And regarding the whole idea that warning against a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument in this case:
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
So do you think we should repeal laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the president, inciting a riot, distributing copyrighted works, or divulging state secrets to the Taliban?
If restricting speech is a slippery slope, we've been part-way down it for hundreds of years.
And regarding the whole idea that warning against a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument in this case:
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
So do you think we should repeal laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the president, inciting a riot, distributing copyrighted works, or divulging state secrets to the Taliban?
If restricting speech is a slippery slope, we've been part-way down it for hundreds of years.
And regarding the whole idea that warning against a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument in this case:
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
So do you think we should repeal laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the president, inciting a riot, distributing copyrighted works, or divulging state secrets to the Taliban?
If restricting speech is a slippery slope, we've been part-way down it for hundreds of years.
We cannot and should not expect the State to rush in and protect each citizen from bad feelings or sadness or indignity or people pointing at them on the train or crossing the street when they walk past.
It becomes an issue when the level of discourse directed at a group is so vile and pervasive that the more barbaric segments of society take that as a "go for it" when it comes to victimizing those people in other ways.
In short: The kind of hate that is spewed against transexuals in corners of the internet far less sheltered than here probably do cause violence against transexuals.
Can I prove it? No.
But nothing is lost by criminalizing the worst and most vile hate speech except our illusion that we have any absolute rights to begin with (we have exactly zero absolute rights guaranteed to us in the BoR, and some of them like 'freedom to assemble' barely qualify as rights anymore they have become weak suggestions).
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization. While free speech is all well and good, some speech is truly awful and ought not be tolerated.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
National Fascist Party (Italy) 1943 1948 -5
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
And regarding the whole idea that warning against a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument in this case:
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
So do you think we should repeal laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the president, inciting a riot, distributing copyrighted works, or divulging state secrets to the Taliban?
If restricting speech is a slippery slope, we've been part-way down it for hundreds of years.
I feel that my home country of Canada does things rather well in regards to hate speech. A good example is when the "God hates fags" people came up to Canada to spread their filth, and they were blocked at the border for being a hate group. In my opinion, there are just some ideas that people can have that should just not be valued whatsoever by a society. Again, a homophobic hate group like Fred Phelps is speech that has no redeeming factor, and there should be consequences for speech like that.
There is that slippery slope of how much speech we limit, but I feel that doing none at all, like the americans do, is completely wrong. Hate speech is a very nasty thing, and not having laws against it can lead to stuff like the killing in Wyoming at the top of the page.
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization. While free speech is all well and good, some speech is truly awful and ought not be tolerated.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
National Fascist Party (Italy) 1943 1948 -5
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
1) Don't have a state religion
2) don't write anti-blasphemy laws (anti-blasphemy laws interfere with religious freedom anyway, whoops, see suggestion #1 for how not to be a shitty place to live)
The solution is, again, not absolute freedom of speech but "don't have a crapsack government"
We cannot and should not expect the State to rush in and protect each citizen from bad feelings or sadness or indignity or people pointing at them on the train or crossing the street when they walk past.
It becomes an issue when the level of discourse directed at a group is so vile and pervasive that the more barbaric segments of society take that as a "go for it" when it comes to victimizing those people in other ways.
In short: The kind of hate that is spewed against transexuals in corners of the internet far less sheltered than here probably do cause violence against transexuals.
Can I prove it? No.
But nothing is lost by criminalizing the worst and most vile hate speech except our illusion that we have any absolute rights to begin with (we have exactly zero absolute rights guaranteed to us in the BoR, and some of them like 'freedom to assemble' barely qualify as rights anymore they have become weak suggestions).
The is the "all our rights are a joke, maaan, so fuck it" argument.
Which, no. I definitely do have an inherent right to express myself and yes, it is important to the foundation of a free society to prevent the State from stopping me, and yes, that actually is the state of play today rather than an illusion.
You've basically ignored every single thing I've said in this thread so far!
We already have laws against beating the shit out of people, transsexuals included. Making a law against talking about how trans people deserve to have the shit beaten out of them will not prevent any ass beatings.
And regarding the whole idea that warning against a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument in this case:
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
So do you think we should repeal laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the president, inciting a riot, distributing copyrighted works, or divulging state secrets to the Taliban?
If restricting speech is a slippery slope, we've been part-way down it for hundreds of years.
No, No, No, Yes, No.
Way to stick it to the little guy.
Information wants to be free.
Try looking up the full quote sometime.
8->
I am an old salt when it comes to Copyright infringement arguments. Ask me about my collection of 2600 quarterlies!
