Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:32 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,949
I like knowing who my enemies are. I like being able to identify the jackasses. So that's on them.

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?
We already have those, you know, as well as law against child porn. Surely you've heard of "clear and present danger"?

That dog won't hunt. Also, our laws regarding slander/libel and such have pretty high standards. You better have proof, and it better be good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
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 is absolutely no way that would fly. That would probably violate a number of laws, beyond any hate speech one. It sounds like the old "separate but equal", clause, which was ruled "unconstitutional".

You may not like it, but that's how it goes. You can't have one law for one race, and a different law for another. You're going to end up creating different classes of people, and that's the last thing you want.

Not to mention, what if one minority uses a slur against another? Such as Louis Farrakhan and his antisemitism? Or a Native American calls another man a Jap?




I'll sum it up as Alexander Kerensky once said: "he who does not defend liberty everywhere, defends it not at all."

Last edited by Guinastasia; 10-31-2019 at 09:34 PM.
  #152  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:19 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
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.
I messed up the most important link in my previous post. Sorry about that. This is what I meant to link to:
Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada

The point I wanted to make with that link, and the rest of my comments in that post, is that hate speech laws are intentionally very limited and very carefully interpreted by the independent judicial system to ensure that their sole effect is to protect vulnerable minorities from horrendous incitements to persecution such as calls for genocide, contrary to all the unfounded hysteria from the right and free-speech absolutists that it will inevitably be used to prevent people from saying mean things about the government.

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.
My whole point is that I completely disagree with the binary absolutism implied in the first sentence. Real-world issues are almost never black-and-white, on or off. With all respect for your service, your predecessors in service -- both in your country and in mine -- fought the Nazis to ensure that such horrors would never occur again. They didn't do it so that neo-Nazis could rise again today using exactly the same hateful genocidal rhetoric to corrupt democracy.

Moreover, constitutional absolutism is no protection against the abuses of government. An abusive government could just ignore the Constitution altogether, just as the present administration is ignoring the norms of governance and established law. And even before that, the USA has been far behind most western democracies on the international freedom index, yet has all the social turmoil associated with virtually unfettered hate speech.
  #153  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:02 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
There is this weird cultural thing in America and not elsewhere that elevates "freedom of speech" above all other considerations, rather than justice or fairness or equality. Stephen Fry said it best when he said freedom of speech is treated as a tool in other countries, rather than an end to itself like in the US.
There's nothing weird about it when you put it into the context of our history of censorship. Comstock laws in the 19th century suppressed the distribution of literature regarding contraceptives, southern states curtailed pro-abolition literature and were later aided by congress when it passed a law allowing postmasters for follow local laws regarding such material, threats of government censorship led to the creation of the Comics Code Authority which stifled comic books as a medium, and, hell, even motion pictures have been censored because from 1915 until 1952 they weren't considered to have any 1st Amendment protections.

I think the best way to ensure fairness and justice is to have a broad definition of freedom of speech.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #154  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:40 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
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.
Sure that seems like an improvement assuming what is considered Nazi propaganda is indisputably Nazi propaganda. But in the real world, empowering the state and the environment that leads to people willingly giving up liberty always has trade offs. Abuse of power by the state has led to more misery and more deaths than any other institution.
  #155  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
And the hate continues despite laws against hate speech.
But is it reduced? I would argue "Definitely"
  #156  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
There is absolutely no way that would fly. That would probably violate a number of laws, beyond any hate speech one. It sounds like the old "separate but equal", clause, which was ruled "unconstitutional".
I wasn't talking about your ridiculously outdated constitution.
Quote:
You can't have one law for one race, and a different law for another.
I take it you're against Affirmative Action laws and the existence of Native American casinos too?
Quote:
You're going to end up creating different classes of people, and that's the last thing you want.
The difference in classes already exists (unless you do think the word cracker is as hostile a thing to say as the word nigger), I'm talking about reducing the threat.
Quote:

Not to mention, what if one minority uses a slur against another? Such as Louis Farrakhan and his antisemitism? Or a Native American calls another man a Jap?
They'd both be racist. But unless there's a past history of race-based violence by NoI against Jews, or NAs against Japanese, it doesn't rise to the level of hate speech.
Quote:
I'll sum it up as Alexander Kerensky once said: "he who does not defend liberty everywhere, defends it not at all."
Preventing hate speech is defending liberty. The liberty to live your life free from threat of violence.
Saying anything different is just some "It's bigoted to oppose bigotry" bullshit.
  #157  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:03 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
This presupposes that all hate speech carries meaningful information. It does not.
But you can't know if it does or not if you can't hear the speech. As I wrote, if you don't have access to the arguments of holocaust deniers, you've no way to determine if they're right or wrong and you can only state your ignorance on this issue.

Only by allowing holocaust deniers to speak you can determine if their speech carries meaningful information.



Support for censorship is pretty much always based to the idea that it's "obvious" that the speech is wrong, which means "my culture/subculture/political side, at this particular moment in time, sees it as wrong, and people who don't are evil or stupid". There's no way restrictions on speech will be based on any kind of unbiased, objective assessments and limited to speech that can be determined objectively as being devoid of meaningful information.

