Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:27 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,844
The problem with laws protecting persecuted minorities is that in America, everyone thinks they're a persecuted minority.
  #102  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:18 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
The problem with laws protecting persecuted minorities is that in America, everyone thinks they're a persecuted minority.
No, the problem is people that claim that spurious claims like that is evidence that there are no persecuted minorities at all.
  #103  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:27 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'd have to review, but could we conclude that since you've chosen to discuss only the Jeong case, it implies you do not believe there are other cases?
That doesn't seem like a reasonable or logical conclusion at all, but I did choose her as an example because it was such an obvious one. I thought most reasonable people would accept it. If I could have thought of a better example off the top of my head, I would have used that one instead. None of that implies that she's the only one. And if Sarah could have thought of a better example of her responding to racist tweets, like, for example, ones that happened around the time she was first posting racist shit, she probably should have used those instead of the ones she did.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-31-2019 at 10:29 AM.
  #104  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:31 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A. Regardless of whether Americans approve of American free speech traditions, I'm stunned that an intelligent person wouldn't understand that some cultures and some good-spirited people might want to ban such things as Koran burning.
I think you've entirely missed the point here. Free speech advocates absolutely do understand why good-spirited people might want to ban such things as Koran burning. The whole point of free speech protection is to allow expression of ideas that many people find unpleasant / offensive / dangerous / obnoxious, etc. The assumption (based on much history) is that endorsing legal suppression of unpopular views leads to bad things - far worse than allowing them.


Quote:
C. [confused] America's news media now has dismal quality; and it is getting worse. This is a separate (though closely related) topic.
The question is: what's it doing in an article about suppressing hate speech? It gives a clear impression that the author has a conspicuously broad view of what constitutes hatred and is thus in need of suppression.
  #105  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:46 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Hate speech should be tied to actual plausible threat of violence.

I'm OK with tying that to historic plausibility.

This is why I'd consider an American White person calling an American Black person the word "nigger" to be hate speech, while the latter calling the former the word "cracker' is not. Both are racist*, but only one carries the history of enslavement and lynching and burning crosses with it.

There are hate speech laws in my country. Just gratuitously flying the flag of the old regime is now hate speech. And I'm fine with that.

* the caveat here being of course that they are not engaging in friendly banter where both are accepting of the speech.
This is just "hate speech for thee but not for me". Like attempts to justify Sarah Jeong's hate speech, it's just a lame attempt to give political cover to one side of the current political divide.

ETA: I think this bears repeating here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
... I don't want a government controlled by SJWs to tell me what I can say. You presumably don't want a government controlled by fascists telling you what you can say. So we compromise and agree that the government doesn't get to tell anyone what to say, absent some kind of incitement to immediate violence.

It's not a perfect compromise, but it's better than if either side wins.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-31-2019 at 10:48 AM.
  #106  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:48 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That doesn't seem like a reasonable or logical conclusion at all, but I did choose her as an example because it was such an obvious one. I thought most reasonable people would accept it. If I could have thought of a better example off the top of my head, I would have used that one instead. None of that implies that she's the only one. And if Sarah could have thought of a better example of her responding to racist tweets, like, for example, ones that happened around the time she was first posting racist shit, she probably should have used those instead of the ones she did.
She apologized and explained at length what the context of those tweets was. If she was so obviously and unquestionably REVERSE RACIST, you should be able to point out evidence of that in her extensive body of work, be it her articles at the NYT or Verge, the book she wrote specifically about online harassment and its possible avenues of moderation, the causes she openly supports, the talks she gives. You wouldn't have to hang your entire hat on a handful of tweets from 5 years ago.