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization. While free speech is all well and good, some speech is truly awful and ought not be tolerated.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
National Fascist Party (Italy) 1943 1948 -5
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
1) Don't have a state religion
2) don't write anti-blasphemy laws (anti-blasphemy laws interfere with religious freedom anyway, whoops, see suggestion #1 for how not to be a shitty place to live)
The solution is, again, not absolute freedom of speech but "don't have a crapsack government"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
Maybe one day I will find a True Scottish government for you. Although that will be extra hard, cause the UK doesn't count.
I feel that my home country of Canada does things rather well in regards to hate speech. A good example is when the "God hates fags" people came up to Canada to spread their filth, and they were blocked at the border for being a hate group. In my opinion, there are just some ideas that people can have that should just not be valued whatsoever by a society. Again, a homophobic hate group like Fred Phelps is speech that has no redeeming factor, and there should be consequences for speech like that.
There is that slippery slope of how much speech we limit, but I feel that doing none at all, like the americans do, is completely wrong. Hate speech is a very nasty thing, and not having laws against it can lead to stuff like the killing in Wyoming at the top of the page.
There is nothing to demonstrate that hate speech led to the killing of Matthew Shepard.
Canada suppresses speech against radical Islam through their Human Rights Commissions. It is not a good model either.
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization. While free speech is all well and good, some speech is truly awful and ought not be tolerated.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
National Fascist Party (Italy) 1943 1948 -5
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
1) Don't have a state religion
2) don't write anti-blasphemy laws (anti-blasphemy laws interfere with religious freedom anyway, whoops, see suggestion #1 for how not to be a shitty place to live)
The solution is, again, not absolute freedom of speech but "don't have a crapsack government"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
Maybe one day will find a True Scottish government for you.
It's a relevant distinction. If the power is only abused in already-terrible countries then it's perfectly safe in a good one.
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization. While free speech is all well and good, some speech is truly awful and ought not be tolerated.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
National Fascist Party (Italy) 1943 1948 -5
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
1) Don't have a state religion
2) don't write anti-blasphemy laws (anti-blasphemy laws interfere with religious freedom anyway, whoops, see suggestion #1 for how not to be a shitty place to live)
The solution is, again, not absolute freedom of speech but "don't have a crapsack government"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
Maybe one day will find a True Scottish government for you.
It's a relevant distinction. If the power is only abused in already-terrible countries then it's perfectly safe in a good one.
Sure, except my examples on AB and hate speech were:
the UK & the Netherlands(note the 2 telegraph links are under a 'public order' aka hate speech law not blasphemy)
And regarding the whole idea that warning against a "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument in this case:
Suppression of free thought and expression has been pervasive throughout history. It's not just a few isolated instances here and there -- it's a constant problem. Whether it's ancient Greece or Rome or Isreal or Babylon or Egypt, Medieval Europe or Medieval Arabia, indigenous American civilizations, Italy or the Germanic nations in the Renaissance, modern Europe or China or Arabic nations, every culture, every government, every people has been plagued with the suppression of free thought.
So fine. Call it a slippery slope argument. That's fine. But history would suggest that humanity has constantly been sliding down the slope, pretty much for as long as there have been governments.
It is for that reason that the United States' founders argued that the freedom of expression/speech should never been infringed, except in the most extreme circumstances. And when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular.
How can you slide down a slippery slope indefinitely? I mean isn't that the point of a slippery slope that it ends (badly)? That you start at the top and without meaning to whoops you're at the bottom?
I mean that somewhat facetiously but I'm assuming that "the bottom" in this case means state controlled propoganda or somewhat, and I dont see how you get there from hate crime laws.
e; also, you say "when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular" what stupid ideas did you have in mind? Because uh, I can think of some REALLY stupid ones. Even if you think free speech is a greater good overall that's still a pretty strong sentiment.
Also the U.S. may not ban political parties, but what we do do is designate them as hate groups and/or terrorist groups and dispatch a wide array of counter-intelligence measures to crawl up their ass so we know when they sneeze or fart.
It's not the same as banning them, no. But it's hardly letting them "be free".
There is nothing to demonstrate that hate speech led to the killing of Matthew Shepard.
Canada suppresses speech against radical Islam through their Human Rights Commissions. It is not a good model either.
