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.
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.
We already have laws against inciting violence.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
What is going on here?
What is going on is selective privileging of some causal stories over others. Video games don't *really* cause mass shootings, but using the word "fag" *really* causes assault.
Acknowledging the difficulty in determining actual causal relationships, as opposed to correlation or coincidence, may behoove the conversation.
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.
What is going on here?
Any restrictions on free speech not flying off the rails are dependent on having a good government.
Do we have such a government? No. But that's not some flaw in design, it's a flaw in the population, since roughly half of us actively prefer bad government.
I'm arguing that it's quite possible to outlaw the "kill all fags" hate speech without banning video games and dancing and interracial marriage.
And it is!
Whether it's possible in America, given our current situation is an issue I have never addressed, and do not care to.
This argument really started, originally, when I felt that some forumers were being unfairly critical of an Albanian law. And their reasoning was based on what America is like, and I called that cultural jingoism.
Because Albania isn't America, nor is Canada or France.
That other countries can restrict really vile speech without flying off the deep end is a simple fact. That some countries cannot is also a fact.
That America probably would but can't because changing our Constitution is virtually impossible is a separate argument that I don't really care about at all.
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.
#3 sounds like they are trying to make "hispanic studies" classes illegal.
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.
To be fair, the US has also prevented foreigners critical of the US from entering the country.
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.
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've read the book and that isn't what it argues. Moreover, Steyn ran into trouble with the HRC not for bad things he said about Islam, but for quoting an Imam in the Netherlands who was saying bad things about the west.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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.
#3 sounds like they are trying to make "hispanic studies" classes illegal.
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.
A person can call for the U.S. gov to declare certain hate speech illegal. But then they have to also accept that garbage like the above will be on the table.
With 66 Teapers between the house and the senate I'd personally rather not go for 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.
No. Coulter's bodyguards felt the university in Ontario that they were going to speak at was unsafe, so she cancelled the appearance. She then flew out to Alberta and did her little racist ramble at the Red & White Club in Calgary (I'd know - I attended it). And, of course, the building ended-up being vandalized and a bunch of security guards who work at McMahon Stadium got trampled, which was so much better at the end of the day than just saying, "No, Coulter, we're not interested in your racist screed here. You can go fuck yourself."
The only persons actually banned from coming to do talks have been George Galloway & David Irving (and the photograph of Irving having his ass hauled out in handcuffs is easily worth the price of admission alone).
I don't where you got the information that, "Canada's hate speech laws prevent criticism of radical Islam," but it's a lie, and you should probably stop repeating lies that you read somewhere,
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.
What is going on here?
Any restrictions on free speech not flying off the rails are dependent on having a good government.
Do we have such a government? No. But that's not some flaw in design, it's a flaw in the population, since roughly half of us actively prefer bad government.
I'm arguing that it's quite possible to outlaw the "kill all fags" hate speech without banning video games and dancing and interracial marriage.
And it is!
Whether it's possible in America, given our current situation is an issue I have never addressed, and do not care to.
This argument really started, originally, when I felt that some forumers were being unfairly critical of an Albanian law. And their reasoning was based on what America is like, and I called that cultural jingoism.
Because Albania isn't America, nor is Canada or France.
That other countries can restrict really vile speech without flying off the deep end is a simple fact. That some countries cannot is also a fact.
That America probably would but can't because changing our Constitution is virtually impossible is a separate argument that I don't really care about at all.
tldr: see the bolded section.
What is the special component to saying "God hates fags" that sends fag-haters into a violent rage, and does not exist when your Dungeon Master tells you to kill your parents and then yourself? How do you argue that the one is worthy of State restriction without also arguing that the other one is?
The argument that governments should have power to restrict speech is not granted - I can't think of a single nation with hate speech codes that hasn't had the law turned on its ear to silence someone that didn't deserve it.
The Founders were quite prescient in knowing that we'd wind up with a crapsack government.
Of course, their original plan for the nation was intensely aristocratic so no doubt they knew America would always suffer from a crapsack public, given the value they placed on educating the common people (which is to say: none).
Do I think we should retract the 1st amendment so we can have hate crimes statutes? Of course not. This country is a fucking mess. We're lucky our constitution is so hard to change. But that's luck not some proof that we're secretly the very best, because if we were we could have a more flexible government without immediately going 1984.
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
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.
A person can call for the U.S. gov to declare certain hate speech illegal. But then they have to also accept that garbage like the above will be on the table.
With 66 Teapers between the house and the senate I'd personally rather not go for it.