Even assuming that it's started this way, and it won't be, people will push to go further. For instance, if you ban statements to the effect that black people are apes because it's objectively false, they will in no time demand that statements to the effect that they're ugly should be banned as well, even though this is entirely subjective. Because people don't want to ban speech that is objectively false, they want to ban speech that offends them. Restriction to speech will be based 99% of the time on banning what the currently most influential part of the population will particularly dislike hearing. Regardless of whether it's false, impossible to objectively assess, or even objectively true.

And what is banned will of course fluctuates according to random cultural and political changes. The only reason why the progressive left is so willing currently to limit free speech is that they feel that the wind is blowing in their direction, and that the censorship will be of what they dislike. And, as shown in another thread, are under the delusion that it will keep forever to blow in this direction (and not *too far* in that direction, either). But of course it won't (not that it would be legitimate to support censorship because you know it will benefit only your side, anyway).

And besides, pushing towards more and more restrictions of speech (and not only by the government, censorship on social medias matters a lot, for instance) will trivialize them, and will inevitably result in more and more people and groups demanding more and more restrictions, and their demands being more and more perceived as legitimate. Once people have been properly convinced that banning hate speech is legitimate, they begin to state that burning the Koran (as we see in this article) or caricaturing Mahomet is hate speech as well (that's a discourse we begin to hear not only from people who believe that religion is inherently deserving of respect but also from leftist progressives) that should be banned too. And if those things are banned, you can hardly argue that burning the bible, or mocking the tenets of the Christian faith shouldn't be similarly banned. And anyway, even if you attempt to argue that, since the majority of the population *is not* composed of people who think that their religion should be less protected than the religion of minority groups, you'll lose this argument.


Restrictions (of all kind) to free speech is receiving more and more support; and in particular support from the groups that historically used to be the defenders of free speech. Free speech has *never* been supported by the majority. People in general never really accepted that someone should be allowed to say, print or support ideas that offended them, attacked things they held sacro-sanct, or diverged from what was "obviously" right. Freedom of speech has been maintained only by a constant fight of the progressives against, essentially, the moral majority. For centuries. But now, it's the former guardians of the gates who say that they should be opened. Ir doesn't bode well for the future of free speech.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 11-01-2019 at 03:06 AM.
  #158  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:17 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Just a quick last point : there's a rising generation that thinks that freedom of speech isn't worth maintaining. They're, in my opinion, about as deluded as the anti-vaxers, and for more or less the same reasons.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #159  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:32 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Only by allowing holocaust deniers to speak you can determine if their speech carries meaningful information.
Of course.

Did you imagine hate speech legislation is some form of Precrime? It's prosecuting people for hate speech utterances they actually make.
  #160  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:37 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I wasn't talking about your ridiculously outdated constitution.

I take it you're against Affirmative Action laws and the existence of Native American casinos too?

The difference in classes already exists (unless you do think the word cracker is as hostile a thing to say as the word nigger), I'm talking about reducing the threat.

They'd both be racist. But unless there's a past history of race-based violence by NoI against Jews, or NAs against Japanese, it doesn't rise to the level of hate speech.
Preventing hate speech is defending liberty. The liberty to live your life free from threat of violence.
Saying anything different is just some "It's bigoted to oppose bigotry" bullshit.
Threatening violence is already illegal. And no, I don't think it's "bigoted to oppose bigotry". I do, however, think it's short-sighted and ineffective.

Oh, there has to be a history of violence by one group against another? So then is all speech against women by men hate speech? Or does it only count if it's by race?


Nation of Islam and antisemitism




Affirmative action -- that depends on how you define "affirmative action", and how various laws work.


Casinos -- well, I don't think casinos in general should be banned. Native American reservations are on sovereign land -- I'm not an expert there. (Not to mention casinos exist in other areas of the country -- there are a few here in Pittsburgh, for example)


The First Amendment is not a Get Out of Jail Free card. People will still suffer consequences. All it means is that the government can't punish you. But people have lost jobs, business deals, friends, suffered serious ridicule and basically become figures of intense hatred themselves. (Despite their whining that "BUT I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY OPINION!!!! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!")

You really want to stop hate? You'll never do it entirely, but the only way is education. NOT banning it. That's just going to drive it underground and make people feel like martyrs. These dumbasses already claim their rights are violated if someone refuses to sell their books, for example, and their stupid fans lap it all up.
  #161  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:38 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Just a quick last point : there's a rising generation that thinks that freedom of speech isn't worth maintaining. They're, in my opinion, about as deluded as the anti-vaxers, and for more or less the same reasons.
Sorry, messed up with the post :


Just a quick last point : there's a rising generation that thinks that freedom of speech isn't worth maintaining. They're, in my opinion, about as deluded as the anti-vaxers, and for more or less the same reason : their inability to perceive anymore the necessity of free speech and the dangers of restricting it, because they've been raised in a society where, precisely thanks to past efforts to support free speech against fierce opposition, they didn't have to face the consequences of its restrictions.