Actually, Canada's hate speech laws are specific to incitement of genocide (this has been tested in court against a man who posted racist screeds on the internet, but not incitements of genocide, and so was found not guilty), and were written after Rwanda. Why? Because investigation into what went wrong with UNAMIR's mission (which was not military in nature, hence the reason for the confusion & inaction when the situation became a military scenario) revealed that for weeks, possibly months, prior to the actual outbreak of violence, the same radio personalities that directed the logistics of the mass murder while it took place were brewing-up ethnic tensions. Investigators concluded that while these individuals were not the sole cause of the genocide by any reasonably outlook, they nevertheless played a vital role in:
a) Creating a climate of polarized antagonism
b) Crowding-out any space where grievances could be addressed in a less severe tone, or where calls for cooler heads might've spoken-up
We then decided, based on the evidence of that investigation, that that kind of speech is hazardous (and that UNAMIR was doomed from the outset, because they arrived well after the racists had solidified the Tutsis as the 'cockroaches')
The is the "all our rights are a joke, maaan, so fuck it" argument.
The statement "we have zero absolute rights guaranteed us in the BoR" is a perfectly clear statement that does not say what you just said it says.
It's also a meaningless statement. Yes, our Constitutional rights can be balanced against the public good. That balance is properly struck in the most narrow way possible, leaving the most room for individual liberty and requiring the highest possible standard of evidence to demonstrate the need for a restriction.
What is your point? That because we restrict it for dramatic reasons we should also restrict it for petty ones?
I would love it if you'd go back through the stuff I've written so far and tackle the meat of the objections I have.
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization. While free speech is all well and good, some speech is truly awful and ought not be tolerated.
And to those who say, "But what if assholes take over and start determining everything they don't like is hate speech!" First of all, I will laugh in your face, because that's not going to happen any time soon and you're dumb if you think otherwise; we will never have a President Santorum. Ever. Ever ever ever never ever.
I'm inclined to agree. I see no social benefit to allowing aryans to hold a rally in which they call for all Jews to be killed. Since there is no present threat, that sort of speech is tolerated in the U.S. and basically anywhere else in the first world it's illegal.
The only social benefit people seem to be able to come up with is the slippery slope; "but if you don't let aryans say that, then we won't able to say this and this and that and next thing you know we'll all be legally required to vote Republican"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
National Fascist Party (Italy) 1943 1948 -5
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
1) Don't have a state religion
2) don't write anti-blasphemy laws (anti-blasphemy laws interfere with religious freedom anyway, whoops, see suggestion #1 for how not to be a shitty place to live)
The solution is, again, not absolute freedom of speech but "don't have a crapsack government"
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
Maybe one day will find a True Scottish government for you.
It's a relevant distinction. If the power is only abused in already-terrible countries then it's perfectly safe in a good one.
Sure, except my examples on AB and hate speech were:
the UK & the Netherlands(note the 2 telegraph links are under a 'public order' aka hate speech law not blasphemy)
Judging from the examples, it seems like the free-speech problem is primarily included in the 'religious issues' category, which would be substantially larger in the UK, at least.
I'd be a lot more willing to believe that America would be exceptionally terrible with that power, though, considering how much it's already being abused.
I'd like to see more examples of the slippery slope in effect, and preferably not in a country that is basically a dictatorship to begin with, such as Russia.
Maybe one day I will find a True Scottish government for you. Although that will be extra hard, cause the UK doesn't count.
First, trim these quote trees. Do it for freedom.
Secondly, the point I was working towards which went unstated until now is that I am pretty sure that freedom of speech (political and otherwise) doesn't produce free first world democracies. Rather, I think freedom of political speech is a symptom of a healthy democratic government.
It's why countries like Russia and China claim to allow open discourse when in fact they do not.
To put it bluntly: I don't think guaranteeing freedom of anything on paper amounts to squat unless the government present is on the up and up and draw their authority from a populace who also wants these things.
Without that you don't get free speech, regardless of the government claims.
Likewise, the difference between "free speech" in Canada (for example) and "free speech" in America is really very slight.
The argument that a restrictive law on the order of what Canada has reduces us to what Russia has illogical. It does not follow.
My opinion on hate speech is that I believe it is something that warrants curtailing, simply because its existence provides no tangible benefit to a civilization.
First, I do not know how you presume yourself capable of discerning whether or not X provides "no tangible benefit to a civilization". It likely provides some benefit to some members of the civilization.
Second, there are plenty of permissible things that fail to behoove the collective.
The is the "all our rights are a joke, maaan, so fuck it" argument.
The statement "we have zero absolute rights guaranteed us in the BoR" is a perfectly clear statement that does not say what you just said it says.