Well you know, I think advocating ethnic solidarity is hate speech. But the pendulum will swing again, and the people you like will be in power, and when that happens remember that when the GOP was in charge, folks like me still believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict naughty things from being spoken by a free people.
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.
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've read the book and that isn't what it argues. Moreover, Steyn ran into trouble with the HRC not for bad things he said about Islam, but for quoting an Imam in the Netherlands who was saying bad things about the west.
As far as I can tell, Steyn never ran into any real trouble, there was never any ruling against him by the BC HRC. Unless that having him be held accountable for his words in something like is trouble. And there is nothing ive found of him being in trouble for quoting a Dutch Imam, it was mostly the islamophobia in his article, the whole race war thing that I'm getting from the entire thing.
As for if he actually wrote those things in his book, Ive never read it and im not about to buy it or try and pirate a PDF, but from the wikipedia page his major argument is that Muslims are having more births than western nations, and that they will immigrate to europe and take them over. Has he ever stated what the solution to that problem is in his book?
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
You could perhaps base such laws on the intended targets. If the targets are a protected group (perhaps using the acceptable criteria of a discrete, insular minority with some innate characteristic), then the speech criticizing them would be "hate speech." And perhaps hate speech doesn't have to be criminalized in and of itself, but can serve as indicia that the speech in question is intended to incite violence, or is obscene, or otherwise fits into some category of censored speech.
eh?
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
Same goes for me. That would mean no sanctions.
Oh noes. Problem.
Yes, but a lot of people want "no sanctions" hand in hand with a lot of other libertarian/anarchist ideals of "freedom". Not the world I want.
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
You could perhaps base such laws on the intended targets. If the targets are a protected group (perhaps using the acceptable criteria of a discrete, insular minority with some innate characteristic), then the speech criticizing them would be "hate speech." And perhaps hate speech doesn't have to be criminalized in and of itself, but can serve as indicia that the speech in question is intended to incite violence, or is obscene, or otherwise fits into some category of censored speech.
eh?
We already have laws and regulations against speech that incites violence or is considered obscene.
Quid on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
, folks like me still believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict naughty things from being spoken by a free people.
There's plenty of Republicans who favor an overturn of Roe vs. Wade and the reinstitution of sodomy laws.
So.
Yeah.
"People like you" meaning: your political party, ostensibly support the right of people to say things but are ever so comfortable accompanying us to the doctors office and our bedrooms to dictate to us what we do with our own fucking genitals.
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
Government restrictions on the things I don't.
Duh.
I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing, so state restrictions on speech that supports genocide is a good thing.
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.
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've read the book and that isn't what it argues. Moreover, Steyn ran into trouble with the HRC not for bad things he said about Islam, but for quoting an Imam in the Netherlands who was saying bad things about the west.
As far as I can tell, Steyn never ran into any real trouble, there was never any ruling against him by the BC HRC. Unless that having him be held accountable for his words in something like is trouble. And there is nothing ive found of him being in trouble for quoting a Dutch Imam, it was mostly the islamophobia in his article, the whole race war thing that I'm getting from the entire thing.
As for if he actually wrote those things in his book, Ive never read it and im not about to buy it or try and pirate a PDF, but from the wikipedia page his major argument is that Muslims are having more births than western nations, and that they will immigrate to europe and take them over. Has he ever stated what the solution to that problem is in his book?
In the book, his solution is to:
1: have more kids
2: stop allowing multiculturalism to turn into enclaves where western values like freedom of speech and equality for women are null and void, and integrate immigrants into the local population / culture.
3: If they don't like that, stop allowing so much immigration.
There is no discussion of violence or "race war" or suggestions of anything of the sort.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
Government restrictions on the things I don't.
Duh.
I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing, so state restrictions on speech that supports genocide is a good thing.
Yeah.
America also has a nasty history with racism, particularly in the more rural areas of the country, so I'd be in favor of hate speech restrictions that target that particular brand of malevolent stupid. Especially as it relates to propagating a lasting cultural undercurrent of racism across generations.
Really, this debate about hate speech laws in America is a bit strange, because while I trust Canada to have good enough politics to not faff it up, when you have a choice between conservatives and christofascists down south I dont really have that much faith in them.
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
Government restrictions on the things I don't.
Duh.
I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing, so state restrictions on speech that supports genocide is a good thing.
I literally cannot tell if you're being serious or not.
This thread is full of people who ardently believe that no advocacy speech, be it for genocide or slightly less vile crimes be absolutely free, and the only legal penalties be applied to people who actually do it.