She's just yet another in a long line of progressives (most often women, most often Other in some way) who get harassed and defamed by the alt-right and the ultraconservative media circus for cynical purposes in yet another iteration/incarnation of gamergate (WaPo paywall, but you can use your browser in incognito mode to access the article).
  #107  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:52 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... Do you oppose other restrictions on speech, like fire/crowded theater or defamation?
Not particularly. At least, I see that there are well-established laws in this country and that fighting against them would be a waste of time and energy, so I'm not going to do it now. If the rest of the country were ready to repeal them, I doubt I'd object much.
  #108  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:54 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is just "hate speech for thee but not for me". Like attempts to justify Sarah Jeong's hate speech, it's just a lame attempt to give political cover to one side of the current political divide.
I don't give a rat's ass about Sarah Jeong, but it seems to be a variation on the right-wing complaint about hate crimes. If a white man is mugged by a black man, we get the Trump nationalists screaming "It's a hate crime!!!! Black on white crime!! But the black man never gets charged with a hate crime!!!!!!!!!!"

Meanwhile, the other side says, "Dude, that's not how hate crimes work. Hate crimes are prosecuted not when assailant and victim are of different races, but when there's evidence that the crime is an expression of a particular bias."

So now for hate speech, the MAGA crowd is saying, "Sarah Jeong! Look what she said!!!!!"

It seems a reasonable point that saying something mean about another race isn't the defintion of hate speech, that it would be closer to applying the hate crimes model to offensive speech. For example, remember the Dave Chappelle skit where he was an African American white supremacist who said all sorts of awful things about black people? That wouldn't be hate speech.

Maybe Jeong is a racist. Maybe she says inflammatory things that are terrible, maybe there's some context like the Chappelle skit. I don't know. But I know I'm a white guy who doesn't think that minorities in this country have it soooooo easy they concocted a plan to ruin white people and it has any chance of succeeding.

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-31-2019 at 10:55 AM.
  #109  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:55 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Oh, also, the good people at 4chan have openly admitted the "outrage" they deliberately ginned up against Jeong had an ultimately insanely antisemitic agenda

But do go on, HurricaneDitka. Tell us again why we should hate this nasty femme.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-31-2019 at 10:56 AM.
  #110  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:58 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
She apologized and explained at length what the context of those tweets was. If she was so obviously and unquestionably REVERSE RACIST, you should be able to point out evidence of that in her extensive body of work, be it her articles at the NYT or Verge, the book she wrote specifically about online harassment and its possible avenues of moderation, the causes she openly supports, the talks she gives. You wouldn't have to hang your entire hat on a handful of tweets from 5 years ago.

She's just yet another in a long line of progressives (most often women, most often Other in some way) who get harassed and defamed by the alt-right and the ultraconservative media circus for cynical purposes in yet another iteration/incarnation of gamergate (WaPo paywall, but you can use your browser in incognito mode to access the article).
Brett Stephens wrote:

Quote:
... We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist. I’ve seen some acrobatic efforts to explain why Jeong’s tweets should be treated as “quasi-satirical,” hyperbolical and a function of “social context.” But the criterion for racism is either objective or it’s meaningless: If liberals get to decide for themselves who is or isn’t a racist according to their political lights, conservatives will be within their rights to ignore them.

Also worth noting is the leftist double standard when it comes to social-media transgressions. In February, my centrist colleague Bari Weiss celebrated U.S. figure skater Mirai Nagasu’s historic triple axel by tweeting a line from the musical “Hamilton”: “Immigrants: They get the job done.” Left-wing social media went berserk over this alleged “othering” of Nagasu, who was born in California to immigrant parents.

By contrast, the left has been nothing if not aggressive in its defense of Jeong. That’s the right thing to do, but it’s also rank hypocrisy coming from many of the same people who loudly demanded the ouster of Williamson, Weiss, or, well, me. The tests for who gets to work at publications like The Times or The Atlantic ought to revolve around considerations of liveliness, integrity, maturity, and talent. When ideology becomes the litmus test, we’re on the road to Pravda. ...
  #111  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:58 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not particularly. At least, I see that there are well-established laws in this country and that fighting against them would be a waste of time and energy, so I'm not going to do it now. If the rest of the country were ready to repeal them, I doubt I'd object much.
Okay. You're okay with people lying to ruin other people's lives, but you just don't have the energy to try to change the laws.