It's also a meaningless statement. Yes, our Constitutional rights can be balanced against the public good. That balance is properly struck in the most narrow way possible, leaving the most room for individual liberty and requiring the highest possible standard of evidence to demonstrate the need for a restriction.
What is your point? That because we restrict it for dramatic reasons we should also restrict it for petty ones?
I would love it if you'd go back through the stuff I've written so far and tackle the meat of the objections I have.
I don't think "meaningless" means what you think it means.
The solution to the Heckler's Veto is to tell the heckler that it'd be funny if he was forcibly silenced by, like 5 policemen right now.
So like ender said, mob violence condemnation and combatting speech with speech is your preference over simply having society raise the bar ever so slightly on how you can behave in public without being arrested for disturbing the peace.
Fixed that for you.
Public condemnation is far preferable to state action, yes. This bar should not have been raised to prevent Hustler, should not have been raised to stop Malcom X from speaking out against racism, and should not today be used to silence imams who advocate the destruction of the USA, or to silence assholes who insult gay people on Teamspeak.
Yes. Yes, absolutely.
No, I'm sorry - it's absolutely an appeal to mob violence. That's what Westboro actually bank on, in fact - that someone at a funeral will throw a rock or a fist, and they can then sue their attacker. Riots break out at Anne Coulter rallies, knife fights break out at Neo-Nazi rallies, etc - and then people say, "WELL GEE WHIZ, WHAT A SHAME!" with a smile and a nod.
It's the Wild West idea of how law enforcement ought to work, with people 'policing themselves', and the results tend to be appalling / ineffective. The police coming to shut someone up is a better outcome, in my opinion, than a person being shut-up when an angry mourner punches them in the jaw and while being cheered-on by other mourners.
I'm not sure what other sources you'd accept as "valid". Start by searching for the incident of Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" and the BC HRC response to it.
It becomes an issue when the level of discourse directed at a group is so vile and pervasive that the more barbaric segments of society take that as a "go for it" when it comes to victimizing those people in other ways.
As you said, the problem is not the linguistic utterances. The problem is the actions that may follow from those linguistic utterances.
Limiting actual acts of victimization is keen.
Limiting noise is silly. The discrete linguistic utterance does not do anything. The act that results from a person who hears it, interprets it, and is motivated by the interpretation can be problematic.
Edit: To further clarify: Those of us who like the status quo don't have any burden to explain why Americans deserve to be protected from government interference into their speech. It's on you, Ender, to explain why Rush should not be protected when he says that shit. In this, he's no different than Larry Flynt or Gloria Steinem or Malcom X or Rick Santorum or Harvey Milk.
There is no 'burden of proof' here because this isn't an empirical statement of fact. I'm asking you to justify your position, even if your lawmakers happen to agree with you, based on what we know about the real harm that can be caused my 'mere' speech.
Why do you feel that the bullies, racists, bigots, etc deserve the state's protection rather than their victims, spool? Surely a 'small government, keep the BAMA away from ME!' type like yourself has more to offer than, "Well, if Washington says it's okay, then it's okay," ?
First off: Not arresting someone is an example of state's protection now?
Second off: You want to throw people in prison because you dislike the things they say. Are you quite sure you want to lump bullies into the mix?
Third: This is the can of worms you are opening:
Abortion. Regardless of what side you are on, red or blue, the other side claims you have nothing but hate in your heart. If you are pro/anti-death/life/choice you either hate women or you hate innocent and helpless little babies. You are enslaving people, or you are murdering them, because we as human beings can't talk about anything serious without resorting to the throwing of metaphorical poo.
Which groups do you throw into jail? Personally I would say both, but that isn't very practical. It's prosecuting hate speech, as they slap each other with hateful names as if it was a required protocol, but it isn't practical. I guess the only fair and cost effective way to go about it is to throw the pro-choice crowd in jail in the red states, and the pro-life crowd in jail in the blue states.
This is why you have federal protection for the act of throwing metaphorical poo. Human beings open their mouths and let fly an avalanche of stupid on every available topic. In reaction to this, it is common for the opposition to reply with their own over-dramatic gesture in an effort to elevate the issue to a matter of life vs death, or good vs evil. So you either throw everyone in jail, which never happens, or you apply the standard selectively.
And selective application might sound good to you, but have you ever seen Fox News? In that world the persecuted party is the white christian. Their political party controls states, and our House of Representatives. Do you want Alabama to define hate speech for it's self, or do you want the RNC helping them? I am sure the resulting legislation will really inspire the Evangelical base, but I do not see how that fits with your ideal.