Not only they were born and raised in a relatively liberal society as a result, where they could express their unpopular opinions, but also most of the ideas and values they support now have been defended, spread and eventually reached them only because people have battled to maintain free speech. There wouldn't be many supporters of gay rights nowadays, for instance, without a centuries-long fight to strictly defend free speech, even free speech as morally indefensible and outrageous, and as obviously devoid of any value as letting people objectively proven to be crazy by scientific research state that there was nothing problematic with a man fucking another man.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 11-01-2019 at 03:40 AM.
  #162  
Old 11-01-2019, 03:56 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Of course.

Did you imagine hate speech legislation is some form of Precrime? It's prosecuting people for hate speech utterances they actually make.
How do you inform yourself on a subject when it is a crime to express or publish this information? You seem to say that since people can still express their views, being only punished after they do so, the information is still available.

Going this way, then there's no problem with banning any kind of expression. For instance, we can make a crime to criticize the government or contradict the president, this isn't a problem at all or harmful in any way, since people can still say the government is lying, they'll just go to jail after making this statement. This of course won't prevent you from being properly informed about government matters. You'll just have to wait until someone brave enough to face a prison sentence will climb on a soap box when you happen to pass by to be informed.

Your argument is ludicrous in that it makes any kind of restriction of speech innocuous. Or for that matter any kind of restriction of freedom.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #163  
Old 11-01-2019, 04:31 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
We already have those, you know, as well as law against child porn. Surely you've heard of "clear and present danger"?

That dog won't hunt. Also, our laws regarding slander/libel and such have pretty high standards. You better have proof, and it better be good.
So why not demand and equally high standard of proof from e.g. people talking about Jewish plots ? Or furthering the abject rhetoric that immigrants are all criminals/rapists/gangsters/terrorists ? Did libel laws have such a chilling effect on public discourse ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb
I do not see where Germany, France,or South Africa have been improvd by thelegislation of speech laws.
Possibly because you're not a French Jew ?
  #164  
Old 11-01-2019, 04:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Threatening violence is already illegal.
And all hate speech legislation does is recognize one kind of threat of violence that otherwise slips through the cracks.
Quote:
And no, I don't think it's "bigoted to oppose bigotry". I do, however, think it's short-sighted and ineffective.
Let me make sure I read this right. You think opposing bigotry is short-sighted and ineffective? Because I can't parse another "it" in what you quoted.
Quote:

Oh, there has to be a history of violence by one group against another? So then is all speech against women by men hate speech?
No, only the kind that threatens violence because of the victim's gender.

Where do you get "all speech" from? Talk about straw men...
Quote:
Or does it only count if it's by race?
Jews aren't a race. Gays aren't a race. But antisemitic and homophobic speech can be hate speech.
Yes, and...?
Quote:
Affirmative action -- that depends on how you define "affirmative action", and how various laws work.
Nice dodging.
Quote:
Casinos -- well, I don't think casinos in general should be banned.
Wasn't the question.
Quote:
Native American reservations are on sovereign land
...which is another difference by race...
Quote:
(Not to mention casinos exist in other areas of the country -- there are a few here in Pittsburgh, for example)
Native American casinos can exist in places that don't otherwise allow them, though. And can have different tax laws. That's a difference by race.
Quote:
You really want to stop hate? You'll never do it entirely, but the only way is education.
I'm all for educating people on why some speech is wrong.
Quote:
NOT banning it. That's just going to drive it underground and make people feel like martyrs.
Argument from fear duly noted.
Quote:
These dumbasses already claim their rights are violated if someone refuses to sell their books, for example, and their stupid fans lap it all up.
My point exactly. Ban the hate speech, and then they really would have consequences to their speech. And most of those blowhards are cowards and would not "go underground", they'd just shut up. It's allowing them open forums that enables their spread, I'm afraid.
  #165  
Old 11-01-2019, 05:09 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
How do you inform yourself on a subject when it is a crime to express or publish this information?
The information behind the utterances is all still there. The utterances are not new information.
Quote:
You seem to say that since people can still express their views, being only punished after they do so, the information is still available.
No. The utterances are not tied to the existence of the information. You yourself hint at this when you phrase it as "express their views" not "state the facts"

The words "nigger" or "kike" or "faggot" don't add any information to anyone's utterances.

And neither does Holocaust denial. It is a lie - negative information.
Quote:
Going this way, then there's no problem with banning any kind of expression.
Whoops, look at this slope someone left here. All slipperied up, it is...
Quote:
For instance, we can make a crime to criticize the government or contradict the president, this isn't a problem at all or harmful in any way, since people can still say the government is lying, they'll just go to jail after making this statement. This of course won't prevent you from being properly informed about government matters. You'll just have to wait until someone brave enough to face a prison sentence will climb on a soap box when you happen to pass by to be informed.
I'm not saying hate speech laws are OK because the information is still there. I'm saying the need to get information out does not supersede the right of citizens to safety of person.