I think defamation laws are generally fine, and so long as a judge or jury serve as the finders of fact, they can typically do a reasonable job of sorting out whether a statement is defamatory or not. Why can't the same process apply to hate speech? Let's just let a jury decide, like they do all the time in cases of libel or slander.
  #112  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:59 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No, the problem is people that claim that spurious claims like that is evidence that there are no persecuted minorities at all.
Of course there are, and there's no greater risk to them than majorities who are convinced that they're the persecuted minorities, and who weaponize their own sense of victimization in order to victimize others. I don't think they should be given more power.
  #113  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:05 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The same Brett Stephens, who melted down a couple months ago because a random college professor made a joke that he was like a bed bug? And he tried to get the professor fired?

Oh yeah, he's a good role model for keeping one's wits about themselves when confronted with mere speech and not trying to stifle "opposing viewpoints."

Seriously, the guy deleted his Twitter account because someone called him a bed bug. I'm not exaggerating.

Way to find just the A-number one-perfect spokesman for your views, HD.
  #114  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:06 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Non sequitur. Still hanging your hat on those tweets. Please show me all that sweet sweet hate rethoric hers, I wanna be outraged too ! I'm white, I should get to !
  #115  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:08 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The same Brett Stephens, who melted down a couple months ago because a random college professor made a joke that he was like a bed bug? And he tried to get the professor fired?
Oh shit, I didn't even twig it was that guy ! Priceless.
ETA : if anything, you're understating the meltdown. He equated that one dude calling him a bed bug with the relentless hate speech against Jews of the Third Reich, and from thence claimed the professor was trying to get him murdered IIRC. It was a sight to behold.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-31-2019 at 11:11 AM.
  #116  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:09 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The same Brett Stephens, who melted down a couple months ago because a random college professor made a joke that he was like a bed bug? And he tried to get the professor fired?

Oh yeah, he's a good role model for keeping one's wits about themselves when confronted with mere speech and not trying to stifle "opposing viewpoints."

Seriously, the guy deleted his Twitter account because someone called him a bed bug. I'm not exaggerating.

Way to find just the A-number one-perfect spokesman for your views, HD.
I'm aware of his imperfections. So is he, I think. And I think his points in the quote above are still good ones, and valid, even though he has at times failed to live up to the standards he has advocated for.
  #117  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:17 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm aware of his imperfections. So is he, I think. And I think his points in the quote above are still good ones, and valid, even though he has at times failed to live up to the standards he has advocated for.
I'm literally laughing at this post.
  #118  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:30 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
So this is now the Sarah jeong thread?
  #119  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:32 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
... You know what, you're right. He did manage to derail the entire thread with the relentless nonsense. Well played, HD. Well played.
  #120  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:48 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So this is now the Sarah jeong thread?
Brett Stephens will not stand for that!!! Why can't white men receive all the attention?!?!?!

If this hijack continues, Brett Stephens is going to demonstrate his principles by ignoring them and quitting the Straight Dope. Because there's literally no better way to point out liberal hypocrisy than by citing a melted-down conservative who failed to live up to his own principles.

(Also there's no more ironic way to do the same, but then I'd be just putting too fine a point on it.)

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-31-2019 at 11:48 AM.
  #121  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:50 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't want a government controlled by SJWs to tell me what I can say. You presumably don't want a government controlled by fascists telling you what you can say. So we compromise and agree that the government doesn't get to tell anyone what to say, absent some kind of incitement to immediate violence.

It's not a perfect compromise, but it's better than if either side wins.
This seems entirely reasonable to me.
  #122  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So this is now the Sarah jeong thread?
No, it's still about hate speech. She's just one example.
  #123  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:04 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, it's still about hate speech. She's just one example.
Why are you criticizing what she said if you like hate speech? That's what I don't get.
  #124  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:08 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,010

The Moderator Speaks


That’s enough, Ravenman. Don’t impugn another poster’s motivations.
  #125  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
nm, just saw the mod note, I'll leave that line of discussion alone.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-31-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #126  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:01 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... if you like hate speech?
This is a truly fundamental error.

