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?
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.
On this, both you and Glenn Beck agree, and that is a far greater flaw than your disagreement on everything else. If you're coming from the position that the other side is morally bankrupt, there is no room for debate, compromise or agreement.
That attitude will work when the group you refuse to deal with is small; I, personally, have no desire to come to a compromise with WBC, for instance. When you take that position against a large section of the populace, it is something of a problem. And, as more people take that position, one far more likely to result in violence than anything spewed by Fred Phelps.
While I feel the point your making is sound, I feel that this statement isn't being entirely honest about the nature of the current discourse (in U.S. politics). There is certainly the issue of conflating speech with an impetus for action, but you can't omit the reality that the volume of speech is effectively suppressing the speech of others. To wit, if you were to ask me how I identify as far as my religion I would identify myself as an atheist. Given the current political climate, any attempt at a meaningful political career might as well be dead on arrival regardless of the content I could potentially bring to any number of issues. Now, would I support some law that is meant to protect myself from the questioning of my religious stance (or in my case a lack thereof)? Of course not, but I would certainly like to see a society where one side cannot shout so loudly that it works to actively suppress a dissenting opinion regardless of whether or not that shouting promotes any form of actual action against the dissenting argument.
EDIT: Side track, but there is a lot wrong with using the Katie Couric "piece" for anything meaningful. On the merit of what she cites alone, without continuing this side track too long, there are two things. 1) Confirmation bias is a thing. 2) They don't draw any real meaningful conclusions beyond the potential for short term aggression. Specifically, there is still no conclusive link between that aggression and actual violent action. Hell, let's throw in a 3) They do not determine a root origin of the aggression mentioned. And even if they could, they would still have to show an origin that only exists within video games as a medium and not violent images in other forms of media or the competitive nature of sports.
Lack of a meaningful political career does not equal suppression of speech! The fact that your opinion isn't very popular + it denies the truth of a fundamental worldview held by the majority is what will doom your political career.
Richard Dawkins is not having his speech suppressed - he's making a tidy living by agreeing with you.
I still contend that in the modern world, it's not possible to suppress speech via the heckler's veto OR by weight of the majority.
Suppressing the actual act of speech is difficult, but suppressing any potentially meaningful gains from that speech (and the discourse that follows) is entirely possible.
You're not guaranteed to get somewhere with your speech! Again, Dawkins isn't in the poorhouse.
The 1st Amendment protects you from government restrictions on your speech... it makes no promise that others will listen.
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?
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.
On this, both you and Glenn Beck agree, and that is a far greater flaw than your disagreement on everything else. If you're coming from the position that the other side is morally bankrupt, there is no room for debate, compromise or agreement.
That attitude will work when the group you refuse to deal with is small; I, personally, have no desire to come to a compromise with WBC, for instance. When you take that position against a large section of the populace, it is something of a problem. And, as more people take that position, one far more likely to result in violence than anything spewed by Fred Phelps.
You act like I'm somehow responsible for the political polarization of the country.
I'm not, thanks.
You aren't responsible for the situation, but you sure as hell are maintaining it.
Wouldn't his maintenance of it impart some level of responsibility?
I think you do want to say he's responsible, insofar as he's complicit.
I mean he isn't responsible for creating the situation. He is, in part, responsible for its continued existence.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
But saying "lol you're just like Glen Beck" is fairly bitchy too so.
Meh
I didn't say you were just like him; Beck is fucking insane. You do, however, share the same self righteous intolerance of the other side. I don't really mean to single you out, you just happened to be the one to come out with it this thread. There are a lot of people on these boards that sound disturbingly like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, and don't realize it.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I mean he isn't responsible for creating the situation. He is, in part, responsible for its continued existence.
These sorts of critiques are problematic, since they maintain that a person can non-actively support a particular power dynamic, or whatever, within a larger cultural context, simply by not actively acting against it.
It is, perhaps, a problematic understanding of what it is to support something.
Look, if calling someone a fag is hate speech, then calling someone Glen Beck is also hate speech.
