|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
I should have guessed this thread would have tumbled into gamergate bullshit within 3 pages. Congrats, apparently the greatest threat to free speech in modern times is being brewed in the bowels of twitter, tumblr, and 4chan. Also speech is limited in the US, I don't know why Americans believe otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well when you ask the average internet addict what the greatest threat to free speech is in the world today, academically they want to say journalists in non-democratic countries, but before they can form the words some sharp and painful memories about the time @PaisleyPlumper42 called them a limp dicked racist pop up and divert thought poo poo, when you put it that way, maybe we do need to ruthlessly destroy SJW gamergate activists so we can make progress in other areas of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:It always staggers me how progressives, who generally understand that hierarchies and systems of power tend to trample the rights of the oppressed, occasionally forget this and argue in favor of granting broad power to suppress dissent to those same authorities. If hate speech laws pass in the United States, don't act surprised when they're first used to punish people who criticize Christian megachurches. Why would the State, which is generally correctly identified as a racist, sexist and violent organization, apply hate speech laws in an egalitarian way that protects the rights of the minority? you understand most states already controls and shapes free speech right, and that critics of churches are silenced through the threat of civil suits and various legal contracts. you aren't describing some nightmare that will become true if this legislation is passed, you're describing the current reality of speech and the law in the US. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Based on this, wouldn't expanding hate speech further into criminal law pave the way for churches, corporations, and other groups from taking advantage of it? It seems like a lot of the countries with hate speech laws tend to be more left wing, but the shoe changes feet pretty regularly in the US, and in some areas it's always on the right. That seems like it could lead to some pretty nasty consequences for the marginalized groups that the ideal of hate speech laws would protect. It just seems ridiculous to worry about theoretical legislation that would never be passed by any current sitting legislation let alone survive a trip to the Supreme Court while there are plenty of ways to right now quash free speech in the United States of America.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:you are a gigantic dumbass if you think this is true. when was the last time a church in the states silenced critics through civil suits? slapp laws mean that any such lawsuit can be halted prior to discovery, and there's a reason that the scientologists used to sue people in England before the SPEECH Act passed. you can go onto any streetcorner in America and say "baptist churches systematically provide cover for racists" or "the catholic church hates women!" and they can't do poo poo about it, and in case they try you can get a pro bono defense from the ACLU. meanwhile in russia pussy riot was arrested for religious hatred. I never made a comparison to another country, this has nothing to do with my post, sorry man. Scientology continues to silence the poo poo out of people in the US, I'm afraid. I figured I didn't need to mention corporations either because the point seemed self-evident but apparently not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I thought the same way about campaign finance before Citizens United. Absurd once day is reality the next, and there're plenty of sitting state legislatures that would happily pass more laws to protect Christian churches or corporations. How the Supreme Court would respond, that's tough to guess. I imagine how far hate speech protections would extend towards protecting marginalized groups would give you an idea of how far it could be used towards protecting less savory groups, which is why I'd hesitate. So the thing to do would be to attack what currently exists instead of letting it escalate, no? But no one seems interested in that, instead being far more concerned about what could possibly exist and those guys on twitter and that one journalist who are after Are Free Speech.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'd never heard of it until just now, but Google is your friend: oh my god lol
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Didn't say I agreed with the article. I may have missed some nuances (to be honest, I've only skimmed it), but I got the impression it amounted to "cops and prisons are bad, so we should enforce laws against domestic violence less." yeah I was reacting to the article and the concept, not you!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:18
|
|