Opposition to hate speech laws does not imply affection for hate speech. Instead, it implies an understanding of the nasty place where such laws lead.
  #127  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:22 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Brett Stephens wrote:

Quote:
... The tests for who gets to work at publications like The Times or The Atlantic ought to revolve around considerations of liveliness, integrity, maturity, and talent...
So Brett Stephens is still out, then.
  #128  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:37 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
This is a truly fundamental error.

Opposition to hate speech laws does not imply affection for hate speech. Instead, it implies an understanding of the nasty place where such laws lead.
What nasty place has anti-defamation laws led to?
  #129  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:36 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
I think you've entirely missed the point here. Free speech advocates absolutely do understand why good-spirited people might want to ban such things as Koran burning. The whole point of free speech protection is to allow expression of ideas that many people find unpleasant / offensive / dangerous / obnoxious, etc. The assumption (based on much history) is that endorsing legal suppression of unpopular views leads to bad things - far worse than allowing them.
There are some countries or cultures that cannot/do not recognize a delineation between "Things I find wrong" and "Things that ought to be banned." To them, wrong and ban-nable are one and the same.
  #130  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are some countries or cultures that cannot/do not recognize a delineation between "Things I find wrong" and "Things that ought to be banned." To them, wrong and ban-nable are one and the same.
It's an attitude that even pops up here on the SDMB from time to time.
  #131  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:56 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
So what punishment does Jeong deserve, in the eyes of people who think she deserves any?
  #132  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:57 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is just "hate speech for thee but not for me". Like attempts to justify Sarah Jeong's hate speech, it's just a lame attempt to give political cover to one side of the current political divide.
"Unrepentant Apartheid racists" may be just "one side" of a "political divide" to you.

I suppose Nazis were also just "one side of a political divide" to you, too?
Quote:

ETA: I think this bears repeating here:
Well, it's nice to know that Shodan acknowledges that his side are fascists, but I don't really see the relevance. It's good if fascists lose. Didn't we settle that in 1945?

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-31-2019 at 03:01 PM.
  #133  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:08 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I see the situation the same as I do gun control. Other countries have laws against hate speech, and they seem to work well. The US is well known for its racism problem--less so other countries.
1. The fact other countrues are not as well known for racism pro blems doesn't mean they don't have them. The USA is better known for EVERYTHING. It's the loudest media market, and

2. I am skeptical of the correlation between hate speech laws and the actual prevalence of hate.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #134  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:17 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
2. I am skeptical of the correlation between hate speech laws and the actual prevalence of hate.
Germany, France and South Africa (just to name 3 countries whose hate speech laws I'm familiar with) have all experienced quite a bit of hate in the recent past.
  #135  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:18 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's an attitude that even pops up here on the SDMB from time to time.
Like bringing in Brett Stephens into debates, considering his views on the need to punish people who refer to him as a bedbug.
  #136  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:53 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Without wishing to get mired in this debate, I really wish that people would make the effort to understand what hate speech laws really are in western democracies, instead of the boogeyman many are inventing, with references to totalitarian dictatorships, censorship in China, and ridiculous hypotheticals about government-imposed dictates over what you're "allowed" to say. For one example, Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada.

The application of the extremely limited and carefully adjudicated hate speech laws in Canada have resulted in beneficial outcomes like the deportation of Ernst Zundel. If similar laws were applied in the US, they would have virtually none of the scary consequences being hypothesized here, but they would likely have been effective in stopping the most reprehensible and hateful of the Westboro Church protests against the funerals of fallen soldiers.

In the final analysis the only argument against such legal remedies to toxic activities that grievously disrupt social peace and order is the "slippery slope" argument, which stems from a fundamental distrust of government -- a uniquely American phenomenon, and hence the uniquely absolutist nature of certain constitutional provisions. I think it's a disservice to the interests of a peaceful and just society, but a "peaceful and just society" was never a founding objective of the American republic, but rather, one that maximized personal freedom.
  #137  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:25 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
You either believe in free speech, or you don't. If you don't, there's a process by which the Constitution can be amended, if you can persuade enough people to go along with it. I will resist those efforts.

