions which people moan about are made by dumb student union officials. There really isn't a threat to free speech from sjws or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
I think the difference is that hate speech is specifically identified towards an individual or a group, so if i followed a black guy around yelling racist slurs at him. free speech is untargetted so i'd just be saying "i believe the black race is inferior and should be reenslaved" not my actual beliefs
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I regret this already. That's funny I regret reading this already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes. Now, some questions right back at you: No, no, yes (so long as it's a public space the gay men are free to easily leave and are not impeded or followed should they attempt to do so).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:That's funny I regret reading this already. whoa haha triggered lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
thats, ahhh, some fuckin fresh meat hes cutting there
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:whoa haha triggered lmao Whoa now with the gunchat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:thats, ahhh, some fuckin fresh meat hes cutting there with a real sharp knife, which is exactly the same thing as a gun, which those communist pussy gaylords want to ban
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, no, yes (so long as it's a public space the gay men are free to easily leave and are not impeded or followed should they attempt to do so). How do you feel about people being made to leave public spaces to avoid abuse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:46
|
|