One doesn't have to use a slippery slope to show why this is a bad idea. With the Republicans holding The House, you just need to point out how many elephants are still in the freaking room.
The solution to the Heckler's Veto is to tell the heckler that it'd be funny if he was forcibly silenced by, like 5 policemen right now.
So like ender said, mob violence condemnation and combatting speech with speech is your preference over simply having society raise the bar ever so slightly on how you can behave in public without being arrested for disturbing the peace.
Fixed that for you.
Public condemnation is far preferable to state action, yes. This bar should not have been raised to prevent Hustler, should not have been raised to stop Malcom X from speaking out against racism, and should not today be used to silence imams who advocate the destruction of the USA, or to silence assholes who insult gay people on Teamspeak.
Yes. Yes, absolutely.
No, I'm sorry - it's absolutely an appeal to mob violence. That's what Westboro actually bank on, in fact - that someone at a funeral will throw a rock or a fist, and they can then sue their attacker. Riots break out at Anne Coulter rallies, knife fights break out at Neo-Nazi rallies, etc - and then people say, "WELL GEE WHIZ, WHAT A SHAME!" with a smile and a nod.
It's the Wild West idea of how law enforcement ought to work, with people 'policing themselves', and the results tend to be appalling / ineffective. The police coming to shut someone up is a better outcome, in my opinion, than a person being shut-up when an angry mourner punches them in the jaw and while being cheered-on by other mourners.
It's a far worse outcome. People should be punished for things that do harm to others (punching them, stabbing them, rioting), not saying things that make others feel angry. Speech is properly countered by other speech, made by other free citizens. Not by the State forcibly silencing it.
Also, wasn't it Canada that refused to let Coulter speak at a college because they were afraid of leftwing types rioting against her? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
It becomes an issue when the level of discourse directed at a group is so vile and pervasive that the more barbaric segments of society take that as a "go for it" when it comes to victimizing those people in other ways.
As you said, the problem is not the linguistic utterances. The problem is the actions that may follow from those linguistic utterances.
Limiting actual acts of victimization is keen.
Limiting noise is silly. The discrete linguistic utterance does not do anything. The act that results from a person who hears it, interprets it, and is motivated by the interpretation can be problematic.
Whether it's a cause or not aside (I feel that it may be, but I can't prove it and I admit that).
I find it intriguing that when we have a horrific incidence of violence in this country there is a subsection of the population that is just adamantly allergic to looking at causes.
I'm not sure what other sources you'd accept as "valid". Start by searching for the incident of Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" and the BC HRC response to it. [/quote]
Well, in the case of a book that literally argues that there is a world wide race war that should be fought, I would say that classifying it as hate speech would be justified.
It becomes an issue when the level of discourse directed at a group is so vile and pervasive that the more barbaric segments of society take that as a "go for it" when it comes to victimizing those people in other ways.
As you said, the problem is not the linguistic utterances. The problem is the actions that may follow from those linguistic utterances.
Limiting actual acts of victimization is keen.
Limiting noise is silly. The discrete linguistic utterance does not do anything. The act that results from a person who hears it, interprets it, and is motivated by the interpretation can be problematic.
Whether it's a cause or not aside (I feel that it may be, but I can't prove it and I admit that).
I find it intriguing that when we have a horrific incidence of violence in this country there is a subsection of the population that is just adamantly allergic to looking at causes.
I mean, OK look: This is you arguing that we should ban violent video games now. Also that D&D causes satanism.
Here's an interesting anti-hate speech, pro inclusivity bill.
THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE…
A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.
Good on AZ for stepping up and protecting students from listening to a bunch of propaganda about the persecution and enslavement of the White Christian Male by the Jews, and other bullshit NAZI ideology.
People should be punished for things that do harm to others (punching them, stabbing them, rioting), not saying things that make others feel angry. Speech is properly countered by other speech, made by other free citizens. Not by the State forcibly silencing it.
This.
Persons mistakenly construe words to be akin to fists, knives, pipes, etc. If Player A strikes Player B with a lead pipe, with sufficient force, the pipe will inflict harm upon Player B's biological body as a result of physical laws that are not under Player B's control.
When Player A makes a noise at Player B, any emotive reaction Player B feels results from Player B's interpretation of the noise. This interpretation will be subject to many factors that depend upon Player A and Player B. For example, suppose Player A and Player B are friends, who have a long-standing joking relationship. If Player A calls Player B a "fag", that noise is interpreted by Player B to be a joke, a casual tongue-in-cheek mocking. Were Player A to make the "fag" noise at another individual, who does not participate in the afore mentioned language game of interpretation, this Player C may interpret "fag" to be an insulting attack on their character.