So your false equivalency doesn't work, because critical speech against the government is not directly threatening any individuals.

Try speech which directly threatens the President, though...
Quote:
Your argument is ludicrous in that it makes any kind of restriction of speech innocuous. Or for that matter any kind of restriction of freedom.
No, it does not. It just prioritizes the actual safety of one group over the speech rights of another. There's always going to be a restriction of freedom in these cases - freedom from threat of harm, or freedom of speech.

Hate speech is the larger restriction of freedom. That's why it needs to be banned.
  #166  
Old 11-01-2019, 07:33 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
... They'd both be racist. But unless there's a past history of race-based violence by NoI against Jews, or NAs against Japanese, it doesn't rise to the level of hate speech. ...
I'm curious on how you define "history of race-based violence". For example, last year black perpetrators murdered 514 white victims. The year before that, it was 576, and the year before that, it was 533. If you were in charge, would this count as a "past history of race-based violence" for purposes of determining whether "cracker" or various other slurs against whites, when uttered by blacks, rises to the level of hate speech? Or did you have something more exclusive in mind with the "past history of race-based violence"?
  #167  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:08 AM
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
I'm curious on how you define "history of race-based violence". For example, last year black perpetrators murdered 514 white victims. The year before that, it was 576, and the year before that, it was 533. If you were in charge, would this count as a "past history of race-based violence" for purposes of determining whether "cracker" or various other slurs against whites, when uttered by blacks, rises to the level of hate speech? Or did you have something more exclusive in mind with the "past history of race-based violence"?


How many of those murders were because the victims were white?

Do you understand the difference between a lynching and an ordinary homicide?
  #168  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:17 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Do you understand the difference between a lynching and an ordinary homicide?
One difference is that there haven't been any lynchings in the US for seventy years or so, but ordinary homicides happen all the time.

Did you know that black people are disproportionately over-represented in the commission of hate crimes, and whites are under-represented?

Although to be fair, the hate crimes committed by blacks are not necessarily committed because of the race of the victim - gender, sexual orientation, or religion are lesser but still significant motivations, just like hate crimes committed by whites or Hispanics or Asians.

Regards,
Shodan
  #169  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:28 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
One difference is that there haven't been any lynchings in the US for seventy years or so
Sure there haven't.
And...?


Was there a point to that?

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-01-2019 at 10:29 AM.
  #170  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:31 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,294
I would like to commend clairobscur for several notably thoughtful and cogent posts in this thread.

We can lament that free speech has powerful enemies like the Washington Post and the NY Times. We can be glad it's not without staunch friends.
  #171  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:27 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
OK, one in thirty years.
Quote:
And...?


Was there a point to that?
Sure. We were talking about hate speech and hate crimes, and the idea that some groups are more at risk and therefore their speech should be judged differently as to whether it is hate speech or not. So ISTM that proportionate risk is a factor to be considered. So if one group makes up 72% of the population but commits around 51% of the hate crimes, and another makes up 13% or so and commits 22% or so of the hate crimes, it doesn't make sense to say that the first group should be judged as being more threatening than the second.

Of course this applies to groups, not individuals, but that is much of the problem - classing groups together and saying one group can engage in speech that the other can't means that actual individuals in both groups are being treated unfairly.

A better approach, IMO, is to create a standard and apply it equally to everyone - that "equal protection" thing in the US Constitution that you think is outmoded and shouldn't be considered when discussing hate speech law in America. If you are making a threat, then it doesn't matter what other people in your group do. And especially, if you are expressing an opinion, even one with which either group disagrees, it is wrong to say "group A can express that opinion but group B can't".

But again, I am an American, and hold the Constitution in higher regard than non-Americans might. YMMV, but when it comes to discussing America, the Constitution is a far more important factor than you might consider it to be.

Regards,
Shodan
  #172  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:38 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 49
I find it kind of silly to demand that we need hate speech laws when saying anything even remotely controversial will end up on FB/Twitter/Instagram and make you lose your job. There are enough social consequences for saying things others deem offensive. Unless you are actively inciting violence, which we DO have legal consequences for (see those brought up on charges for causing others to commit suicide), there's no need to attempt to legally reign in free speech.
  #173  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:39 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That's not even within ten miles of being a good cite. Give a pertinent quote.
I have a feeling that absolutely any example he comes up with conveniently won't be good enough for you.
  #174  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:54 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 Kovitlac View Post
I have a feeling that absolutely any example he comes up with conveniently won't be good enough for you.
Feelings are nice to have.
I asked for a cite to back up his specific claim, he popped back with a name.
  #175  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:56 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
No, she isn't. If she was, you wouldn't have to dig up a curated selection of tweets from 5 years ago when she was making fun of her online harassers to prove it. And by prove I mean smear in bad faith hoping people who don't actually know her look at it very closely. See : James Gunn.
Kind of like Justine Sacco?
  #176  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:15 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm literally laughing at this post.
Why? Can you point us to anyone who always lives/ed up to hir professed ideals? Your laughter alone carries no useful information.
  #177  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:25 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The information behind the utterances is all still there. The utterances are not new information.
Really? Where it is? How do you magically access information that is banned? As I said, your statement essentially means that no restriction of speech is a problem. I mean the information about the Tien An Men square and the golf results of Kim Jong Il (or was it Kim Il Sung?) is still here. It just can't be uttered. No problem at all.