I believe in free speech. Even speech I find offensive. I wore a uniform to protect that right, and I'd do so again if there was some urgent need for out of shape middle aged guys in the military. Even Notre Dame fans have a right to be heard--though I prefer to crush them, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women.
  #138  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:12 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
You either believe in free speech, or you don't. If you don't, there's a process by which the Constitution can be amended, if you can persuade enough people to go along with it. I will resist those efforts.
Not to rain on absolutist parades, but does that include such actions as libel, slander, threats and the revelation of national secrets?

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 10-31-2019 at 06:13 PM.
  #139  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:09 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Germany, France and South Africa (just to name 3 countries whose hate speech laws I'm familiar with) have all experienced quite a bit of hate in the recent past.
And the hate continues despite laws against hate speech.
  #140  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:10 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
And the hate continues despite laws against hate speech.
We have laws against murder, and also, we have murder. That doesn't mean the laws aren't doing anything.
  #141  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
1. The fact other countrues are not as well known for racism pro blems doesn't mean they don't have them. The USA is better known for EVERYTHING. It's the loudest media market, and

2. I am skeptical of the correlation between hate speech laws and the actual prevalence of hate.
Japan is surprisingly racist, altho quiet and sorta polite about it.

And the atrocities in Serbia etc were racist, of course. Far worse than the USA. "Ethic Cleansing" .
  #142  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
... For one example, Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada.

The application of the extremely limited and carefully adjudicated hate speech laws in Canada have resulted in beneficial outcomes like the deportation of Ernst Zundel. If similar laws were applied in the US, they would have virtually none of the scary consequences being hypothesized here, but they would likely have been effective in stopping the most reprehensible and hateful of the Westboro Church protests against the funerals of fallen soldiers.......


Canada does not have Trump as President. 'nuff said.
  #143  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:27 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
I do not see where Germany, France,or South Africa have been improvd by thelegislation of speech laws.
On the other hand, I can see where China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and other places have had negative results from speech laws.

I am supportive of laws against libel/slander, incitement, and similar actions through speech. I do not support, (or see the point) in using the law to suppress the expression of ideas or beliefs.
  #144  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
So what's the score in this thread? Ravenman, MrDibble and wolfpup support laws banning hate speech, Bryan Ekers is an unknown, and everyone else opposes them?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-31-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #145  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:34 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I do not see where Germany, France,or South Africa have been improvd by thelegislation of speech laws.
You don't think it's an improvement to walk around in, say, Germany and not have to worry about someone screaming Nazi propaganda at you? Setting aside the question of whether there are other trade offs that make it a bad deal, that seems like a pretty obvious improvement, at least when viewed in isolation.
  #146  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:45 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Not to rain on absolutist parades, but does that include such actions as libel, slander, threats and the revelation of national secrets?
Before being granted access to national secrets, a person must voluntarily give up their right to speak of those secrets.
  #147  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:18 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So what's the score in this thread? Ravenman, MrDibble and wolfpup support laws banning hate speech, Bryan Ekers is an unknown, and everyone else opposes them?
Where did I say I support banning hate speech?
  #148  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:56 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,010

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Of course you're not going to watch. I was linking it for the benefit of intellectually curious who actually care to know what harassment culture (and particularly alt-right, bad faith harassment culture) does and presents and causes. Not people who already know because they're engaged in doing it.
That'll earn you a warning for insults, Kobal. Stop it. Now.
  #149  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:01 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Before being granted access to national secrets, a person must voluntarily give up their right to speak of those secrets.
My God, you demand your citizens yield their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AS AMERICANS FROM AMERICA THE BEGREATEST BESTEST COUNTRY ON EARTH?!?!?!?!

Of course, that still leaves slander, libel and threats, but JEEZUS!!!!!
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #150  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:20 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
My God, you demand your citizens yield their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AS AMERICANS FROM AMERICA THE BEGREATEST BESTEST COUNTRY ON EARTH?!?!?!?!
Demand? No.

Quote:
Of course, that still leaves slander, libel and threats, but JEEZUS!!!!!
I don't agree with slander, libel, and threat laws, so there's that.

Last edited by manson1972; 10-31-2019 at 09:21 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017