Calling someone a "fag" is using a slur. It's either criticizing them for an innate, immutable characteristic or labeling someone else as having that characteristic in a derogatory way. It's a word that's been screamed at people as they were pummeled to death because they love people of the same sex. It's a word that's been used to oppress and ostracize.
Calling someone Glenn Beck is offensive to some, because they don't agree with his views and you're ascribing his views to them.
I mean he isn't responsible for creating the situation. He is, in part, responsible for its continued existence.
These sorts of critiques are problematic, since they maintain that a person can non-actively support a particular power dynamic, or whatever, within a larger cultural context, simply by not actively acting against it.
That sentence had too many syllables. Apologize!
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
The distinction is that I don't think Regina (or others) created the situation. Rather i think they are responding to a situation in a harmful, self perpetuating manner. The opinions of the other side justify their response, which only reinforce the opinions of the other side.
That said, Regina, I do apologize if I inadvertently called you a misanthropic, Mormon fundamentalist who I can't prove didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Look, if calling someone a fag is hate speech, then calling someone Glen Beck is also hate speech.
Calling someone a "fag" is using a slur. It's either criticizing them for an innate, immutable characteristic or labeling someone else as having that characteristic in a derogatory way. It's a word that's been screamed at people as they were pummeled to death because they love people of the same sex. It's a word that's been used to oppress and ostracize.
Calling someone Glenn Beck is offensive to some, because they don't agree with his views and you're ascribing his views to them.
Do those strike you as similar?
The reasons they're dissimilar are pretty important.
It doesn't really matter if the trait is immutable or innate. Religion is often covered by hate speech laws, and that's a choice.
It does matter that gay people have been common targets of violence and discrimination; I think it's a legitimate concern that hate speech is closely associated with these acts of violence. So when somebody, like Regina Fong for example, says "I think we should restrict hate speech in order to quell violence," I am sympathetic to that position, even though I have reservations.
It does matter that there's a more polite, less inflammatory way to say "I don't like gay people" than to call them fags. If you have a legitimate political or ideological reason to oppose homosexuality, there is a valid way to express that belief without using slurs.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
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.
And of course the prospect of being dragged into court will in no way chill legitimate speech.
I'd say that people who are directly inciting / calling for violence should be smacked down, but I consider inciting violence to be a separate action that may or may not include speech. I think that people like the asshole who wanted to burn a Koran should be held responsible when his actions result in the violence he knowingly created, but not prior restraint.
"Responsible?" What? That's a funny use of the word "responsibility," because if my burning your bible causes you to burn shit down, that sounds like you are the problem. I fail to see how he can be held responsible for the actions of a bunch of fucking barbarians.
This entire thread hurts my head.
I can agree that we may need to go a bit further on harassment, stalking, incitement, and libel/slander laws, among some others*. But actual hate speech laws? Fuck that. I have a right to be a dick. I'll make everybody here a deal, though. We get rid of freedom of religion, first. Once we stop accepting indoctrination of children into misogynistic cults and organized child rape rings, I'll consider curbing my right to call them misogynistic cults and organized child rape rings.
* - disorderly conduct would be another...there are certainly more
And I certainly don't want to have to worry if my political cartoon criticizing your misogynistic cult or organized child rape ring will land me in court, complete with legal fees and the prospect of fines (or even jail time).
That's between me and my audience/advertisers. Or between me and my publisher, and between them and our audience/advertisers.
On a completely different tack, I keep wondering how much WBC has managed to forward the cause of gay rights by being allowed to do what they do. They are almost a parody of a hate group, and I can't help but think that letting people see them in action and see the overwhelming public response does more good than forcing them out of the public eye...where people near the fence can't see how ridiculous their position is.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
On a completely different tack, I keep wondering how much WBC has managed to forward the cause of gay rights by being allowed to do what they do. They are almost a parody of a hate group, and I can't help but think that letting people see them in action and see the overwhelming public response does more good than forcing them out of the public eye...where people near the fence can't see how ridiculous their position is.