This is an absurd argument. You're essentially saying here that freedom of speech in general is useless.

Quote:
No. The utterances are not tied to the existence of the information. You yourself hint at this when you phrase it as "express their views" not "state the facts"
You want to restrict speech that can be expressed to facts? So, making pretty much 95% of speech an open target for censorship?

And who determines which "facts" are really factual? The Central Committee for Truthful Information, maybe?

Quote:
The words "nigger" or "kike" or "faggot" don't add any information to anyone's utterances.
And the list of words and utterance that are sufficiently insulting to be banned is determined by whom? Can I be the one doing it, pretty please?

"Don't we almost all (95%) agree that this is *really bad* speech, harmful to society?" is always the argument of the censors. You pick something that almost all people will agree with, and you have opened the door. Censors have it good. They can always point at the speech most likely to be seen as offensive by the most people and say "do we really need to undermine society by allowing these very bad people to utter their lies? Don't we all know that Jesus is the lord? Didn't science prove that homosexuals are mentally ill? What information does this blasphemous statement add to anyone utterance?"

95% of the population feeling strongly that something is wrong doesn't make it objectively wrong. Regardless how strongly you feel about it, how much support you have in the general population, you can still be wrong and the hateful, blasphemous, antisocial, whatever person right. You feeling that a word is insulting doesn't make it so. You feeling that "nigger" is sufficiently insulting to be banned but not "cracker" or "negro" doesn't make it so. You feeling that that it should be banned from TV but allowed in to remain in historical documents doesn't make it so. You thinking that there are good enough reasons to ban speech harmful for group A but not speech harmful for group B doesn't make it so.

Your political views aren't an established truth. If you can ban a word you feel is very demeaning for, say, gays, the Men Rights activist is entirely justified in wanting to ban a word he feels is very demeaning for men, and the religious person entirely justified in wanting to ban a word he feels is very demeaning for his coreligionists. Of course, you're *certain* that you're right. That there are excellent reasons for banning the word you want to ban, and no good reason to ban the word that those other people want to ban. But you being very convinced of the correctness of your ideas doesn't make them true. Everybody feels that he's right. And that his reasons to ban this or that are perfectly valid.

If you can present a list of utterances that are really bad and add no new information and as a result should be banned, then I can present my list too and so can everybody. And then we ban everything that is on anybody's list. Or we ban nothing. Your pick. Anything else is stating "My views are the obviously correct ones, so I'm entitled to decide what can be said and what must not be said". Trump, Xi Jinping, myself, all feel as strongly as yourself that our views are the correct ones. There's absolutely no reason to let you rather than Trump or Xi Jinping or me decide which words are bad enough to be banned.



Quote:
And neither does Holocaust denial. It is a lie - negative information.
Whoops, look at this slope someone left here. All slipperied up, it is...
And again, who decides what is a lie and what is not? You? The ministry of Truth?


Quote:
I'm not saying hate speech laws are OK because the information is still there. I'm saying the need to get information out does not supersede the right of citizens to safety of person.
Really? So I can suppress any information I want if I feel it threatens me? Or maybe you are the only one who can decide what speech is threatening enough and what information isn't valuable enough? Is that the way it works?

Your statements are the same as those used by all censors for all of history. This speech is bad, wrong, threatening society. It's much more important to protect society/people from X than to allow stupid ideas like Y to be expressed. Of course, I and my friends are the ones who will determine what speech is too detrimental and what information isn't valuable enough. You can all rest reassured.

The only difference between you and all the censors before you and all the censors who will come after you, and the censors who wants now to ban something else than you want to ban is the list of things that ought to be banned and ought to be allowed. You want to censor for the common good, in pursuit of what is right and just. So did they. So do they. So will they. You act exactly like them, convinced of course that though people in the past were wrong and enforcing their censorship was bad, and that people with a different list than yours nowadays are wrong, and enforcing their censorship would be bad, of course, you aren't the same at all...because, you, obviously, you are entirely right and your censorship would be right and enforcing it would be good.


Quote:
So your false equivalency doesn't work, because critical speech against the government is not directly threatening any individuals.
No, it does not. It just prioritizes the actual safety of one group over the speech rights of another. There's always going to be a restriction of freedom in these cases - freedom from threat of harm, or freedom of speech.
Very noble aim. Not a problem as long as I'm the one deciding safety from what, safety for whom, how much safety must be guaranteed and how much speech and what kind of speech can be suppressed.

If I'm not the one deciding? No way.


