|
Ddraig posted:Well seeing as how it's their job to prevent those expressions in public, then yes I guess they do do that. You can't argue against that. quote:Any sensibly crafted hate speech laws are usually very nuanced and almost always refer to public acts intended to incite hatred against protected groups. You keep making this claim that they're used to crush dissent, but you don't really seem to have the grasp of what the laws actually are, so I'd suggest you do some reading into the various hate speech laws that countries do have (Germany and South Africa are two good examples, for some reason) and seeing exactly how they are constructed. No one is shedding any tears for the Nazis, but for a variety of reasons Germany very much isn't the country I'd have chosen to use as an example of how limited compromise on letting the state make judgments regarding the content of speech shouldn't cause anyone concern. Are you familiar with the Index of Harmful Materials?
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:Hate speech in Germany absolutely protects minorities and allows you to mock people with power what the gently caress dude. No. All it does is allow you to mock the people the people in charge think you are allow to mock. If you want to know who is in charge, who are you not allowed to mock? In feudal times it was the king. These days, You can draw all sorts of lovely political cartoons about Merkel, she won't give a poo poo, but I dare you to draw a lovely political cartoon about Mohammed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Oh good, now we're into The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca in terms of people thinking Muslims secretly run Germany in order to craft its hate speech laws specifically to target poor innocent racists who draw Mohammed solely to anger Muslims since there's literally no other reason to need to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
LGD posted:You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between objectionable protected speech and acts of assault/harassment/intimidation, which nobody (I hope) is defending in this thread. SedanChair was. I specifically talked about harassment and his justification was "'MURCAN FREEDOM #1" thrakkorzog posted:No. All it does is allow you to mock the people the people in charge think you are allow to mock. Haha, right, we're all well aware of the great and powerful German Caliphate. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh good, now we're into The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca in terms of people thinking Muslims secretly run Germany in order to craft its hate speech laws specifically to target poor innocent racists who draw Mohammed solely to anger Muslims since there's literally no other reason to need to do so. OK, If you think I'm an rear end in a top hat for criticizing Islamic government, I triple dog dare you to draw a political cartoon critical of Islamist government and try to get it published by Islamic State media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:OK, If you think I'm an rear end in a top hat for criticizing Islamic government, I triple dog dare you to draw a political cartoon critical of Islamist government and try to get it published by Islamic State media. Yeah right, don't imagine you can fool us, thrakkorZOG
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I would rather live in a society with hate speech than without, it spices things up a bit. Might as well have a flag burning amendment as ban hate speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:OK, If you think I'm an rear end in a top hat for criticizing Islamic government, I triple dog dare you to draw a political cartoon critical of Islamist government and try to get it published by Islamic State media. Wait, is ISIS in control of Germany now? This is big news. You'd think someone would have mentioned that by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I would rather live in a society with hate speech than without, it spices things up a bit. Might as well have a flag burning amendment as ban hate speech. I would rather let people put cinnamon on their food than call others faggots, personally. It is my belief that a well-legislated hate speech law with specific yet well-moderated criteria could have a negligible effect on the freedom of public discourse while improving the tone of a society as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:OK, If you think I'm an rear end in a top hat for criticizing Islamic government, I triple dog dare you to draw a political cartoon critical of Islamist government and try to get it published by Islamic State media. Yes, Germany, the country currently run by the Christian parties, is actually an Islamic Theocracy. Didn't realise Islamic State had extended all the way to the Rhineland, to be honest, but I admire their dedication to the reclamation of the Ottoman territories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I would rather live in a society with hate speech than without, it spices things up a bit. Might as well have a flag burning amendment as ban hate speech. Yep just what I like to keep in my spice rack; salt, pepper, basil, minced onion, Old Bay, and racial slurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Yep just what I like to keep in my spice rack; salt, pepper, basil, minced onion, Old Bay, and racial slurs. "Ah yes, just a sprinkle of coonnamon, add in a bit of nigmeg. Maybe a fag leaf?" Gotta make that burnt flag taste good, after all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:"Ah yes, just a sprinkle of coonnamon, add in a bit of nigmeg. Maybe a fag leaf?" Thanksgiving sounds delicious in the Tesseraction household. Also something about red skinned potatoes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