Agreed. I can't say it's worth the disruption to the lives of the people's whose funerals they disrupted, and that's part of what I mean when I say we can expand our laws restricting speech in content-agnostic ways. But yeah, I definitely think that having such a moustache-twirling caricature of homophobic bullshit certainly did more good than harm, in the long run.
Only because of where we were at the time, of course. If we were already in a wonderland of full acceptance of gays, then they'd still just be dicks.
Look, if calling someone a fag is hate speech, then calling someone Glen Beck is also hate speech.
Calling someone a "fag" is using a slur. It's either criticizing them for an innate, immutable characteristic or labeling someone else as having that characteristic in a derogatory way. It's a word that's been screamed at people as they were pummeled to death because they love people of the same sex. It's a word that's been used to oppress and ostracize.
Calling someone Glenn Beck is offensive to some, because they don't agree with his views and you're ascribing his views to them.
Do those strike you as similar?
The reasons they're dissimilar are pretty important.
It doesn't really matter if the trait is immutable or innate. Religion is often covered by hate speech laws, and that's a choice.
It does matter that gay people have been common targets of violence and discrimination; I think it's a legitimate concern that hate speech is closely associated with these acts of violence. So when somebody, like Regina Fong for example, says "I think we should restrict hate speech in order to quell violence," I am sympathetic to that position, even though I have reservations.
It does matter that there's a more polite, less inflammatory way to say "I don't like gay people" than to call them fags. If you have a legitimate political or ideological reason to oppose homosexuality, there is a valid way to express that belief without using slurs.
Agreed. I understand where the desire to restrict hate speech is coming from, but I don't think it is a good idea. Public censure is a much more effective way of dealing with it, because it lets people see that those views are not accepted. I also think that government suppression is more likely to radicalize the hate groups than make them go away.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
On a completely different tack, I keep wondering how much WBC has managed to forward the cause of gay rights by being allowed to do what they do. They are almost a parody of a hate group, and I can't help but think that letting people see them in action and see the overwhelming public response does more good than forcing them out of the public eye...where people near the fence can't see how ridiculous their position is.
I am 40% certain that they are an ACLU front group.
If it weren't for me hearing about some documentary or whatever about family members that have left the WBC, I'd be like 70% certain.
I wonder what it would take to get the WBC to come to my mother's funeral.
I'll have to run this by her, but I think she would actually appreciate it. She used to own a bookstore with a massive LGBT section in a relatively conservative community. It'd be more likely to get all her old customers/bookstore-related friends to come out and pay their respects than anything.
0
Options
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.
And of course the prospect of being dragged into court will in no way chill legitimate speech.
By narrowly defining what constitutes hate speech (and perhaps prevent it from being a charge all its own, much like how "texting while driving" can't get you pulled over in and of itself), you can avoid much of the fear factor.
Besides which, a law being tested in court is part of its natural life cycle, and a necessary part of its survival/demise. That is, in part, what the courts are there to do.
On a completely different tack, I keep wondering how much WBC has managed to forward the cause of gay rights by being allowed to do what they do. They are almost a parody of a hate group, and I can't help but think that letting people see them in action and see the overwhelming public response does more good than forcing them out of the public eye...where people near the fence can't see how ridiculous their position is.
I am 40% certain that they are an ACLU front group.
If it weren't for me hearing about some documentary or whatever about family members that have left the WBC, I'd be like 70% certain.
Well, it's not like he won awards for his work as a civil rights attorney or actively supported Al Gore's presidential bid in '88...or got 30% of the vote In a Democratic Senate primary...alright, what the fuck, Phelps? You come clean right this minute.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+1
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
On a completely different tack, I keep wondering how much WBC has managed to forward the cause of gay rights by being allowed to do what they do. They are almost a parody of a hate group, and I can't help but think that letting people see them in action and see the overwhelming public response does more good than forcing them out of the public eye...where people near the fence can't see how ridiculous their position is.
I am 40% certain that they are an ACLU front group.
If it weren't for me hearing about some documentary or whatever about family members that have left the WBC, I'd be like 70% certain.