The noise is the same in both instances. What changes is how the noise is interpreted by the person who hears it.
This is why banning words is nonsense. It reifies them by pretending they have some inherent universal meaning, and fails to treat them as what they are: Noises subject to interpretation the meaning of which results from context, personal history, etc.
There's a difference between saying that you think that Islamic countries backwards in some respects, and that Islam's stated goal is the destruction of Europe and that America should wake up and fight a holy war. If people start taking the second one seriously, then that is a major problem.
Posts
No, No, No, Yes, No.
Way to stick it to the little guy.
Information wants to be free.
It becomes an issue when the level of discourse directed at a group is so vile and pervasive that the more barbaric segments of society take that as a "go for it" when it comes to victimizing those people in other ways.
In short: The kind of hate that is spewed against transexuals in corners of the internet far less sheltered than here probably do cause violence against transexuals.
Can I prove it? No.
But nothing is lost by criminalizing the worst and most vile hate speech except our illusion that we have any absolute rights to begin with (we have exactly zero absolute rights guaranteed to us in the BoR, and some of them like 'freedom to assemble' barely qualify as rights anymore they have become weak suggestions).
In 1977, in the UK, The Gay News, was charged and fined under the UKs anti-blasphemy laws(repealed in 2008) for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name. A poem about a Centurion having sex with Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon#Judgment
And a teacher was arrested and lost his job in 1992 for selling Visons of Ecstasy.
Geert Wilders(Netherlands), was tried on hate speech charges over the Muhammad Cartoons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1997376/Boy-faces-court-for-Scientology-placard.html
My greatest fear with US hate speech laws, outside of their general weakening of the 1st. Is that they will be mostly used to protect the much persecuted christian majority of the US.
Europe also has a fairly large number of banned political parties.
http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp0711.pdf has a non-exhaustive list.
Communist Party of Latvia 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 1990 1
Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 1991 0
National Socialist German Workers Party (Austria) 1945 1945 0
Communist Party of Greece 1947 1946 1
Socialist Reich Party (German) 1952 1949 3
Communist Party of Germany 1956 1949 7
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-Pirin (Bulgaria) 1999 1990 9
Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 1991 13
National Bolshevik Party (Russia) 2005 1991 14
Republican Party of Russia 2007 1991 16
Workers Party (Czech Republic) 2010 1990 20
Batasuna (Spain) 2003 1977 26
Communist Party of the Basque Homelands (Spain) 2008 1977 31
Askatasuna (Spain) 2009 1977 32
National Democratic Party (Austria) 1988 1945 43
United Communist Party (Turkey) 1990 1946 44
People’s Labour Party (Turkey) 1993 1946 47
Centre Party 1986 (The Netherlands) 1998 1946 52
Welfare Party (Turkey) 1998 1946 52
Democratic Society Party (Turkey) 2009 1946 63
They basically break down into:
Nazis
Right Wing Nationalism(Scandinavia, generally anti-immigrant)
Separatist parties(Basque, Macidonia)
Communists
Try looking up the full quote sometime.
There is that slippery slope of how much speech we limit, but I feel that doing none at all, like the americans do, is completely wrong. Hate speech is a very nasty thing, and not having laws against it can lead to stuff like the killing in Wyoming at the top of the page.
1) Don't have a state religion
2) don't write anti-blasphemy laws (anti-blasphemy laws interfere with religious freedom anyway, whoops, see suggestion #1 for how not to be a shitty place to live)
The solution is, again, not absolute freedom of speech but "don't have a crapsack government"
The is the "all our rights are a joke, maaan, so fuck it" argument.
Which, no. I definitely do have an inherent right to express myself and yes, it is important to the foundation of a free society to prevent the State from stopping me, and yes, that actually is the state of play today rather than an illusion.
You've basically ignored every single thing I've said in this thread so far!
We already have laws against beating the shit out of people, transsexuals included. Making a law against talking about how trans people deserve to have the shit beaten out of them will not prevent any ass beatings.
However, it would make this post illegal.
8->
I am an old salt when it comes to Copyright infringement arguments. Ask me about my collection of 2600 quarterlies!
Maybe one day I will find a True Scottish government for you. Although that will be extra hard, cause the UK doesn't count.
There is nothing to demonstrate that hate speech led to the killing of Matthew Shepard.
Canada suppresses speech against radical Islam through their Human Rights Commissions. It is not a good model either.