First you ban public holocaust denial next thing you know you are muslim theocracy take that people who believe theories of human rights have evolved since the 18th century!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Hang on a minute, I see now... that's why Germany strong-armed Bibi into blaming Hitler for the Holocaust, it was all part of the smokescreen for
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Yes, it turns out that when Germany says to Bibi they were indeed responsible for the Holocaust it's not because Bibi is a lying, revisionist fucker but because Germany has actually been taken over by a Muslim cabal, many years ago, and that was what riled Hitler up. Germany were just giving a knowing wink and a nod to this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
At this point we have three kinds of speech: free speech, hate speech and really loving stupid speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Any sensibly crafted hate speech laws are usually very nuanced and almost always refer to public acts intended to incite hatred against protected groups. I think that you're putting too much faith in the laws being "sensibly crafted." The people who would determine who the protected groups are, in many parts of the US, probably not people that would produce the results that you want. Meanwhile, there are plenty of organizations that would love to abuse those laws to get activists harassed by the police for protesting with the wrong flavor of vitriol, like both sides of the whole Israel/Palestine discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
To the best of my knowledge Pussy Riot were not actually arrested and charged under the hate speech laws of Russia, but rather one of the other laws that many people have called to be aggressively pursued instead (in this case "hooliganism" which is vague, I grant you) I'm not sure what the institutional failures of the Russian legal system have to do with hate speech laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I think that you're putting too much faith in the laws being "sensibly crafted." We already have laws that restrict speech in ways that are believed to be sensible, including hate speech. It doesn't mean that a non-sensible law will be crafted, so we should work to ensure safeguards are in place. The text of the 1st Amendment does not prevent bad law, it is the direction, opinion, and operation of SCOTUS and the groups such as the ACLU that primarily combat bad law. And this does not always work the way we as individuals want. We already have laws that restrict hate speech, do so in a very narrow fashion, and these have been ruled Constitutional. I am not sure why this conversation is being framed as anything new except for people to try and pretend that there is no middle ground between Libertopia and Islamic Caliphate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm a huge fan of high-quality equipment being available on the open market, now that you mention it. I didn't want to mention the OP specifically when I said it's the same as gun nuts who ignore the qualifying statement in the 2A, but glad to see I was right. LGD posted:Yes and there should be issues, because then they'd be committing criminal acts that are already illegal and can already be prosecuted under existing U.S. law. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between objectionable protected speech and acts of assault/harassment/intimidation, which nobody (I hope) is defending in this thread. But in most of their implementations hate speech laws are very much designed to curb discussions between like minded individuals, or prevent any expression of such sentiments in public. The existing laws would just charge people having an illegal fire and/or property damage. Hate crime laws helps to charge them with what they were actually doing: threatening someone's life while being able to play the "I'm not touching you!" defense. Threatening someone's life is a crime and burning a cross on a black persons front lawn is doing exactly that but without hate crime laws they couldn't be charged since they didn't actually go up to them and say they deserved to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
The burning cross on the lawn example is a bit of a weird one because we've had people on this very forum who said the only reason it should be considered wrong was because of trespassing and property damage. It's a sorry state of affairs when people are more concerned about property rights than human beings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I didn't want to mention the OP specifically when I said it's the same as gun nuts who ignore the qualifying statement in the 2A, but glad to see I was right. "Well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. Toasticle posted:The existing laws would just charge people having an illegal fire and/or property damage. Hate crime laws helps to charge them with what they were actually doing: threatening someone's life while being able to play the "I'm not touching you!" defense. Threatening someone's life is a crime and burning a cross on a black persons front lawn is doing exactly that but without hate crime laws they couldn't be charged since they didn't actually go up to them and say they deserved to die. Hate crime laws aren't necessary for charging someone with threatening another's life. That's just imminent threat of violence and is its own separate crime. Trying to find different ways of rephrasing the statement "He said something really really really offensive to me and I want him to cool his heels in a cell for it!" isn't going to create a breakthrough. It's very clear already that's what you're saying and it's dumb. archangelwar posted:We already have laws that restrict hate speech, do so in a very narrow fashion, and these have been ruled Constitutional. I am not sure why this conversation is being framed as anything new except for people to try and pretend that there is no middle ground between Libertopia and Islamic Caliphate. What laws do you have in mind when you refer to the American government's idea of hate speech? Because it seems pretty non-existent to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:24