Well, it's not like he won awards for his work as a civil rights attorney or actively supported Al Gore's presidential bid in '88...or got 30% of the vote In a Democratic Senate primary...alright, what the fuck, Phelps? You come clean right this minute.
If it were possible to kill an idea by making laws against expressing that idea we wouldn't have democracy, science, or civil rights. It just doesn't work like that.
And sure, just about every law any civilization has ever passed restricting speech has ended up suppressing completely valid minority opinions, but I'm sure we'll get it right this time guys. Right? Right?
If it were possible to kill an idea by making laws against expressing that idea we wouldn't have democracy, science, or civil rights. It just doesn't work like that.
Mill again
But, indeed, the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries. To speak only of religious opinions: the Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put down. Arnold of Brescia was put down. Fra Dolcino was put down. Savonarola was put down. The Albigeois were put down. The Vaudois were put down. The Lollards were put down. The Hussites were put down. Even after the era of Luther, wherever persecution was persisted in, it was successful. In Spain, Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire, Protestantism was rooted out; and, most likely, would have been so in England, had Queen Mary lived, or Queen Elizabeth died. Persecution has always succeeded, save where the heretics were too strong a party to be effectually persecuted.
edit
And specifically in the evolution of democracy, free expression was permissible in the US colonies and British Empire. Without it, there would never have been democracy.
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Yes, but there is a very clear cut difference between "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" and "KILL ALL FAGGOTS". One is used to push an idea or position, the other is incitational hate speech. I'm okay with living in a society that seeks to limit the expression of that.
Yes, but there is a very clear cut difference between "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" and "KILL ALL FAGGOTS". One is used to push an idea or position, the other is incitational hate speech. I'm okay with living in a society that seeks to limit the expression of that.
Sure, but you've got really convenient examples there.
What about quoting Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - while discussing wicca or D&D? Just quoting. Not instructing, not inciting, just saying. Perhaps you'd call it incitement? Or not, and that's up to a judge to decide?
How about 'the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers', or 'X group (usually right-wing politicians) will be first up against the wall'. Not inciting? Or is, depending on context?
It's the edge cases, the middle cases, that cause issues. It's all the things you don't publish because it might be punished.
Yes, but there is a very clear cut difference between "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" and "KILL ALL FAGGOTS". One is used to push an idea or position, the other is incitational hate speech. I'm okay with living in a society that seeks to limit the expression of that.
First, I disagree that the difference is "clear cut." These two statements may exist on either side of some divide, sure, but where that cut occurs is probably anything but "clear." It only appears "clear" because you've chosen the two extreme examples, while ignoring the broad spectrum between them. That's cheating.
And that's accepting that they actually do exist on opposite sides of some divide. Honestly, I find "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" to be no less hateful or insidious, though I guess it depends whether you're taking the "KILL" part literally (a legitimate call to murder being on the other side of a bright line, regardless of target). Hatred is no better when it's dressed up as reason, and honestly I think it can be much worse for society.
Keeping in mind that, even under the First Amendment, the federal and state governments are allowed to restrict, inter alia:
-Obscenity
-Fighting words
-Direct incitement of unlawful actions
-Slander and libel
-False or misleading commercial advertising
-Threats
-Speech that interferes with the operations of a school
I daresay that if there is a slippery slope, the United States has already gone a fair ways down.
Except those are still content-neutral with the possible exception of obscenity (which is so narrowly tailored so as to only cover valueless speech as only part of the standard, a nigh impossible standard to meet)
RAV vs City of St Paul 1992 9-0 decision that essentially prohibited hate speech laws in the US:
Scalia (all these decisions are sizable majorities)
A few limited categories of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, may be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content. However, these categories are not entirely invisible to the Constitution, and government may not regulate them based on hostility, or favoritism, towards a nonproscribable message they contain. Thus, the regulation of "fighting words" may not be based on nonproscribable content. It may, however, be underinclusive, addressing some offensive instances and leaving other equally offensive ones alone, so long as the selective prescription is not based on content, or there is no realistic possibility that regulation of ideas is afoot.