Quote:
Hate speech is the larger restriction of freedom. That's why it needs to be banned.
Your opinion, nothing more. Blasphemous speech is the most threatening speech. Commie speech is the larger danger for freedom. Faggot speech is what threatens your children. Muslim speech is the greatest danger for our freedom.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #178  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:33 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
I find it kind of silly to demand that we need hate speech laws when saying anything even remotely controversial will end up on FB/Twitter/Instagram and make you lose your job. There are enough social consequences for saying things others deem offensive. Unless you are actively inciting violence, which we DO have legal consequences for (see those brought up on charges for causing others to commit suicide), there's no need to attempt to legally reign in free speech.
Would you suspect that virtually all Stormfronters are permanently or long-term unemployed?
  #179  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:43 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
OK, one in thirty years.
You think I listed all of them? And two of those were in the last 20 years. 1 was this decade.
Quote:
So ISTM that proportionate risk is a factor to be considered.
I'll happily lay 400 years of cumulative violence against your slight recent murder rate disproportion (and that's without going into why Blacks commit some crimes disproportionately).

You know, to make sure we're properly assessing risk and all.
Quote:
Of course this applies to groups, not individuals, but that is much of the problem - classing groups together and saying one group can engage in speech that the other can't means that actual individuals in both groups are being treated unfairly.
This "oh, let's ignore the groups, everyone's an individual" approach would be nice if hate crimes and hate speech weren't directed at people because of their group membership.
Quote:
A better approach, IMO, is to create a standard and apply it equally to everyone
The standard is applied to everyone. What changes from group to group is just precisely which language constitutes credible threat.
Quote:
But again, I am an American, and hold the Constitution in higher regard than non-Americans might. YMMV, but when it comes to discussing America, the Constitution is a far more important factor than you might consider it to be.
I'm aware how important some people think it is. I have absolutely zero reason to give that stance any respect at all.
  #180  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:43 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 Guinastasia View Post
I like knowing who my enemies are. I like being able to identify the jackasses. So that's on them.
That's very cute, but I'm more concerned about, y'know... not being murdered? I don't really care if there's a lot of people out there who are secretly thinking "God hates fags." I'm way more concerned that, if enough people are out there screaming "God hates fags" at the top of their lungs, someone's going to get it into their head to do some of God's work.
  #181  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:46 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Really? Where it is? How do you magically access information that is banned?
I'm just going to stop you there. What existing hate speech legislation bans factual information?

This is strawman alley and I'm not proceeding any further down it with you.
  #182  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:59 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
clairobscur, that was wonderful, and heartening, to read. I'm glad there are some people that still 'get it' (and can express 'it' so eloquently)
  #183  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:03 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Your opinion, nothing more. Blasphemous speech is the most threatening speech. Commie speech is the larger danger for freedom. Faggot speech is what threatens your children. Muslim speech is the greatest danger for our freedom.
I have to assume you're trying to make a point, but it's not well taken. This is a warning for hate speech. While this topic is fine to debate, engaging in this behavior is not allowed on the board.

[/moderating]
  #184  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:08 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,387
Seems clear to me that those were simply hypothetical opinions of other people who would want to ban speech.
  #185  
Old 11-01-2019, 02:27 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I have to assume you're trying to make a point, but it's not well taken. This is a warning for hate speech. While this topic is fine to debate, engaging in this behavior is not allowed on the board.

[/moderating]
I think this warning for "hate speech" pretty well illustrates my point about censorship.

Since the SDMB doesn't allow disputing warnings in the main thread, I'll expand on this on ATMB.

I'm of course withdrawing from a thread about censorship that is censored.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #186  
Old 11-01-2019, 06:42 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I take it you're against Affirmative Action laws and the existence of Native American casinos too?
This really isn't a good example. A Native American can't open up a casino in downtown Dallas or Orlando, Florida because the states those cities are in either don't allow gambling or restrict it in other ways. Native Americans can open casinos on their own land because it's sovereign territory. i.e. They don't get to open casinos because they're Native American they get to open them because they control their own territory.

Affirmative Action laws in the United States these days aren't typically written in such a way as to only apply to certain races. The same is true regarding laws against discrimination in the workplace.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #187  
Old 11-01-2019, 07:51 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
That's very cute, but I'm more concerned about, y'know... not being murdered? I don't really care if there's a lot of people out there who are secretly thinking "God hates fags." I'm way more concerned that, if enough people are out there screaming "God hates fags" at the top of their lungs, someone's going to get it into their head to do some of God's work.
DO hate speech laws prevent murder? Do they stop people from hating gays? Or just from going around and preaching it openly?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
And all hate speech legislation does is recognize one kind of threat of violence that otherwise slips through the cracks.

Let me make sure I read this right. You think opposing bigotry is short-sighted and ineffective? Because I can't parse another "it" in what you quoted.

No, only the kind that threatens violence because of the victim's gender.

Where do you get "all speech" from? Talk about straw men...

Jews aren't a race. Gays aren't a race. But antisemitic and homophobic speech can be hate speech.

Yes, and...?
Nice dodging.
Wasn't the question.

...which is another difference by race...

Native American casinos can exist in places that don't otherwise allow them, though. And can have different tax laws. That's a difference by race.