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Toasticle posted:I didn't want to mention the OP specifically when I said it's the same as gun nuts who ignore the qualifying statement in the 2A, but glad to see I was right. Ddraig posted:The burning cross on the lawn example is a bit of a weird one because we've had people on this very forum who said the only reason it should be considered wrong was because of trespassing and property damage. It's also weird because people seem to really misapprehend how U.S. law currently works. Burning a cross on someone's lawn is absolutely something that already can (and should) be prosecuted as illegal intimidation without needing to specifically reference any new hate crime laws. You can even (under a very clear Supreme Court precedent) specifically make burning a cross on someone's lawn as an attempt to intimidate them its own crime with harsher penalties than other forms of intimidation, in recognition of the greater severity of the threat being made due to it long history as a symbol of impending racial violence. It's just that you can't make the act of of burning a cross per se illegal, and the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate an attempt to intimidate/terrorize/etc. rather than on the person burning the cross to prove that they didn't have any such intention. Which in the case of someone burning a cross of someone else's lawn isn't actually a particularly high bar to clear as such things go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
I guess it wouldn't be a hard thing to prosecute in some places, but in others where that sort of thing is seen as good old fashioned fun and might actually include the local chief of police I'm guessing the state wouldn't be particularly enthused to pursue that particular line of inquiry, or perhaps come up with some justification as to why that wasn't what the rest of the civilized world might think it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:^^^ironically "criminal syndicalism" laws in America in the early 1900's before the Supremes' current 1A philosophy were mostly used to outlaw early communist meetings. this is why "free speech" is important, but who talks about politics or poverty anymore? I want to discuss the daily problems of the upper middle class! Apparently racists and sexists think free speech is all about their hilarious jokes or their virile street harassment, might as well make some new law: "non-political and individually targeted speech is never protected speech" wiregrind fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I guess it wouldn't be a hard thing to prosecute in some places, but in others where that sort of thing is seen as good old fashioned fun and might actually include the local chief of police I'm guessing the state wouldn't be particularly enthused to pursue that particular line of inquiry, or perhaps come up with some justification as to why that wasn't what the rest of the civilized world might think it was. I'd agree, but the problem you've identified isn't an issue of insufficient protections as a matter of law, and I find this line of argument incredibly ironic given the repeated arguments that we can't necessarily assume laws restricting speech would be abused or improperly enforced. The areas of the country that you feel wouldn't take a cross burning seriously are one of the major reasons I have zero interest whatsoever in legitimizing laws that police the content of speech. A local government that isn't interested in prosecuting death threats against minorities under existing laws isn't likely to suddenly become enthusiastic about enforcing laws against hate speech, and I'd be extremely concerned about how such a malign authority would choose to interpret laws intended to do things like shield religious adherents from hateful statements on the basis of their religion. Constitutional rights generally exist to protect the individual from potential depredations of the state (or the people as a whole), while criminal law is generally intended to protect the individual from the depredations of his or her fellow citizens (other individuals). If you're concerned that predatory manifestations of state power are likely, why are you undermining a shared cultural and legal norm that is integral to the preservation of those rights in order to enhance the state's power to censure certain types of bad behavior that the state already has legal tools to address? LGD fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"Well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. I know what you want it to mean but since the people who wrote the 2A have been dead for a couple hundred years all we can go by is what the phrase meant in the 1700's and what they wrote regarding the subject at the time. In (I believe) the federalist papers they phrased it as quote:but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. So at least some did not intend it to mean "everyone gets anything they want". They also didn't believe the government should have a standing army, hence well regulated state militias, trained because those northern city dwellers couldn't shoot for poo poo. So since we clearly only follow what we want them to have meant it's a dead argument anyway, gun fetishists ignore it completely or apply modern usage to the phrase, any discussion of it is just going to summon LeJackel. But don't pretend you have some secret knowledge of what the phrase means, only the people who wrote it know and they're not available to clarify it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I know what you want it to mean but since the people who wrote the 2A have been dead for a couple hundred years all we can go by is what the phrase meant in the 1700's and what they wrote regarding the subject at the time. In (I believe) the federalist papers they phrased it as This is why fortunately, we have a supreme court to clarify these things for us 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
