No, it’s not. You’ve resorted to name calling because I have pointed out a real problem with what you say, and you have no response. Other than name-calling.
Sniffles.
No, it’s because your example is silly. There is a difference between “your speech might cause someone to get angry that you are saying it and attack you” and “your speech is telling people to go out and attack other people”.
Well, absolutely. Sure, a newspaper is going to be reluctant to publish certain things if their offices will be burned and their staff beaten, or worse.
That’s why we can never allow asahi’s standard to become our standard.
We need the law to protect us, not give the violent power.
Then let asahi make that distinction, rather than just resorting to name-calling.
The example I posted is, in fact, an example of speech inducing violence. Extreme violence, in this case. It is not silly. It is a clear example of speech inducing violence.
Seriously – show me how it’s not.
This is what he/she said:
Ok, fine. If asahi believes that some speech that is likely to induce a violent reaction should be muzzled, and some speech that is equally likely to induce a violent reaction should not, let him make the case.
Exactly. I’m sure even most Dopers would oppose this kind of illiberalism.
It’s such an obvious difference that you’d have to be purposefully misunderstanding what Asahi is saying not to make that distinction. It’s like saying that rape is so bad that we should make it illegal, and someone interpreting that as punishing people who get raped.
LIke I said, I also took on several leftists that are against GMOs, The point remains, what you think some are doing here, the “Criticising the excesses or mis-steps of any flavour of political belief is not an indication of support for the extremes of the opposition still less an indication that you are fully aligned with all the views that they may hold.” Misses that many, many times already, there is evidence that the ones doing that criticism are constantly ignoring, their persistence and denial of the evidence shows that the critics that ignore those evidences have another ax to grind too.
Asahi didn’t make any distinction at all, so I have no way of understanding or misunderstanding. He made a blanket statement. As I’ve said, he’s free to come back and make any distinctions that should be made.
That’s a crock of shit. I said nothing that could be remotely interpreted as anything like that, and an attempt to discredit me by implying, however indirectly, that I’m some kind of rape justifier is just (probably intentionally) offensive.
There is indeed a difference and I’m not aware of anyone in this thread who thinks that direct and obvious incitement to violence should be lawful. I’m very close to a free-speech absolutist but even I draw the line at that.
I could be wrong so anyone who thinks that can step forward together we can argue against them.
Of course there is.
But asahi was saying the first thing. It was part of a discussion of whether a street preacher preaching an offensive sermon in public should be arrested (and therefore muzzled) because his speech might provoke those hearing it to become violent. Against the speaker.
Asahi seems to come down in favor of the muzzling.
And that seems like an obviously good thing when it comes to speech with which we vehemently disagree.
But, hopefully, less so when it comes to speech that we deem good.
So who decides? If it’s not a blanket rule that speech controversial enough to provoke violence should be muzzled, then there has to be a mechanism by which to distinguish speech that should be muzzled from speech which should not, right?
Who decides? That’s a fair question. Asahi can flounce off in a huff, but it’s a fair question.
I’m not saying that people here are doing that, I even went so far as to say
and
I’m not sure how much clearer I could make it.
Ditto.
Really?
The violence against people in long black coats that always follows “pro-Palestinian” demonstrations?
The violence in the summer 2020 BLM protests?
The violence of the Syrian, Chinese, Iranian, and Cuban regimes?
You’re willing to pre-empt those kinds of violence by censoring the speech that agrees with their goals? Or is this just another example of “the rights of people I disagree with are a sacrifice I’m willing to make”?
Sure, not saying that.
I am not trying to call you a rape justifier. I am pointing out that “speech that incites violence is bad” clearly means “speech that tells people to go do violence is bad”, not “speech that anyone reacts violently to is bad”. Just like “rape is bad” means “rapists are bad”, not “everyone involved with a rape is bad”.
Of course, this then ignores that bit where I said about “having an ax to grind too”. It is not referring to supporting those extreme ideas, but to their attempts at finding ways to get to another poster that showed in the past how shallow their criticism of many that do criticize the right are.
Understood, and okay.
But I think if you go back and read over what asahi posted, in context,* you’ll see that he was talking about muzzling speech because it’s likely to provoke violence, not by calling for violence, or inciting violence or advocating violence, but by expressing an opinion (for example, on same-sex marriage or gay people in general) that will anger the hearers to the point where they commit violence, probably against the speaker, or his followers.
While my civil rights example was extreme (but valid), perhaps let’s consider this – should the late Fred Phelps and his crew have been prohibited from demonstrating in SHeridan Square, right across from the Stonewall Inn, here in NYC? I’m almost certain they’d provoke some violent reactions. My position would be that they should be granted a permit and the police should protect them. Asahi’s position seems to be that they should be muzzled.
If I’m wrong, let asahi say so.
* No, that’s not that incredibly obnoxious SDMB cliched insult, “read for comprehension.” Just that I think you’re misunderstanding what asahi is saying.
Then I think pretty much everyone in this thread agrees with that.
The problem with the wording of the former is that it allows people to lump in both of the following definitions and that doesn’t help the discussion. There’s no harm in clarifying that
speech that tells people to go do violence
is what we mean and what we all are against
Almost certainly @asahi did not mean to restrict his statement to speech inciting violence, but was calling for a much woollier standard to be applied, with laws banning hate speech.