I'm all for educating people on why some speech is wrong.

Argument from fear duly noted.

My point exactly. Ban the hate speech, and then they really would have consequences to their speech. And most of those blowhards are cowards and would not "go underground", they'd just shut up. It's allowing them open forums that enables their spread, I'm afraid.



That should be "HATE SPEECH LAWS are short-sighted and ineffective". NOT "opposing bigotry."

I see the previous poster has already addressed Native American casinos, which is basically what the law is -- it's not because they're Native American, it's because they're opening them in sovereign territory, which is an entirely different subject. If you want to debate that, it would probably be best to start a new thread. (I also am not all that informed on the laws regarding reservations)

Once again, what do you mean by "affirmative action"? No, it's not a dodge -- there are a number of different types of affirmative actions. Are you talking about things such as trying to start new educational programs in minority area school districts, or more like hiring quotas? (The latter is illegal, IIRC)


Jews and gays aren't a race....what's your point? It's still a type of bigotry.

If you think banning hate speech willl make people shut up, well -- you're much, much more of an optimist than I am.
  #188  
Old 11-01-2019, 08:11 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 Guinastasia View Post
DO hate speech laws prevent murder? Do they stop people from hating gays? Or just from going around and preaching it openly?
If people can't openly express hateful ideas, that's going to make it harder to spread hateful ideas to other people. The fewer people who hold hateful ideas out there, the less likely that one of the people holding that idea is going to be sufficiently radicalized to carry out a violent act.

Seems a pretty obvious logical chain. Where do you think it breaks down?
  #189  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
A proper hate crime law would essentially be a criminal libel law where the victim would be a class of people instead of an individual. It's not going to outlaw the mere expression of hate. Some of the objections here have been ridiculous.
  #190  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:08 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
If people can't openly express hateful ideas, that's going to make it harder to spread hateful ideas to other people. The fewer people who hold hateful ideas out there, the less likely that one of the people holding that idea is going to be sufficiently radicalized to carry out a violent act.

Seems a pretty obvious logical chain. Where do you think it breaks down?
Haters will simply use code words to avoid the law while simultaneously crying that they are being persecuted for revealing "truth." The second part of this already occurs with open racists (and Fundamentalist Christians) and some far left nutcases proclaiming that they are the victims of persecution, today.

Hate speech laws simply gives them ammunition to encourage more recruitment.
  #191  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
If people can't openly express hateful ideas, that's going to make it harder to spread hateful ideas to other people. The fewer people who hold hateful ideas out there, the less likely that one of the people holding that idea is going to be sufficiently radicalized to carry out a violent act.

Seems a pretty obvious logical chain. Where do you think it breaks down?
Going to ban Abrahamic religions or their holy texts as well? At some point, wanting to have the state or a state empowered mob enforce some form of purity and eventually homogeneity of thought is going to run into some problems.
  #192  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:19 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
Haters will simply use code words to avoid the law while simultaneously crying that they are being persecuted for revealing "truth." The second part of this already occurs with open racists (and Fundamentalist Christians) and some far left nutcases proclaiming that they are the victims of persecution, today.

Hate speech laws simply gives them ammunition to encourage more recruitment.
How do they propagate their beliefs if they're using code words? If "Kill all the gays," is illegal, and bigots start saying, "Kill all the badgers," instead, how do new recruits learn that "badgers" means "gays?" How do the bigots keep law enforcement from learning what the codes are?

Also, can you demonstrate where this has actually happened? Canada, for example, has hate crime legislation. What code words have been developed by Canadian racists to circumvent hate crime laws? How successful have they been at this? Have all Canadian bigots started doing this, or are some still using more traditional slurs? If the latter, isn't there some utility in at least quieting those that are too dumb to use the "code word" workaround?

Lastly, if they're already crying about being persecuted, it strikes me that "They'll cry about being persecuted," isn't much of a reason not to have hate crime laws.
  #193  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:35 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
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?
No. If someone wants to put their propaganda on their sleeve then we benefit as a society by knowing who they are.
  #194  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:36 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 octopus View Post
Going to ban Abrahamic religions or their holy texts as well? At some point, wanting to have the state or a state empowered mob enforce some form of purity and eventually homogeneity of thought is going to run into some problems.
And wholly unregulated, completely unfettered speech also runs into some problems. There isn't an obvious, easy answer to this question. Suppressing hate speech means the chance that a malevolent government will use those laws to suppress dissent. Allowing it to run unfettered means the chance that a sufficient portion of the populace will embrace and enact the ideals promoted by hate speech. I don't think it's easy to say which of these outcomes is more likely - both have happened in the history of just this country, to say nothing of the rest of the world - nor is it easy to predict which outcome would be more damaging.
  #195  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:38 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 Magiver View Post
No. If someone wants to put their propaganda on their sleeve then we benefit as a society by knowing who they are.
Did you read the next sentence after the one you quoted? It provides important context as to the scope of the question I was asking.
  #196  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:49 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
A proper hate crime law would essentially be a criminal libel law where the victim would be a class of people instead of an individual. It's not going to outlaw the mere expression of hate. Some of the objections here have been ridiculous.
Thank god someone has said this so succinctly.