I like the thread title because it correctly suggests that one of the goals of hate speech is to marginalize and drown out the free speech of its targets. For this reason people that cherish the free exchange of ideas should oppose the proliferation of hate speech and support government policies that curb it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Hate speech laws are like the Equal Rights Amendment: A statement of support for justice, which is often opposed by people engaging in sheer flimflam and the fools who believe them.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:How does any of this cut against the point I've been making? Before the Brandenberg test, the red scare was used an excuse to sic Uncle Sam on someone's political enemies. In the present day, giving abortion regulators the benefit of the doubt means they gently caress around with abortion clinics and close many of them down. Why would any of this ever convince me to let anyone stick their fingers in the First and/or Ninth Amendment pie? What is the point of free speech? What is the outcome? The idea is that ideologies should have a space to 'duel it out' with each other, and good ideas will rise on their own merit. That's the practical reason for supporting free speech, the free exchange of ideas. Sounds pretty cool. But for that to happen, two conditions must be met:
This is the difference I'm trying to get you to see, between nominal rights and rights-in-reality. Nominally, abortion is legal. In reality, it's being pulled further & further out of reach. Nominally, you can get anywhere you want just so long as you 'Work Hard' & pull yourself up by your bootstraps. In reality, the game is rigged against you from the start - You can only tread water, and if a catastrophe outside your control should hit you, it's all over. Nominally, you have free speech. In reality, that right is suspended if the people in power don't like you. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
There is a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (currently being challenged in the courts) that states 'it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt'. Predictably, this has been used to harass people over all sorts of stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:There is a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (currently being challenged in the courts) that states 'it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt'. Predictably, this has been used to harass people over all sorts of stupid poo poo. May I have some examples?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:May I have some examples? Here you go. Note that this is just Ontario, there's been plenty of other poo poo. I personally like the one where the tribunal, based solely on the say-so of a complaintant, declared someone guilty and then tried to seize and auction her house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:To the best of my knowledge Pussy Riot were not actually arrested and charged under the hate speech laws of Russia, but rather one of the other laws that many people have called to be aggressively pursued instead (in this case "hooliganism" which is vague, I grant you) I don't know why you'd expect better laws to come out of states obsessed with voter ID, anchor babies, and Sharia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Here you go. Note that this is just Ontario, there's been plenty of other poo poo. I personally like the one where the tribunal, based solely on the say-so of a complaintant, declared someone guilty and then tried to seize and auction her house. I'm not sure what a list of fairly run of the mill discrimination cases has to do specifically with a law about harassment over the phone being used to harass people with stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
I like the part where all reasonable people are apparently supposed to be in favor of banning trans women from gyms, given -Troika-'s incompetence at citing poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I like the thread title because it correctly suggests that one of the goals of hate speech is to marginalize and drown out the free speech of its targets. "We had to destroy the rudatron posted:But for that to happen, two conditions must be met: If you're waiting on a system that ensures people will always fairly objectively judge ideas with full information, you're going to be waiting on a system that doesn't involve humans at all. The field of ideologies is very diverse in the U.S., as it would be in any nation of 300+ million. The fact that most parties don't receive mainstream support is your real complaint, but utterly irrelevant to whether or not there are many flavors extant. And as far as abortion goes, we actually have fewer restrictions on that in the U.S. than in many parts of Europe. You're really painting with a broad brush and it still doesn't back up your thesis. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:These days, You can draw all sorts of lovely political cartoons about Merkel, she won't give a poo poo, but I dare you to draw a lovely political cartoon about Mohammed.  You are literally making stuff up to attack it. Nobody gets put in jail or fined if you mock Mohammed. If you were to incite violence then you are comitting a crime. You are conflating legal and cultural/social power. Which is cool and good because if you speak freely at someone and he speaks freely at you back we have freedom of speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:30
|
|
