Whatever. Feel free to continue asking questions that you already know the answer to, and then upbraiding people for answering the questions you ask instead of reading your mind and answering the question you actually meant to ask.
And there is an annotated Wisconsin case from as recently as 1992 (State v. Gilles, 173 Wis. 2d 101, 496 N.W.2d 133). Is that modern enough?
My spologies.
I guess i credited you with sufficient intelligence read the whole of my earlier post, understand the distinction i was making between whether laws are on the booksand whether they are actually used, and continue the conversation about the actual extent and use of criminal defamation laws.
Heh. But gay folks certainly can have sex for procreation: happens all the time.
If that’s how this schmuck was reasoning, then French men present a far greater threat to humanity: if everyone in the world turned into French men, then humanity really would die out. Turning gay first.
Daniel
And again I say what-the fuck-ever. You’re right, I’m an idiot for not being able to figure out from your semi-coherent, quote-misattributing post what you really wanted. You sure showed me some superior intellect there.
Why, yes. Imagine if the U.S. was like that - millions of black people stuck in ghettos with no future to be found. Inconceivable!
There’s a lot of countries with troubles surrounding ethnic minorities. Strikes me as quite nervy to criticize something in another country that exists - in pretty similar form, as a matter of fact - in your own.
Anyway, I think people should tone down the histrionics in this thread. My general feeling is the same as most Americans’ - I think free speech should be heavily protected; it’s best to err on the side of allowing people to speak. But this is a pretty uniquely American sentiment, and other democracies have worked pretty well with slightly less expansive protections for free speech. It’s a bit hysterical to start saying that all these countries with hate speech laws are about to descend into tyranny, when many of these countries have had these laws for quite awhile.
You’re not an idiot for not being able to figure it out. I know that you knew what i meant, and that you’re smart enough to appreciate the distinction i was making.
You’re an idiot for being a dick about it, and responding only to my “Are you sure about that?” question with a curt one-word answer, while ignoring my subsequent attempt to discuss the nuances involved.
I’m not that bothered about all of this, to be honest. I’m used to some of the morons on this board doing shit like that; i just didn’t expect it from you, is all.
I can’t tell if you two are on the same page or not.
Even that might be debatable, because you could argue that your claim is so outrageous, no one is going to take it seriously, as it was obvious parody. I believe that’s what got Larry Flynt off the hook when he said Jerry Falwell fucks his own mother in an outhouse in the pages of Hustler.
Anyway, Jerry Falwell being a motherfucker aside, it’s nice that France recognizes gays as a protected minority. However, it’s shameful just how much “protection” France offers. I can’t speak for the homos of la belle France, but I don’t need or want that much protection. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are a lot more vulnerable. I’d prefer if the government spent more time protecting them, instead.
Indeed you don’t speak for them because they insisted big time on having this law on the books. Who do you think wanted it? The catholic integrists?
Oh, I was pretty sure it was the homosexuals who wanted it, but it’s the bigots who are going to most profit from it, both in France and abroad. It’s only a matter of time before our native homophobes start using this law as a reason to resist equal rights legislation here in the States.
I think we should wait for some more details before making doomsaying remarks - like the specific context and extent of what was said, and how the courts rule.
Without question.
Yes, definitely.
As long as you don’t say, “Martin Hyde is a threat to humanity, and I’m going to kill him” That would constitute a personal threat, which is a different animal.
And I don’t believe in the Canadian arguments either “inciting to violence” apparently has a pretty loose definition up North. Here in the United States it only counts if you’re saying something that is seen to DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY lead to violence. Like, for example, a black leader saying at the million man march, “Now, let us take baseball bats and rampage on the streets.” That would be seen as illegal because it could be argued that leader knew that his instructions would be listened to immediately and directly (I’m not trying to focus on the million man march, it’s just a good example of a large audience in a public place.)
To clarify yet again, in the United States:
Speech is only considered a threat or a crime based on possible violent outcomes only when it is speech that can be reasonably assumed to either be a direct threat to a specific person or something said that can be expected to immediately lead to violence.
So, saying “Otto ought to be killed” or “All gays should be killed” wouldn’t constitute a violation of almost any crime.
Saying, “I’m going to kill Otto” would constitute a threat and the government would step in to protect him, to what degree you would be punished varies. Saying, “I’m going to kill all gays” actually probably wouldn’t come down as a crime, but it might get you looked at harshly.
Also, libel can’t apply to a collective social class. To be libel you have to show that some material damage has been done. Libel also isn’t a crime, you don’t go to prison for libel or slander. You may be forced to pay money as compensation, and that will vary based on how much the court decides you have harmed someone financially by lying about them.
So talking about libel and free speech restrictions is disingenuous. Libel isn’t something you should engage in, but you sure as hell don’t end up in prison for it.
You can call these distinctions arbitrary all you want, but the fact is, the United States only punishes people when they engage in speech that causes real material harm to another person, or threatens personal violence.
France and other countries send people to prison for more or less saying “insensitive things about protected classes of people.”
In the United States saying, "He insists that he did not say homosexuality was dangerous “only that it is inferior to heterosexuality and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.” That would NEVER get you in any trouble.
It is perfectly clear who is the freer country when it comes to what you’re allowed to say. France basically has legally enforced political correctness, and the consequences of not being PC is time in prison.
Well, to be fair, any legal trouble. You’d get excoriated in the public forum, which is as it should be.