The ordinance, even as narrowly construed by the State Supreme Court, is facially unconstitutional, because it imposes special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on the disfavored subjects of "race, color, creed, religion or gender." At the same time, it permits displays containing abusive invective if they are not addressed to those topics. Moreover, in its practical operation, the ordinance goes beyond mere content, to actual viewpoint, discrimination. Displays containing "fighting words" that do not invoke the disfavored subjects would seemingly be useable ad libitum by those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc., tolerance and equality, but not by their opponents. St. Paul's desire to communicate to minority groups that it does not condone the "group hatred" of bias-motivated speech does not justify selectively silencing speech on the basis of its content. Pp. 391-393.
Or from the left Blackmun (Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement)
Listeners' reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.
Or Marshall (Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley )
Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
Or more centrist, Justice Stevens (Hill v Colorado)
The fact that the messages conveyed by those communications may be offensive to their recipients does not deprive them of constitutional protection....The right to free speech, of course, includes the right to attempt to persuade others to change their views, and may not be curtailed simply because the speaker's message may be offensive to his audience.
Powell
But when regulation is based on the content of speech, governmental action must be scrutinized more carefully to ensure that communication has not been prohibited "merely because public officials disapprove the speaker's views."...
The First Amendment's hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic. As a general matter, "the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.
and Stevens again concurring in part (CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N)
regulation of speech that is motivated by nothing more than a desire to curtail expression of a particular point of view on controversial issues of general interest is the purest example of a "law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." 5 A regulation that denies one group of persons the right to address a selected audience on "controversial issues of public policy" is plainly such a regulation.
The exceptions are times when speech can be regulated or prohibited using content-neutral means. I can't say fighting words are illegal if they are also racist for instance because it favors attempts to suppress a viewpoint
Yes, but there is a very clear cut difference between "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" and "KILL ALL FAGGOTS". One is used to push an idea or position, the other is incitational hate speech. I'm okay with living in a society that seeks to limit the expression of that.
First, I disagree that the difference is "clear cut." These two statements may exist on either side of some divide, sure, but where that cut occurs is probably anything but "clear." It only appears "clear" because you've chosen the two extreme examples, while ignoring the broad spectrum between them. That's cheating.
It's not cheating. I've said from the beginning that I'm okay with curtailing very blatant and clear cut examples of hate speech. Enforcement and sanction are entirely different matters, and complex ones at that. I never said this would be easy.
Yes, but there's a line between being a dick, and being the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm okay with living in a society that outlaws such organizations.
If it were possible to kill an idea by making laws against expressing that idea we wouldn't have democracy, science, or civil rights. It just doesn't work like that.
And sure, just about every law any civilization has ever passed restricting speech has ended up suppressing completely valid minority opinions, but I'm sure we'll get it right this time guys. Right? Right?
I think it is helpful to make the conversation less about "free speech!" and more about getting people to articulate what exact problem they are trying to solve by limiting particular linguistic utterances.
You want to stop physical violence? Great. Do that. Words are not physical violence.
You want to remove the ideas of racial intolerance, or homophobia, from the public consciousness? Great. Educate people. Making a law against saying "Fag" isn't actually changing anyone's mind.
You want to prevent people from having their feelings hurt as a result of being called names? Grow the fuck up.
Most attempts to limit speech mischaracterize speech as having some significant causal role in the act they actually want to prevent. Once we dissolve that notion, we're left with either people who think we live in the Harry Potter universe, and so particular linguistic utterances have some magical power to directly harm another individual, or middle aged women who just don't like hearing particular noises.
Yes, but there's a line between being a dick, and being the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm okay with living in a society that outlaws such organizations.
I agree. Actively engaging in acts that legitimately disenfranchise groups through political and social movements is not beneficial, and we ought to work together as a society to minimize instances of physical violence, economic unfairness, social limitations, etc.
None of that has anything to do with the words people say, though.
If you want to prevent your African American neighbor from voting? Fuck you.
If you want to call your African American neighbor Sambo, and talk about how inferior black people are? Great. Go for it.
