|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Should the speech itself be protected? Yes. Difficult to see how you do one without the other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not great, but better than I would feel for someone to be arrested for saying something I don't like. Now, however, if they continued to follow me, or they start shouting at the top of their lungs so I can still hear them, and everyone around can too, for the sole reason of continuing to harass me after I have made reasonable accommodation for them to exercise their right to free speech they have very clearly escalated from speech to harassment. Perhaps there is a middle ground where you can call the police on the basis that the man is being unpleasant in public and they can ask him to stop, and if he doesn't they can tell him he needs to leave because other people have a right to not be directly insulted in public, and then if he still persists they can arrest him and he can chill in jail for a while until he cools off. You don't need to prosecute people criminally for everything but "being a massive rear end in a top hat in public" is a reasonable thing for there to be police powers to prevent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Sure they should, and there's really no reason to have comments sections other than trying to drive traffic if you think that's a good strategy. I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though. Counterpoint: Reddit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Your comparison to newspapers is dishonest because the amount of time, effort and resources required to do what you're describing is astronomical, while doing it on a site is much easier. Again, that's the entire point of the internet, to make communication cheaper and easier. Reinstalling the old system of dominant media presenting their more slanted than ever coverage unopposed isn't good for anyone. We could perhaps also write laws holding newspapers responsible for misinformation as well  I'm personally quite partial to the idea that corrections must be printed on the same page and in the same size font as the original error.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Possibly the best argument against free speech is that free speech implies that all speech is valid, when it really isn't. Sometimes, if not a lot of the time, people say things which are demonstrably wrong, either ethically or factually, and sometimes they say things which are so wrong, or say them so often, that it can cause material harm to other people in the process. If your object is to prevent people being harmed then the idea that all speech and ideas are valid is kind of silly, and getting everyone to pitch in with their ideas without requiring them to endeavour to put some effort into what they say, isn't really going to improve that. Speech must be subject to scrutiny, because accepting all speech as valid regardless of its content is a patently daft idea. Ideally we wouldn't need a legal system to do that but it turns out that laws and governments are a quite good way of enforcing collective values, generally much better than just getting people to sort it out themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I love the free speech that lets our newspapers call asylum seekers cockroaches. That's wonderfully helpful for minorities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. Sooo you would be 100% in favour of restricting the freedom of the press, then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:How so? When does the freedom of the press come into direct conflict with the basic rights of an individual? Give me a specific example. To use my earlier example: http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...ts-commissioner I would suggest that people have a basic human right not to be referred to as cockroaches or to have national newspapers inciting hatred of them but maybe that's just me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You would be wrong, then. Not being insulted is not a basic human right. How about suggesting that they should be massacred by the navy?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I refuse to operate within that paradigm because it allows for too much potential of abuse. You can't regulate good and bad because they aren't objective things, for the most part. It's almost all opinion. So, presumably, all laws are bunk, then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's just that the justification for writing them has to go beyond "this is good because we say so" and "this is bad because we say so". Well, generally, at least in theory, it's because "we as a people have decided that this thing is harmful to us and the society we want to promote so we want a law to stop people doing it" So "it's bad because we say so and this is why we say so". Which is entirely consistent with the idea that a society can say "we think that speech abusing or promoting the abuse of minorities is bad, and we don't want people to be able to do it, because we think that all people should be able to enjoy the privilege that the majorities in our society enjoy not to walk around being told they're the scum of the earth on account of their race or sexuality." OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Can you show any objective benefit to hate speech laws to society at large other than personal feelings of self-satisfaction? Do you think anyone in those countries is actually less racist now because of them? Well I would guess objectively people subject to hate speech in countries with hate speech laws could objectively call the cops and get the person abusing them objectively arrested for being an objective oval office. DeusExMachinima posted:You have the inalienable right to be as offended as you want. I would like the inalienable right to shoot katie hopkins in the head for being an abomination. E: Objectively.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:What is natetimm's wondrous policy for protecting minority groups from hate speech? I put £5 on "deal with it" E: natetimm posted:My policy is that you don't have a right to be protected from being offended. YES
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
natetimm posted:This is hysterical bullshit. Nobody ever died from hate speech. Technically nobody ever died from death threats either but they're still illegal!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Straight white man baffled at concept that hate speech is detrimental to wellbeing of recipients. In other news, water wet, fire hot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Being offensive and credibly threatening someone with death are totally the same thing! Uhh, yes? Because you see nobody's actually dying and it's only words so they're 100% commensurable and my right to threaten to loving lynch a friend of the family is too precious to be threatened by people being offended by that?!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:So if corporations are people, and threats of boycotts make them afraid for their wellbeing, can they demand the prosecution of individuals calling for them? Corporations aren't people. I mean they're legal persons but not people and don't need protecting, laws which do are dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If a journalist writes an article about a specific CEO about how he's raising the price of an AIDS drug that makes him feel afraid for his well being, is that hate speech? No because he's rich and his rights are less important because he's got lots of privileges.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Oh yes, the laws that do are dumb. But corporations also have lots of money to make sure dumb laws continue to protect them. I am not averse to full communism now as a solution to this issue, I don't feel that laws should be abolished on the basis that corrupt practices allow them to be abused, what you need in that instance is stronger laws which are not as open to abuse and laws which stand regardless of popular support. Basically the US constitution is a good idea but outdated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Have fun litigating that! Make the price raise illegal and abolish long patent protection, CEO can't do that, no problem. Also tax the CEO and his company so he's no richer than anyone else even if he does raise the price, no rich CEO, no problem. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