It's a relevant distinction. If the power is only abused in already-terrible countries then it's perfectly safe in a good one.
Exceptionalism ho!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sure, except my examples on AB and hate speech were:
the UK & the Netherlands(note the 2 telegraph links are under a 'public order' aka hate speech law not blasphemy)
and the banned parties include:
Italy, Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece, Germany, Austria, Bulgaria & The Netherlands.
How can you slide down a slippery slope indefinitely? I mean isn't that the point of a slippery slope that it ends (badly)? That you start at the top and without meaning to whoops you're at the bottom?
I mean that somewhat facetiously but I'm assuming that "the bottom" in this case means state controlled propoganda or somewhat, and I dont see how you get there from hate crime laws.
e; also, you say "when I look back to our history, I am far more ashamed by the times when we've unjustly broken those protections than I am when stupid ideas get popular" what stupid ideas did you have in mind? Because uh, I can think of some REALLY stupid ones. Even if you think free speech is a greater good overall that's still a pretty strong sentiment.
The communist party was banned back in the 90s... but today? Nope
The statement "we have zero absolute rights guaranteed us in the BoR" is a perfectly clear statement that does not say what you just said it says.
They suppress speech against Islam via their Human Rights Commissions.
It's not the same as banning them, no. But it's hardly letting them "be free".
Actually, Canada's hate speech laws are specific to incitement of genocide (this has been tested in court against a man who posted racist screeds on the internet, but not incitements of genocide, and so was found not guilty), and were written after Rwanda. Why? Because investigation into what went wrong with UNAMIR's mission (which was not military in nature, hence the reason for the confusion & inaction when the situation became a military scenario) revealed that for weeks, possibly months, prior to the actual outbreak of violence, the same radio personalities that directed the logistics of the mass murder while it took place were brewing-up ethnic tensions. Investigators concluded that while these individuals were not the sole cause of the genocide by any reasonably outlook, they nevertheless played a vital role in:
a) Creating a climate of polarized antagonism
b) Crowding-out any space where grievances could be addressed in a less severe tone, or where calls for cooler heads might've spoken-up
We then decided, based on the evidence of that investigation, that that kind of speech is hazardous (and that UNAMIR was doomed from the outset, because they arrived well after the racists had solidified the Tutsis as the 'cockroaches')
It's also a meaningless statement. Yes, our Constitutional rights can be balanced against the public good. That balance is properly struck in the most narrow way possible, leaving the most room for individual liberty and requiring the highest possible standard of evidence to demonstrate the need for a restriction.
What is your point? That because we restrict it for dramatic reasons we should also restrict it for petty ones?
I would love it if you'd go back through the stuff I've written so far and tackle the meat of the objections I have.
Can you give me some sources on that? The only people ive heard say things like that is Harper and his followers.
Judging from the examples, it seems like the free-speech problem is primarily included in the 'religious issues' category, which would be substantially larger in the UK, at least.
I'd be a lot more willing to believe that America would be exceptionally terrible with that power, though, considering how much it's already being abused.
First, trim these quote trees. Do it for freedom.
Secondly, the point I was working towards which went unstated until now is that I am pretty sure that freedom of speech (political and otherwise) doesn't produce free first world democracies. Rather, I think freedom of political speech is a symptom of a healthy democratic government.
It's why countries like Russia and China claim to allow open discourse when in fact they do not.
To put it bluntly: I don't think guaranteeing freedom of anything on paper amounts to squat unless the government present is on the up and up and draw their authority from a populace who also wants these things.
Without that you don't get free speech, regardless of the government claims.
Likewise, the difference between "free speech" in Canada (for example) and "free speech" in America is really very slight.
The argument that a restrictive law on the order of what Canada has reduces us to what Russia has illogical. It does not follow.
First, I do not know how you presume yourself capable of discerning whether or not X provides "no tangible benefit to a civilization". It likely provides some benefit to some members of the civilization.
Second, there are plenty of permissible things that fail to behoove the collective.
I don't think "meaningless" means what you think it means.
No, I'm sorry - it's absolutely an appeal to mob violence. That's what Westboro actually bank on, in fact - that someone at a funeral will throw a rock or a fist, and they can then sue their attacker. Riots break out at Anne Coulter rallies, knife fights break out at Neo-Nazi rallies, etc - and then people say, "WELL GEE WHIZ, WHAT A SHAME!" with a smile and a nod.