Because these are different things. One is actual violence against someone's well-being. Another is making noises, and looking like an ass.
Edit: We need to punish people who lynch their fellow human beings, and actively engaged in the preparation for lynching. Talking about lynching is fine, because it's just noise. The second when a person moves from "Man, we should totally lynch that guy" to buying rope is when we act. Now apply that to all speech / act distinctions.
We need to punish people who lynch their fellow human beings, and actively engaged in the preparation for lynching. Talking about lynching is fine, because it's just noise. The second when a person moves from "Man, we should totally lynch that guy" to buying rope is when we act. Now apply that to all speech / act distinctions.
..but buying rope is just buying rope. Who's going to outlaw rope? Tying a noose is just tying a knot. Are we going to outlaw knots?
You want to remove the ideas of racial intolerance, or homophobia, from the public consciousness? Great. Educate people. Making a law against saying "Fag" isn't actually changing anyone's mind.
Yeah, like I said I'm not sure "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" is really any better, as far as society goes, that "I HATE FAGS." It's just more...polite. But honestly, I think "polite" homophobia is harder to eradicate, has a sheen of respectability, and as such is worse. Like KD said, the WBC almost helps the gay cause by being so completely fucking awful. No amount of suburban conservative parents "just asking the question" or "just worrying about my kids" will necessarily do that...it passes as reasonable. When it really, truly, isn't, and is just as hateful.
Yes, but there's a line between being a dick, and being the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm okay with living in a society that outlaws such organizations.
I'm unconvinced there's any such line. You're drawing one, I suppose, but it's not like it's already there or anything. There's a broad spectrum of dickery.
We need to punish people who lynch their fellow human beings, and actively engaged in the preparation for lynching. Talking about lynching is fine, because it's just noise. The second when a person moves from "Man, we should totally lynch that guy" to buying rope is when we act. Now apply that to all speech / act distinctions.
..but buying rope is just buying rope. Who's going to outlaw rope? Tying a noose is just tying a knot. Are we going to outlaw knots?
We need to punish people who lynch their fellow human beings, and actively engaged in the preparation for lynching. Talking about lynching is fine, because it's just noise. The second when a person moves from "Man, we should totally lynch that guy" to buying rope is when we act. Now apply that to all speech / act distinctions.
..but buying rope is just buying rope. Who's going to outlaw rope? Tying a noose is just tying a knot. Are we going to outlaw knots?
I believe you're being facetious (sorry if not), but it's a serious issue. At what point does it become intent, such that it can be made illegal? Arguably it's the combination of speech combined with preparatory action. But neither one alone.
Yes, but there's a line between being a dick, and being the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm okay with living in a society that outlaws such organizations.
I'm unconvinced there's any such line. You're drawing one, I suppose, but it's not like it's already there or anything. There's a broad spectrum of dickery.
Like, the KKK is problematic in a clear sense given that it's a violent organization.
What about the WBC? They're a "hate group", but they aren't violent.
Posts
You're not guaranteed to get somewhere with your speech! Again, Dawkins isn't in the poorhouse.
The 1st Amendment protects you from government restrictions on your speech... it makes no promise that others will listen.
- John Stuart Mill
I didn't say you were just like him; Beck is fucking insane. You do, however, share the same self righteous intolerance of the other side. I don't really mean to single you out, you just happened to be the one to come out with it this thread. There are a lot of people on these boards that sound disturbingly like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, and don't realize it.
- John Stuart Mill
These sorts of critiques are problematic, since they maintain that a person can non-actively support a particular power dynamic, or whatever, within a larger cultural context, simply by not actively acting against it.
It is, perhaps, a problematic understanding of what it is to support something.
Calling someone Glenn Beck is offensive to some, because they don't agree with his views and you're ascribing his views to them.
Do those strike you as similar?
That sentence had too many syllables. Apologize!
- John Stuart Mill
That said, Regina, I do apologize if I inadvertently called you a misanthropic, Mormon fundamentalist who I can't prove didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.