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And before people get down my neck about "Well in borderline cases, how do you identify what does and doesn't constitute hate speech?" I have a simple answer for you: the courts.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Really, this debate about hate speech laws in America is a bit strange, because while I trust Canada to have good enough politics to not faff it up, when you have a choice between conservatives and christofascists down south I dont really have that much faith in them.
To be fair, we managed to institute the Voting Rights Act without it turning into a shit show. I'd like to think we could do the same for the hypothetical Hate Speech Act.
, folks like me still believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict naughty things from being spoken by a free people.
There's plenty of Republicans who favor an overturn of Roe vs. Wade and the reinstitution of sodomy laws.
So.
Yeah.
"People like you" meaning: your political party, ostensibly support the right of people to say things but are ever so comfortable accompanying us to the doctors office and our bedrooms to dictate to us what we do with our own fucking genitals.
No, you very silly goose, people like me meaning: Republicans who walk the fucking walk when it comes to supporting the rights of the individual over control of the State. I don't want a nation where the government can stop you from talking about abortion, and to get there, I need a nation where the government cant' stop you from talking.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Spoiler alert: they can already stop you from talking.
And then explain to me why Rush Limbaugh, not Sandra Fluke, is the person who deserves state protection / justice in this situation?
False choice alert Batman.
How do you know what Limbaugh says is idiotic, moronic, and bigoted? Because someone made an argument in contravention of the ideas that he is espousing. He is free to be a fucking idiot, and I'm free to say he is a fucking idiot. The alternative is to allow the government to decide what is an acceptable idea to express.
Now maybe you think popular opinion is excellent. I mean, no one would ever think a majority of Americans (or Europeans or whatever) could possibly have some stupid ideas, right? For instance, the idea that a same sex couple could be just as loving and valid a pairing as a hetero marriage? If we allow majority consensus to determine what is an acceptable expression of ideas, that would never have been given the chance to get a foothold.
At one time blasphemy was treated much in the way of Hate Speech laws. Speaking out against the Lord could do real harm both in terms of your own eternal salvation and because you might convince others to not fully embrace Jesus and his dudes.
From John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which provides the philosophical basis for many of the liberal ideas that led to the repudation of racism/sexism/various and sundry -isms in popular thought on whether opinions should be repressed even when wrong:
Let us now pass to the second division of the argument, and dismissing the supposition that any of the received opinions may be false, let us assume them to be true, and examine into the worth of the manner in which they are likely to be held, when their truth is not freely and openly canvassed. However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.
There is a class of persons (happily not quite so numerous as formerly) who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defence of it against the most superficial objections. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from authority, naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned. Where their influence prevails, they make it nearly impossible for the received opinion to be rejected wisely and considerately, though it may still be rejected rashly and ignorantly; for to shut out discussion entirely is seldom possible, and when it once gets in, beliefs not grounded on conviction are apt to give way before the slightest semblance of an argument. Waving, however, this possibility—assuming that the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument—this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.
...
The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; and it has to be shown why that other theory cannot be the true one: and until this is shown, and until we know how it is shown, we do not understand the grounds of our opinion. But when we turn to subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion, politics, social relations, and the business of life, three-fourths of the arguments for every disputed opinion consist in dispelling the appearances which favour some opinion different from it. The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination.
Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess.
It is especially galling that most advocates for prohibitions on speech deemed "hateful" would simultaneously espouse the benefits of multiculturalism and at least partially pluralistic society while prohibiting opinions they judge to be too harmful, too outside the normal, too heretical.
If, however, the mischievous operation of the absence of free discussion, when the received opinions are true, were confined to leaving men ignorant of the grounds of those opinions, it might be thought that this, if an intellectual, is no moral evil, and does not affect the worth of the opinions, regarded in their influence on the character. The fact, however, is, that not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself. The words which convey it, cease to suggest ideas, or suggest only a small portion of those they were originally employed to communicate. Instead of a vivid conception and a living belief, there remain only a few phrases retained by rote; or, if any part, the shell and husk only of the meaning is retained, the finer essence being lost.
A society in which one is free to be oneself, and that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexuality or creed requires the ability to say that a society shouldn't treat everyone equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexuality or creed. Once you muzzle that minority opinion, you have undercut the very philosophy you are trying to protect.
Spoiler alert: they can already stop you from talking.
I've already been over that twice, in some detail. Maybe you'll allow me a bit of shorthand now that I've demonstrated that I understand how we strike balances like this wrt the Bill of Rights?
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.
So don't tolerate it. Yourself. Personally. In your own life.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
Government restrictions on the things I don't.
Duh.
I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing, so state restrictions on speech that supports genocide is a good thing.