It's the Wild West idea of how law enforcement ought to work, with people 'policing themselves', and the results tend to be appalling / ineffective. The police coming to shut someone up is a better outcome, in my opinion, than a person being shut-up when an angry mourner punches them in the jaw and while being cheered-on by other mourners.
Wikipedia has a pile of sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies
I'm not sure what other sources you'd accept as "valid". Start by searching for the incident of Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" and the BC HRC response to it.
As you said, the problem is not the linguistic utterances. The problem is the actions that may follow from those linguistic utterances.
Limiting actual acts of victimization is keen.
Limiting noise is silly. The discrete linguistic utterance does not do anything. The act that results from a person who hears it, interprets it, and is motivated by the interpretation can be problematic.
First off: Not arresting someone is an example of state's protection now?
Second off: You want to throw people in prison because you dislike the things they say. Are you quite sure you want to lump bullies into the mix?
Third: This is the can of worms you are opening:
Abortion. Regardless of what side you are on, red or blue, the other side claims you have nothing but hate in your heart. If you are pro/anti-death/life/choice you either hate women or you hate innocent and helpless little babies. You are enslaving people, or you are murdering them, because we as human beings can't talk about anything serious without resorting to the throwing of metaphorical poo.
Which groups do you throw into jail? Personally I would say both, but that isn't very practical. It's prosecuting hate speech, as they slap each other with hateful names as if it was a required protocol, but it isn't practical. I guess the only fair and cost effective way to go about it is to throw the pro-choice crowd in jail in the red states, and the pro-life crowd in jail in the blue states.
This is why you have federal protection for the act of throwing metaphorical poo. Human beings open their mouths and let fly an avalanche of stupid on every available topic. In reaction to this, it is common for the opposition to reply with their own over-dramatic gesture in an effort to elevate the issue to a matter of life vs death, or good vs evil. So you either throw everyone in jail, which never happens, or you apply the standard selectively.
And selective application might sound good to you, but have you ever seen Fox News? In that world the persecuted party is the white christian. Their political party controls states, and our House of Representatives. Do you want Alabama to define hate speech for it's self, or do you want the RNC helping them? I am sure the resulting legislation will really inspire the Evangelical base, but I do not see how that fits with your ideal.
One doesn't have to use a slippery slope to show why this is a bad idea. With the Republicans holding The House, you just need to point out how many elephants are still in the freaking room.
It's a far worse outcome. People should be punished for things that do harm to others (punching them, stabbing them, rioting), not saying things that make others feel angry. Speech is properly countered by other speech, made by other free citizens. Not by the State forcibly silencing it.
Also, wasn't it Canada that refused to let Coulter speak at a college because they were afraid of leftwing types rioting against her? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
Whether it's a cause or not aside (I feel that it may be, but I can't prove it and I admit that).
I find it intriguing that when we have a horrific incidence of violence in this country there is a subsection of the population that is just adamantly allergic to looking at causes.
Can you give me some sources on that? The only people ive heard say things like that is Harper and his followers.[/quote]
Wikipedia has a pile of sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies
I'm not sure what other sources you'd accept as "valid". Start by searching for the incident of Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" and the BC HRC response to it. [/quote]
Well, in the case of a book that literally argues that there is a world wide race war that should be fought, I would say that classifying it as hate speech would be justified.
I mean, OK look: This is you arguing that we should ban violent video games now. Also that D&D causes satanism.
What is going on here?
Good on AZ for stepping up and protecting students from listening to a bunch of propaganda about the persecution and enslavement of the White Christian Male by the Jews, and other bullshit NAZI ideology.
This.
Persons mistakenly construe words to be akin to fists, knives, pipes, etc. If Player A strikes Player B with a lead pipe, with sufficient force, the pipe will inflict harm upon Player B's biological body as a result of physical laws that are not under Player B's control.
When Player A makes a noise at Player B, any emotive reaction Player B feels results from Player B's interpretation of the noise. This interpretation will be subject to many factors that depend upon Player A and Player B. For example, suppose Player A and Player B are friends, who have a long-standing joking relationship. If Player A calls Player B a "fag", that noise is interpreted by Player B to be a joke, a casual tongue-in-cheek mocking. Were Player A to make the "fag" noise at another individual, who does not participate in the afore mentioned language game of interpretation, this Player C may interpret "fag" to be an insulting attack on their character.
The noise is the same in both instances. What changes is how the noise is interpreted by the person who hears it.
This is why banning words is nonsense. It reifies them by pretending they have some inherent universal meaning, and fails to treat them as what they are: Noises subject to interpretation the meaning of which results from context, personal history, etc.