- John Stuart Mill
The reasons they're dissimilar are pretty important.
It doesn't really matter if the trait is immutable or innate. Religion is often covered by hate speech laws, and that's a choice.
It does matter that gay people have been common targets of violence and discrimination; I think it's a legitimate concern that hate speech is closely associated with these acts of violence. So when somebody, like Regina Fong for example, says "I think we should restrict hate speech in order to quell violence," I am sympathetic to that position, even though I have reservations.
It does matter that there's a more polite, less inflammatory way to say "I don't like gay people" than to call them fags. If you have a legitimate political or ideological reason to oppose homosexuality, there is a valid way to express that belief without using slurs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And of course the prospect of being dragged into court will in no way chill legitimate speech.
"Responsible?" What? That's a funny use of the word "responsibility," because if my burning your bible causes you to burn shit down, that sounds like you are the problem. I fail to see how he can be held responsible for the actions of a bunch of fucking barbarians.
This entire thread hurts my head.
I can agree that we may need to go a bit further on harassment, stalking, incitement, and libel/slander laws, among some others*. But actual hate speech laws? Fuck that. I have a right to be a dick. I'll make everybody here a deal, though. We get rid of freedom of religion, first. Once we stop accepting indoctrination of children into misogynistic cults and organized child rape rings, I'll consider curbing my right to call them misogynistic cults and organized child rape rings.
* - disorderly conduct would be another...there are certainly more
That's between me and my audience/advertisers. Or between me and my publisher, and between them and our audience/advertisers.
I didn't even want to come in here, to be honest, because I knew it would make me want to stab my brain out.
- John Stuart Mill
Agreed. I can't say it's worth the disruption to the lives of the people's whose funerals they disrupted, and that's part of what I mean when I say we can expand our laws restricting speech in content-agnostic ways. But yeah, I definitely think that having such a moustache-twirling caricature of homophobic bullshit certainly did more good than harm, in the long run.
Only because of where we were at the time, of course. If we were already in a wonderland of full acceptance of gays, then they'd still just be dicks.
- John Stuart Mill
I am 40% certain that they are an ACLU front group.
If it weren't for me hearing about some documentary or whatever about family members that have left the WBC, I'd be like 70% certain.
I'll have to run this by her, but I think she would actually appreciate it. She used to own a bookstore with a massive LGBT section in a relatively conservative community. It'd be more likely to get all her old customers/bookstore-related friends to come out and pay their respects than anything.
By narrowly defining what constitutes hate speech (and perhaps prevent it from being a charge all its own, much like how "texting while driving" can't get you pulled over in and of itself), you can avoid much of the fear factor.
Besides which, a law being tested in court is part of its natural life cycle, and a necessary part of its survival/demise. That is, in part, what the courts are there to do.
Well, it's not like he won awards for his work as a civil rights attorney or actively supported Al Gore's presidential bid in '88...or got 30% of the vote In a Democratic Senate primary...alright, what the fuck, Phelps? You come clean right this minute.
- John Stuart Mill
What the... fuck?
And sure, just about every law any civilization has ever passed restricting speech has ended up suppressing completely valid minority opinions, but I'm sure we'll get it right this time guys. Right? Right?
I'd subscribe to that over "Loose Change"
And specifically in the evolution of democracy, free expression was permissible in the US colonies and British Empire. Without it, there would never have been democracy.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sure, but you've got really convenient examples there.
What about quoting Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - while discussing wicca or D&D? Just quoting. Not instructing, not inciting, just saying. Perhaps you'd call it incitement? Or not, and that's up to a judge to decide?
How about 'the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers', or 'X group (usually right-wing politicians) will be first up against the wall'. Not inciting? Or is, depending on context?
It's the edge cases, the middle cases, that cause issues. It's all the things you don't publish because it might be punished.
First, I disagree that the difference is "clear cut." These two statements may exist on either side of some divide, sure, but where that cut occurs is probably anything but "clear." It only appears "clear" because you've chosen the two extreme examples, while ignoring the broad spectrum between them. That's cheating.