The posts that have gotten the most attention from one side here are straight out of a textbook. The well-written logicís fallacies textbook. They are off-point (China and North Korea have nothing to do with this), tautologies (penalizing hate speech is bad because it restricts free speech), slippery slopes (Trump is going to lock you up if you criticize him), just plain bizarre (what about all the valuable information we are going to lose if hate speech goes underground) and so on and so on.

The fact is that we have laws on the books that deal with lots of rather vaguely defined but prohibited activities that could be ripe for abuse if we lived in a totalitarian system: conspiracy. Obstruction of justice. Libel. Fraud. Treason. In a very specific case, abuse of power. Terroristic threats. Sexual harassment.

Anyone can think of tough cases where these laws could be abused to suit a bad agenda, but in the whole, the way we structure our justice system means that people who make these charges in civil or criminal hearings have to back them up with evidence, and many times itís up to a judge or jury to figure out the facts and questions of intent.

Donald Trump or the Communist Party of China has jack-all to do with it.

If someone wants to tell me in clear terms why society will be harmed if the author of a Holocaust denial book is compelled to pay some kind of damages for the junk he writes, please have a go. Just stay on-topic to my question and donít use slippery slopes or all the other fallacies we have seen on parade. Tell me how society loses if Holocaust denialism becomes punishable in some way.
  #197  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:53 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
And wholly unregulated, completely unfettered speech also runs into some problems. There isn't an obvious, easy answer to this question. Suppressing hate speech means the chance that a malevolent government will use those laws to suppress dissent. Allowing it to run unfettered means the chance that a sufficient portion of the populace will embrace and enact the ideals promoted by hate speech. I don't think it's easy to say which of these outcomes is more likely - both have happened in the history of just this country, to say nothing of the rest of the world - nor is it easy to predict which outcome would be more damaging.
Remember the Constitution constrains the government and isn’t necessary to empower the individual who has intrinsic natural rights. If you want to live in the world where people maintain that useful fiction you have to work at it. Constraining the state is of vital importance even if an empowered state can, through force, enact policy that is beneficial. Process matters.

And I think living in a society where people can freely debate, offend, and reason is far superior to living in a society ruled by an omnipotent state with surveillance everywhere .

Last edited by octopus; 11-01-2019 at 09:56 PM.
  #198  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Tell me how society loses if Holocaust denialism becomes punishable in some way.
It is punishable, socially and in every other way aside from legally. I think outlawing it could lend some sense of apparent legitimacy to the deniers, as they can much more credibly claim to be martyrs and victims. So that would be a "loss" for society, IMO.
  #199  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:59 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Thank god someone has said this so succinctly.

The posts that have gotten the most attention from one side here are straight out of a textbook. The well-written logicís fallacies textbook. They are off-point (China and North Korea have nothing to do with this), tautologies (penalizing hate speech is bad because it restricts free speech), slippery slopes (Trump is going to lock you up if you criticize him), just plain bizarre (what about all the valuable information we are going to lose if hate speech goes underground) and so on and so on.

The fact is that we have laws on the books that deal with lots of rather vaguely defined but prohibited activities that could be ripe for abuse if we lived in a totalitarian system: conspiracy. Obstruction of justice. Libel. Fraud. Treason. In a very specific case, abuse of power. Terroristic threats. Sexual harassment.

Anyone can think of tough cases where these laws could be abused to suit a bad agenda, but in the whole, the way we structure our justice system means that people who make these charges in civil or criminal hearings have to back them up with evidence, and many times itís up to a judge or jury to figure out the facts and questions of intent.

Donald Trump or the Communist Party of China has jack-all to do with it.

If someone wants to tell me in clear terms why society will be harmed if the author of a Holocaust denial book is compelled to pay some kind of damages for the junk he writes, please have a go. Just stay on-topic to my question and donít use slippery slopes or all the other fallacies we have seen on parade. Tell me how society loses if Holocaust denialism becomes punishable in some way.
Referencing entities that have power over us when we are talking about losing liberty and empowering those very entities is the literal opposite of a fallacy.
  #200  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:17 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It is punishable, socially and in every other way aside from legally. I think outlawing it could lend some sense of apparent legitimacy to the deniers, as they can much more credibly claim to be martyrs and victims. So that would be a "loss" for society, IMO.
I see this as a contradiction. If you maintain that people are punished for hate speech (through shunning or whatever), but that punishment leads to legitimacy, then shunning already leads to legitimacy...? So why does an additional punishment make such a difference? And can you just generally be more specific as to what you think would happen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Referencing entities that have power over us when we are talking about losing liberty and empowering those very entities is the literal opposite of a fallacy.
Wrong. Our judicial system has shortcomings, but being like totalitarian regimes is not one of them. Punishment in North Korea is quick and severe; our court system is slow and full of technicalities.
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 09:11 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