natetimm posted:So you're admitting that this whole hate speech idea predicates itself on a bunch of other poo poo that's never going to happen? Er, no? It's good in and of itself. Not least because progressive taxation and limited patents are already a thing in civilized nations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
You don't send someone to prison because the defendent felt threatened, you send someone to prison because the court decided that you were making a threat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
natetimm posted:What a great world it would be if corporate HR was in charge of all of our public behavior. You're really making the case, here. So you would prefer people be degraded at work, then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, they don't, because hate speech laws aren't going to stop teenagers from being cruel, and they don't help the kids without protected status. We could write other laws to protect the children not protected by the hate speech laws.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Sort of a separate but equal thing? If you prefer we could organise all child abuse protection into one category of laws and use hate speech laws for non-child cases? I don't see that it makes a great deal of difference though. Unless you're actually worried about those drat LGBT kids and their special privileges to not be pushed to kill themselves. In either case partial protection is better than none.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Well where I live things that are extra super special illegal get extra super special funding. For example knife violence gets especial attention in schools because knife violence is kind of a hot topic and more illegal than non-knife violence, if it wasn't a hot topic we would have less overall funding for opposing violence in schools. Specific laws can be helpful in preventing specific problems that we have identified as needing specific attention. LGBT child suicide is drastically higher than non LGBT child suicide, so one might argue that it needs extra attention.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Cyber bullying is already a super hot topic. It doesn't need any more attention or laws, it needs action. The tools to enforce exist, the problem is how far do we want to enforce that type of poo poo on a gaggle of 12 year olds? Probably further than otherwise when one particular group of 12 year olds shows a marked increase in suicide rates over the other 12 year olds. Also as a general question, are hate speech laws used too much or are they useless because they're never used? Because you appear to be arguing both at the same time. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh, I'm well aware of the context you pinkos would like to put this poo poo into. Doesn't change the fact that in the Western community it's not right wingers that push hate speech laws in the modern day by and large. Well, no, they wouldn't would they? It'd mean they'd have to be quiet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
I think the way it works is that the day the constitution was written, then True America was born, and we have been slowly moving away from that since. It's a lot like Lord of the Rings with the world slowly sliding away from perfection, except replace the Elves with Christians and the Orcs with foreigners and Sauron with Communism. The giant eagles are still the same however.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:if you outlawed owning negroes then it was just a short skip and a jump to outlawing ownership of everything? I wish.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty? Well they probably wouldn't be denied life unless you make it a hanging offence which you probably wouldn't. And consider the rest of us being able to enjoy the right not to have to listen to people calling for the death of all the Jews. That'd be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So it's all about what's pleasant to you? I would go so far as to suggest that telling people advocating genocide to gently caress right off is Objectively Good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:gently caress if I know the reasoning, ask someone who believes it. I understand what it is though, even if i don't understand the "logic" behind it, and what it is is political speech. That's all I need to know about it to be satisfied that it deserves protection. Literally the Worst is probably going to come away disappointed because I think we both just see the other as having the burden of proof. Generally if we don't understand any constructive purpose for a thing and it seems like it would actively be harmful, the considered response is to oppose it. So like, I don't see what the point of "all gays are subhuman" is as a belief. I think it's probably bad for gay people to have other people yell that in the street, so I think it's good if we stop people yelling that in the street.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
LGD posted:Otherwise what are we even doing as a society? Evolving under pressure towards good ideas like collectivism which improve our quality of life, and then backsliding constantly once the pressure is relieved. Broadly, anyway. SedanChair posted:Sure, who started the gay club scene? Certainly not Europeans. They'd love to say they did but they wouldn't even have clubs if it weren't for African-Americans. And technically there wouldn't be African Americans without Europeans so slavery is good for gay rights?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:But I do oppose it... with more speech. And I would like to oppose it with law. Same way I like lots of other things to be opposed with laws. I would very much like to be able to shoot politicians I find to be absolutely reprehensible on the basis they're doing serious harm to the wellbeing of my fellow citizens, but murder is illegal, I don't consider this to be an unreasonable infringement on my freedom even though it does deny me a very effective method of effecting societal change, mostly because murder is far more commonly bad than it is good, same with calling for the extermination or complete social ostracism of entire swathes of people. I can't see much productive reason to allow that. DeusExMachinima posted:Alternate reality religious right-winger OwlFancier: "I think it's probably bad for ARE CHILDREN to have gay people be allowed to be around them in the street, so I think it's good if we stopped that from happening." The possible benefits from restricting hateful speech don't tempt me remotely enough to crack the door open even a bit for the John Hagees of the U.S. I don't think that I really need to be afraid of that, partly because that itself would come somewhat close to hate speech.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Does the op's vision of 'freedom of speech' necessarily include 'political donations = free speech'? I would imagine that would be very expensive speech, free speech is much less valuable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 17:24
|
|