And that's accepting that they actually do exist on opposite sides of some divide. Honestly, I find "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" to be no less hateful or insidious, though I guess it depends whether you're taking the "KILL" part literally (a legitimate call to murder being on the other side of a bright line, regardless of target). Hatred is no better when it's dressed up as reason, and honestly I think it can be much worse for society.
Except those are still content-neutral with the possible exception of obscenity (which is so narrowly tailored so as to only cover valueless speech as only part of the standard, a nigh impossible standard to meet)
RAV vs City of St Paul 1992 9-0 decision that essentially prohibited hate speech laws in the US:
Scalia (all these decisions are sizable majorities)
Or from the left Blackmun (Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement) Or Marshall (Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley )
Or more centrist, Justice Stevens (Hill v Colorado) Powell and Stevens again concurring in part (CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N)
The exceptions are times when speech can be regulated or prohibited using content-neutral means. I can't say fighting words are illegal if they are also racist for instance because it favors attempts to suppress a viewpoint
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's not cheating. I've said from the beginning that I'm okay with curtailing very blatant and clear cut examples of hate speech. Enforcement and sanction are entirely different matters, and complex ones at that. I never said this would be easy.
Damn fucking straight.
I agree. And this is why we have the courts to help us establish where the boundaries lie.
Yes, but there's a line between being a dick, and being the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm okay with living in a society that outlaws such organizations.
I think it is helpful to make the conversation less about "free speech!" and more about getting people to articulate what exact problem they are trying to solve by limiting particular linguistic utterances.
You want to stop physical violence? Great. Do that. Words are not physical violence.
You want to remove the ideas of racial intolerance, or homophobia, from the public consciousness? Great. Educate people. Making a law against saying "Fag" isn't actually changing anyone's mind.
You want to prevent people from having their feelings hurt as a result of being called names? Grow the fuck up.
Most attempts to limit speech mischaracterize speech as having some significant causal role in the act they actually want to prevent. Once we dissolve that notion, we're left with either people who think we live in the Harry Potter universe, and so particular linguistic utterances have some magical power to directly harm another individual, or middle aged women who just don't like hearing particular noises.
I agree. Actively engaging in acts that legitimately disenfranchise groups through political and social movements is not beneficial, and we ought to work together as a society to minimize instances of physical violence, economic unfairness, social limitations, etc.
None of that has anything to do with the words people say, though.
If you want to prevent your African American neighbor from voting? Fuck you.
If you want to call your African American neighbor Sambo, and talk about how inferior black people are? Great. Go for it.
Because these are different things. One is actual violence against someone's well-being. Another is making noises, and looking like an ass.
Edit: We need to punish people who lynch their fellow human beings, and actively engaged in the preparation for lynching. Talking about lynching is fine, because it's just noise. The second when a person moves from "Man, we should totally lynch that guy" to buying rope is when we act. Now apply that to all speech / act distinctions.
..but buying rope is just buying rope. Who's going to outlaw rope? Tying a noose is just tying a knot. Are we going to outlaw knots?
Yeah, like I said I'm not sure "I disagree with the homosexual agenda" is really any better, as far as society goes, that "I HATE FAGS." It's just more...polite. But honestly, I think "polite" homophobia is harder to eradicate, has a sheen of respectability, and as such is worse. Like KD said, the WBC almost helps the gay cause by being so completely fucking awful. No amount of suburban conservative parents "just asking the question" or "just worrying about my kids" will necessarily do that...it passes as reasonable. When it really, truly, isn't, and is just as hateful.
I'm unconvinced there's any such line. You're drawing one, I suppose, but it's not like it's already there or anything. There's a broad spectrum of dickery.
Excellent points.
I believe you're being facetious (sorry if not), but it's a serious issue. At what point does it become intent, such that it can be made illegal? Arguably it's the combination of speech combined with preparatory action. But neither one alone.
Like, the KKK is problematic in a clear sense given that it's a violent organization.
What about the WBC? They're a "hate group", but they aren't violent.
And how do we deal with satire and parody?