The quote is about how any law can be abused, so talking in terms of, "This law could be abused, therefore the law is bad," is nonsense unless you want to espouse some libertarian ideal. I've cited an academic source for why harassment & verbal abuse are known to be damaging, and your reaction was basically a glib, "NUH UH," followed by later accusing Canada of being a police state & citing a racist idiot's popular press book (where he elaborates on a theory that good 'ol white Europe is being outbred by the dirty Muslims) as evidence, and then inserting some homophobic slurs into the thread for good measure.
It's almost as if you're not arguing in good faith.
Posts
We already have laws against inciting violence.
I recall that was stopped so a class on Hispanic history was stopped. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/08ethnic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
What is going on is selective privileging of some causal stories over others. Video games don't *really* cause mass shootings, but using the word "fag" *really* causes assault.
Acknowledging the difficulty in determining actual causal relationships, as opposed to correlation or coincidence, may behoove the conversation.
Any restrictions on free speech not flying off the rails are dependent on having a good government.
Do we have such a government? No. But that's not some flaw in design, it's a flaw in the population, since roughly half of us actively prefer bad government.
I'm arguing that it's quite possible to outlaw the "kill all fags" hate speech without banning video games and dancing and interracial marriage.
And it is!
Whether it's possible in America, given our current situation is an issue I have never addressed, and do not care to.
This argument really started, originally, when I felt that some forumers were being unfairly critical of an Albanian law. And their reasoning was based on what America is like, and I called that cultural jingoism.
Because Albania isn't America, nor is Canada or France.
That other countries can restrict really vile speech without flying off the deep end is a simple fact. That some countries cannot is also a fact.
That America probably would but can't because changing our Constitution is virtually impossible is a separate argument that I don't really care about at all.
tldr: see the bolded section.
I've read the book and that isn't what it argues. Moreover, Steyn ran into trouble with the HRC not for bad things he said about Islam, but for quoting an Imam in the Netherlands who was saying bad things about the west.
That is, in fact, basically what they did.
I believe that was his point.
A person can call for the U.S. gov to declare certain hate speech illegal. But then they have to also accept that garbage like the above will be on the table.
With 66 Teapers between the house and the senate I'd personally rather not go for it.
No. Coulter's bodyguards felt the university in Ontario that they were going to speak at was unsafe, so she cancelled the appearance. She then flew out to Alberta and did her little racist ramble at the Red & White Club in Calgary (I'd know - I attended it). And, of course, the building ended-up being vandalized and a bunch of security guards who work at McMahon Stadium got trampled, which was so much better at the end of the day than just saying, "No, Coulter, we're not interested in your racist screed here. You can go fuck yourself."
The only persons actually banned from coming to do talks have been George Galloway & David Irving (and the photograph of Irving having his ass hauled out in handcuffs is easily worth the price of admission alone).
I don't where you got the information that, "Canada's hate speech laws prevent criticism of radical Islam," but it's a lie, and you should probably stop repeating lies that you read somewhere,
What is the special component to saying "God hates fags" that sends fag-haters into a violent rage, and does not exist when your Dungeon Master tells you to kill your parents and then yourself? How do you argue that the one is worthy of State restriction without also arguing that the other one is?
The argument that governments should have power to restrict speech is not granted - I can't think of a single nation with hate speech codes that hasn't had the law turned on its ear to silence someone that didn't deserve it.
Of course, their original plan for the nation was intensely aristocratic so no doubt they knew America would always suffer from a crapsack public, given the value they placed on educating the common people (which is to say: none).
Do I think we should retract the 1st amendment so we can have hate crimes statutes? Of course not. This country is a fucking mess. We're lucky our constitution is so hard to change. But that's luck not some proof that we're secretly the very best, because if we were we could have a more flexible government without immediately going 1984.
I would also like my government and its laws to reflect my values and morals.
Which means, in this case, sanctions against hatespeech.
Well you know, I think advocating ethnic solidarity is hate speech. But the pendulum will swing again, and the people you like will be in power, and when that happens remember that when the GOP was in charge, folks like me still believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict naughty things from being spoken by a free people.
As far as I can tell, Steyn never ran into any real trouble, there was never any ruling against him by the BC HRC. Unless that having him be held accountable for his words in something like is trouble. And there is nothing ive found of him being in trouble for quoting a Dutch Imam, it was mostly the islamophobia in his article, the whole race war thing that I'm getting from the entire thing.
As for if he actually wrote those things in his book, Ive never read it and im not about to buy it or try and pirate a PDF, but from the wikipedia page his major argument is that Muslims are having more births than western nations, and that they will immigrate to europe and take them over. Has he ever stated what the solution to that problem is in his book?
"I can't think of a single nation with murder laws that hasn't had the law turned on it's ear to prosecute someone innocent of murder."
See how you can do that with any law?
Same goes for me. That would mean no sanctions.
Oh noes. Problem.
eh?
Yes, but a lot of people want "no sanctions" hand in hand with a lot of other libertarian/anarchist ideals of "freedom". Not the world I want.
It means State control of speech. You can't get to the sanctions you want except via evisceration of the 1st.
So which do you value more? Freedom to say things you do like, or government restriction of things you don't?
Speech = murder in your country?
OK then.
We already have laws and regulations against speech that incites violence or is considered obscene.
Government restrictions on the things I don't.
Duh.
There's plenty of Republicans who favor an overturn of Roe vs. Wade and the reinstitution of sodomy laws.
So.
Yeah.
"People like you" meaning: your political party, ostensibly support the right of people to say things but are ever so comfortable accompanying us to the doctors office and our bedrooms to dictate to us what we do with our own fucking genitals.
I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing, so state restrictions on speech that supports genocide is a good thing.
In the book, his solution is to:
1: have more kids
2: stop allowing multiculturalism to turn into enclaves where western values like freedom of speech and equality for women are null and void, and integrate immigrants into the local population / culture.
3: If they don't like that, stop allowing so much immigration.
There is no discussion of violence or "race war" or suggestions of anything of the sort.
Yeah.
America also has a nasty history with racism, particularly in the more rural areas of the country, so I'd be in favor of hate speech restrictions that target that particular brand of malevolent stupid. Especially as it relates to propagating a lasting cultural undercurrent of racism across generations.
I literally cannot tell if you're being serious or not.
This thread is full of people who ardently believe that no advocacy speech, be it for genocide or slightly less vile crimes be absolutely free, and the only legal penalties be applied to people who actually do it.
To be fair, we managed to institute the Voting Rights Act without it turning into a shit show. I'd like to think we could do the same for the hypothetical Hate Speech Act.
No, you very silly goose, people like me meaning: Republicans who walk the fucking walk when it comes to supporting the rights of the individual over control of the State. I don't want a nation where the government can stop you from talking about abortion, and to get there, I need a nation where the government cant' stop you from talking.
False choice alert Batman.
How do you know what Limbaugh says is idiotic, moronic, and bigoted? Because someone made an argument in contravention of the ideas that he is espousing. He is free to be a fucking idiot, and I'm free to say he is a fucking idiot. The alternative is to allow the government to decide what is an acceptable idea to express.
Now maybe you think popular opinion is excellent. I mean, no one would ever think a majority of Americans (or Europeans or whatever) could possibly have some stupid ideas, right? For instance, the idea that a same sex couple could be just as loving and valid a pairing as a hetero marriage? If we allow majority consensus to determine what is an acceptable expression of ideas, that would never have been given the chance to get a foothold.
At one time blasphemy was treated much in the way of Hate Speech laws. Speaking out against the Lord could do real harm both in terms of your own eternal salvation and because you might convince others to not fully embrace Jesus and his dudes.
From John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which provides the philosophical basis for many of the liberal ideas that led to the repudation of racism/sexism/various and sundry -isms in popular thought on whether opinions should be repressed even when wrong:
It is especially galling that most advocates for prohibitions on speech deemed "hateful" would simultaneously espouse the benefits of multiculturalism and at least partially pluralistic society while prohibiting opinions they judge to be too harmful, too outside the normal, too heretical.
A society in which one is free to be oneself, and that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexuality or creed requires the ability to say that a society shouldn't treat everyone equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexuality or creed. Once you muzzle that minority opinion, you have undercut the very philosophy you are trying to protect.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But then again this two party system is so bloody ingrained that its going to take a major shakeup to get to a modern democratic structure.
I've already been over that twice, in some detail. Maybe you'll allow me a bit of shorthand now that I've demonstrated that I understand how we strike balances like this wrt the Bill of Rights?
I guess you missed the part where I did that, twice.
8->
Huge
All speech = totally equivalent in your mind?
The quote is about how any law can be abused, so talking in terms of, "This law could be abused, therefore the law is bad," is nonsense unless you want to espouse some libertarian ideal. I've cited an academic source for why harassment & verbal abuse are known to be damaging, and your reaction was basically a glib, "NUH UH," followed by later accusing Canada of being a police state & citing a racist idiot's popular press book (where he elaborates on a theory that good 'ol white Europe is being outbred by the dirty Muslims) as evidence, and then inserting some homophobic slurs into the thread for good measure.
It's almost as if you're not arguing in good faith.